DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 6/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 21, 23, and 25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kashyap et al. (US 10739551 B1, hereinafter Kashyap).
Regarding claim 1, Kashyap discloses an image capture device (Camera 104, fig. 1, Col. 8, lines 37-67) comprising:
a lens assembly (lens assembly 402, fig. 4) comprising lenses configured to refract light incident from an outer lens of the lenses (Col. 17, line 43 – Col. 18, line 51, fig. 4);
a lens mount (lens housing 416 + suspension spring 418A-B, fig. 4) attached to the lens assembly (fig. 4);
a memory (132, figs. 1-2) configured to store a calibration look up table (LUT), wherein the calibration LUT includes focus positions across a temperature range (Col. 15, lines 30-57);
a printed circuit board (PCB) positioned at an end of the lens mount (414+420, fig. 4, Col. 18, lines 30-33);
an image sensor (404, fig. 4) disposed on the PCB (fig. 4) and configured to capture images based on light incident on the image sensor refracted through the lenses (Col. 17, lines 43-57);
a temperature sensor (130, figs. 1-2) configured to measure a temperature of the lens assembly (Col. 3, lines 25-33);
an actuator (Abstract, VCM 408, Col. 8, lines 24-26, Col. 17, line 58-67); and
a processor (124, figs. 1-2) configured to (Col. 9, lines 27-30, Col. 10, lines 31-35):
determine a position of the lens assembly relative to the image sensor to maintain a focus point over the temperature range based on the calibration LUT and the measured temperature (Abstract, Col. 4, line 52-Col. 6, line 18); and
transmit a control signal to the actuator to modify the position of the lens assembly relative to the image sensor to maintain the focus point based on the measured temperature (ibid, Abstract, Col. 4, line 52-Col. 6, line 18. Also see Col. 10, lines 3-30, Col. 11, lines 8-35, Col. 12, line 39 – Col. 13, line 51, claim 1).
15-20. (Canceled)
Regarding method claim(s) 21, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the device claim(s) 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 23, Kashyap discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
creating an index for the determined position of the lens assembly (Abstract, Col. 4, line 52-Col. 6, line 18).
Regarding claim 25, Kashyap discloses the method of claim 23, further comprising:
detecting a change in temperature; and
creating the index in response to detecting the change in temperature (Abstract, Col. 4, line 52-Col. 6, line 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap in view of McKinley (US 20140184899 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kashyap discloses the image capture device of claim 1, except, wherein the actuator is a micro-electro- mechanical system (MEMS) actuator.
However, McKinley discloses that (MEMS) actuator is used for auto-focus operation in a camera (title, abstract, figs. 10-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement the actuator (e.g., VCM 406) of Kashyap using a MEMS actuator of McKinley to acquire the focus of an object, because, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap in view of Last et al. (US 11647287 B1, hereinafter Last).
Regarding claim 4, Kashyap discloses the image capture device of claim 1, except, wherein the actuator is a stepper motor.
However, Last discloses that autofocus actuator is a stepper motor (title, abstract, Col. 1, lines 9-11; Col. 4, lines 52-62; Col. 7, lines 8-18; stepper motor 169, fig. 3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kashyap, such that the autofocus actuator of Kashyap is implemented in a stepper motor of Last, because, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Kashyap in view of Last discloses the image capture device of claim 4, wherein the stepper motor is configured to modify the position of the lens assembly (Last: ibid, title, abstract, Col. 1, lines 9-11; Col. 4, lines 52-62; Col. 7, lines 8-18; stepper motor 169, fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 6, Kashyap in view of Last discloses the image capture device of claim 4, wherein the stepper motor is configured to modify the position of the PCB (Last: evident from fig. 3b, that stepper motor motion direction modifies the position of the PCB 130).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap in view of Hughes et al. (US 20070263963 A1, hereinafter Hughes).
Regarding claim 7, Kashyap discloses the image capture device of claim 1, except, wherein the actuator requires an actuation voltage of at least 100V.
However, Hughes discloses that displacement achieved by mems devices depends on actuator voltage. Hughes gives an example that MEMS type devices typically require 10-100 Volts and provided displacement of 10-20 microns (¶0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to make a design choice of the actuation voltage of the MEMS actuator to at least 100V, because, that is a typical voltage applied to mems actuators as disclosed by Hughes, to achieve a desired attainable goal of displacement of the lens. The obvious design choice can be attained by combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap in view of McKinley and further in view of Wu (US 20190208103).
