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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 3/3/2026.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 4/1/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 8, 11-12, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20220103744 A1) in view of Ma et al (CN-113163098-A).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches A camera, comprising:
an optical assembly (lens barrel 108) having one or more lens defining an optical axis;
an image sensor (image sensor 104);
an enclosure (“the yoke 116 and the bottom cover 154 may collectively form one or more sides of the camera 100”) forming an exterior wall and an exterior floor of the camera (Figs. 1-6; para. 0030);
an actuator assembly to move the image sensor relative to the optical assembly (para. 0026: “However, it should be understood that in some embodiments the flexure arrangement 124 may be designed to allow controlled motion in directions orthogonal to the optical axis 106, e.g., in an embodiment of the camera 100 that includes a sensor-shifting optical image stabilization (OIS) mechanism”);
a base (base structure 126/520) positioned within the enclosure and that is a stationary component of the camera, wherein a contiguous portion of the base comprises a seat that faces in a direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly,
a flexure (flexure 14) that is attached to the seat, that suspends the image sensor from the base, and that allows motion of the image sensor enabled by the actuator assembly (Figs. 1-6; paras. 0026-0027; “the flexure arrangement 124 may be used for suspension and/or for routing electrical signals…the flexure arrangement 124 may be designed to allow controlled motion in directions orthogonal to the optical axis 106, e.g., in an embodiment of the camera 100 that includes a sensor-shifting optical image stabilization (OIS) mechanism”),
but fails to teach
wherein the contiguous portion of the base abuts at least the exterior floor formed by the enclosure.
However, in the same field of endeavor Ma teaches
wherein the contiguous portion of the base (base 3) abuts at least the exterior floor (bottom cover 1) formed by the enclosure (Fig. 1b; page 9). Ma also teaches wherein a contiguous portion of the base (base 3) comprises a seat (the stepped structure T as the seat) that faces in a direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly (lens assembly 14), a flexure (flexible connecting part 4) that is attached to the seat (seat T) (Fig. 1b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Ma in Hsu to have wherein the contiguous portion of the base abuts at least the exterior floor formed by the enclosure for allowing the flexure partially contained in the space surrounded by the stepped structure, under the premise of keeping the movable circuit board and the base is connected and flexible connection, reduces the transverse size of the camera module yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above. In addition, Hsu in the combination teaches A device, comprising: one or more processors; memory storing program instructions executable by the one or more processors to control operation of a camera (Figs. 7-8); and the camera comprising: (features corresponding to claim 1 as taught above).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hsu and Ma teaches everything as claimed in claim 8. In addition, Hsu teaches wherein the camera further comprises a substrate (ceramic substrate 526) providing electronic communication between one or more surface mounted electrical components residing on the substrate and the image sensor via the flexure, wherein the flexure is fixedly attached to a surface of the substrate that faces in the direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly, wherein the substrate comprises an upper block (top half) and a lower block (bottom half) formed of a ceramic material (Fig. 5; para. 0040).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hsu and Ma teaches everything as claimed in claim 11. In addition, Hsu teaches wherein the flexure extends completely across a surface of the image sensor that faces in the direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly, wherein the flexure is the closest moving component of the camera to the enclosure (Fig. 5; para. 0040).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hsu and Ma teaches everything as claimed in claim 15. In addition, Hsu teaches wherein the flexure extends completely across a surface of the image sensor that faces in the direction that is parallel to the axis and that faces in the opposite direction of the light receiving surface of the image sensor, wherein the flexure is the closest moving component of the camera to the enclosure (Figs. 1A, 5).