Regarding claim 3, Kashyap in view of McKinley discloses the image capture device of claim 2, except, wherein the MEMS actuator is configured to modify the position of the image sensor.
However, Wu discloses that MEMS device modifies the position of the image sensor when capturing image (Abstract), to mitigate pixel misalignment in case of multi-image capture for HDR composition (¶0003-0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kashyap in view of McKinley as combined above to further include the teaching of WU of using MEMS actuators to control and modify the position of the image sensor in order to capture a higher quality composite image without causing pixel misalignment during image capture (¶0004).
Regarding method claim(s) 22, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the device claim(s) 3 as described above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap in view of Hughes and further in view of Pretorius (US 20180180842 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kashyap discloses the image capture device of claim 1, except, wherein the actuator has an actuator displacement of less than 1 μm/g.
However, Hughes discloses that displacement achieved by mems devices depends on actuator voltage. Hughes gives an example that MEMS type devices typically require 10-100 Volts and provided displacement of 10-20 microns (¶0038).
Pretorius on the other hand discloses that typical modern camera lens module weighs between 20 to 30 gms [¶0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to make a design choice of the actuation voltage of the MEMS actuator to at least 100V attaining an actuator displacement of less than 1 μm/g [20 microns/20 grams = 1 μm/g] for a typical camera lens having a mass between 20-30 grams. The obvious design choice can be attained by combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ba-Tis et al. (US 9306475 B1, hereinafter Ba-Tis) in view of ARANOVSKY (US 20140267880 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ba-Tis discloses a free-floating micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) actuator (col.3, line 63 - col.4, line 26), comprising:
a first portion and a second portion configured to form interdigital spaces that form a variable capacitance, wherein the second portion is in a fixed position (col.3, line
63 - col.4, line 26, fig. ID).
The system of claim 9 differs from the one disclosed in Ba-Tis by comprising,
a measurement circuit configured to monitor the variable capacitance and transmit variable capacitance data;
a processor configured to determine a distance between the first portion and the second portion based on the variable capacitance data; and
a variable direct current (DC) voltage source configured to variably adjust a voltage of the second portion based on the variable capacitance to maintain the distance between the first portion and the second portion.
ARANOVSKY however discloses a micro-electro-mechanical system actuator, comprising a measurement circuit configured to monitor the variable capacitance and transmit variable capacitance data (title, abstract, ¶0024, claims 6,11), a processor configured to determine a distance between the first portion and the second portion based on the variable capacitance data (claims 6, 11), and a variable direct current voltage source (¶0020, ¶0063), configured to variably adjust a voltage of the second portion based
on the variable capacitance to maintain the distance between the first portion and the second portion (¶0016, ¶0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Ba-Tis with the teaching of ARANOVSKY to include in the system of Ba-Tis, a measurement circuit configured to monitor the variable capacitance and transmit variable capacitance data; a processor configured to determine a distance between the first portion and the second portion based on the variable capacitance data; and a variable direct current (DC) voltage source configured to variably adjust a voltage of the second portion based on the variable capacitance to maintain the distance between the first portion and the second portion as disclosed by ARANOVSKY, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious. Furthermore, such combination would enhance the versatility and usability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 10, Ba-Tis in view of ARANOVSKY discloses the free-floating MEMS actuator of claim 9, further comprising:
Ba-Tis discloses that an actuator plate and the base plate may have through hole such that an optical element 316 (lens) is attached to the through hole of the actuator plate and allow the penetration of the light. The rotor could actuate the lens (or lenses) in the 3 degrees of freedom motion (i.e. translation along z direction and biaxial rotation about the in-plane axes x and y) to achieve the autofocus and/or optical image stabilization (Col. 9, lines 30-36.).
Ba-Tis in view of ARANOVSKY as combined in claim 9, is not found disclosing the limitation of, an image sensor attached to the first portion, wherein the free-floating MEMS actuator is configured to maintain a distance between the image sensor and a lens assembly for active athermalization.
However, ARANOVSKY further discloses that an auto focus system of a camera module having an image sensor and lens assembly, which is used to capture focused images in the image sensor wherein light passes through the lens assembly and the distance between the lens and the image sensor is maintained by the mems-actuated autofocus system (¶0015-0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to install an image sensor attached to the first portion (i.e. on the base plate) of Ba-Tis, wherein a lens assembly is already attached on the actuator plate, and a distance is maintained between the base and actuator plate using the variable capacitance of MEMS actuator, to obtain, an image sensor attached to the first portion, wherein the free-floating MEMS actuator is configured to maintain a distance between the image sensor and a lens assembly for active athermalization, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Ba-Tis in view of ARANOVSKY the free-floating MEMS actuator of claim 10, further comprising:
an image sensor attached to the first portion, wherein the free-floating MEMS actuator is configured to maintain a distance between the image sensor and a lens assembly for vibration compensation (Ba-Tis: col.3, line 63 - col.4, line 26, col.8, line 43-46, figure 1, Col. 9, lines 30-36.).
Regarding claim 12, Ba-Tis in view of ARANOVSKY the free-floating MEMS actuator of claim 10, wherein the measurement circuit is configured to monitor the variable capacitance in real-time (ARANOVSKY: continuous capacitance measurement, Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Ba-Tis in view of ARANOVSKY the free-floating MEMS actuator of claim 10, wherein the measurement circuit is electrically coupled to the first portion and the second portion (Ba-Tis: col.3, line 63 - col.4, line 26, col.8, line 43-46, figure 1, Col. 9, lines 30-36.).
Regarding claim 14, Ba-Tis in view of ARANOVSKY the free-floating MEMS actuator of claim 9, wherein the first portion is movable (Ba-Tis: col.3, line 63 - col.4, line 26, col.8, line 43-46, figure 1, Col. 9, lines 30-36).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap in view of Wang et al. (US 20210266465 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 24, Kashyap discloses the method of claim 23, except, further comprising:
detecting a shock; and
creating the index in response to detecting the shock.
However, Wang discloses, a camera module that includes an optical folding element, a lens group, and an image sensor that are sequentially arranged along an imaging light beam transmission direction. The camera module further includes a front-end anti-jitter component and a back-end anti-jitter component. The front-end anti-jitter component is connected to at least one of the optical folding element and the lens group. The back-end anti-jitter component is connected to the image sensor. The front-end anti-jitter component is configured to perform first jitter compensation on the imaging light beam and the back-end anti-jitter component is configured to perform second jitter compensation on the imaging light beam (abstract. Also see ¶0132-0137).
Wang further discloses the jitter detection and compensation blocks are used to maintain a focus of the camera module (¶0179). The focus is obtained by moving the lens of the camera system using MEMS actuator (¶0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kashyap, with the teaching of Wang to include the anti-jitter detection and compensation system within the camera system of Kashyap, such that jitter detection structure detects a shock on the camera; and jitter compensation structure creates compensation indices in response to detected shock, to obtain method steps of, detecting a shock; and creating the index in response to detecting the shock, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious. Furthermore, such combination would enhance overall accuracy of the focusing system, by mitigating unintentional vibration induced in the camera system.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap in view of Gredegardet al. (US 20140093228 A1, hereinafter Gredegard).
Regarding claim 26, Kashyap discloses the method of claim 23, except, further comprising:
detecting a change in humidity; and
creating the index in response to detecting the change in humidity.
Kashyap nevertheless discloses a humidity sensor (Col. 24, line 43).
Nevertheless, Gredegardet discloses that optics chain 210 may change in dimension in response to a change in temperature, or in response to other changes in the environment, such as, for example, a change in humidity or as a result of mechanical vibration. Optics chain 210 may include a zoom lens 220, a focus lens 230, and a sensor array 240 (¶0024). He further discloses, white focus compensation has been described herein with respect to a detected change in temperature, in other implementation, focus compensation may be performed with respect to another detected change. As an example, monitoring device 110 may include a humidity sensor and focus compensation may be performed in response to a detected change in the humidity level. As another example, monitoring device 110 may include a vibration sensor and focus compensation may be performed in response to a detected vibration or a vibration greater than a vibration threshold (¶0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kashyap to use the humidity sensor to detect the humidity of the environment, and perform compensation of focusing using the teaching of Gredegardet, to obtain, detecting a change in humidity; and creating the index in response to detecting the change in humidity, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious. Furthermore, such combination would enhance overall accuracy of the focusing system, by mitigating unintentional vibration induced in the camera system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHBAZ NAZRUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1467. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9.30 am-3 pm, 6.30 pm-9 pm, F: 9.30 am-1.30 pm, 4 pm-8 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lin Ye can be reached at (571)272-7372. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAHBAZ NAZRUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638