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20220103744 A1) in view of Ma et al (CN-113163098-A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hubert et al (US 20210028216 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hsu and Ma teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Hsu teaches further comprising a substrate (ceramic substrate 526) providing electronic communication between one or more surface mounted electrical components residing on the substrate and the image sensor (image sensor 530), wherein the image sensor is fixedly attached to a surface of the substrate that faces in the direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly (Fig. 5; para. 0040), wherein the substrate comprises
but fails to teach
wherein the substrate comprises an upper block formed of an organic material and a lower block formed of a ceramic material.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hubert teaches
wherein the substrate (430) comprises an upper block formed of an organic material (434) and a lower block formed of a ceramic material (432A,B) (Fig. 4A; pars. 0068-0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hubert in the combination to have wherein the substrate comprises an upper block formed of an organic material and a lower block formed of a ceramic material for reducing weight of the substrate making the substrate more reliable and reducing cost of manufacture yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hsu, Ma and Hubert teaches everything as claimed in claim 2. In addition, Hubert and Ma teach further comprising an image sensor stiffener that extends over at least a portion of the flexure, wherein the image sensor stiffener is the closest moving component of the camera to the enclosure (Ma: Fig. 1c; page 9, lines 54-48: “FIG. 1c, the difference with FIG. 1b is that the non-imaging surface P2 of the image sensor 2 is covered with a heat conducting material k1, the heat conducting material k1 can be heat conducting glue, metal copper and other materials with high heat conductivity coefficient” where Ma teaches a heat conducting material k1 cover the bottom of the image sensor; Hubert: figs. 2, 4A: image sensor 408 is the closest moving component of the camera to the bottom cover of the enclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hubert and Ma in the combination to have further comprising an image sensor stiffener that extends over at least a portion of the flexure, wherein the image sensor stiffener is the closest moving component of the camera to the enclosure for improving heat dissipation and rigidity of the image sensor yielding predicted result.
Regarding claims 9-10, claims 9-10 reciting features corresponding to claims 2-3 are also rejected for the same reasons above.
Regarding claims 16-17, claims 16-17 reciting features corresponding to claims 2-3 are also rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 4-5, 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20220103744 A1) in view of Ma et al (CN-113163098-A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al (US 20230188851 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hsu and Ma teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Hsu teaches further comprising a substrate (organic substrate 610) providing electronic communication between one or more surface mounted electrical components residing on the substrate and the image sensor via the flexure, wherein the flexure is fixedly attached to a surface of the substrate that faces in the direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly, wherein the substrate comprises an upper block (top half) and a lower block (bottom half) formed of an organic material (Fig. 6; para. 0042).
Or, in an alternative, fails to teach
the substrate comprises an upper block and a lower block formed of an organic material.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lee teaches
the substrate comprises an upper block and a lower block formed of an organic material (Figs. 25-35; paras. 0410-0419; “The first frame 2700 and the second frame 2800 are each formed of a plastic material”, “wiring pattern 2900 may be disposed inside of the first frame 2700 and inside the second frame 2800”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Lee in the combination to have the substrate comprises an upper block and a lower block formed of an organic material for reducing weight of the substrate making the substrate more reliable and reducing cost of manufacture yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hsu, Ma and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 4. In addition, Hsu teaches wherein the flexure extends completely across a surface of the image sensor that faces in the direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly, wherein the flexure is the closest moving component of the camera to the enclosure (Figs. 1A, 5).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hsu, Ma and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 4. In addition, Hsu teaches further comprising a wire bond providing electronic communication between the image sensor and the flexure (Figs. 1A, 6; para. 0042).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 reciting features corresponding to the combination of claims 7 and 4 is also rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20220103744 A1) in views of Ma et al (CN-113163098-A) and/or Lee et al (US 20230188851 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Xu et al (US 20220094853 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hsu, Ma and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 4, but fails to teach
further comprising an end stop fixedly attached to a surface of the flexure that faces in the direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly, wherein the end stop is the closest moving component of the camera to the enclosure.
However, in the same field of endeavor Xu teaches
further comprising an end stop (455, 460) fixedly attached to a surface of the flexure (425, 3435, 440) that faces in the direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly, wherein the end stop is the closest moving component of the camera to the enclosure (Figs. 1, 4; paras. 0036-0038, 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Xu in the combination to have further comprising an end stop fixedly attached to a surface of the flexure that faces in the direction that is parallel to the optical axis and away from the optical assembly, wherein the end stop is the closest moving component of the camera to the enclosure for implementing a different configuration having a multi-axis image sensor shifting configuration utilizing both autofocus (AF) and optical image stabilization (OSI) functions enabling reduction of moving mass improving reliability and lower power consumption yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, claims 13 and 20 reciting features corresponding to claim 6 are also rejected for the same reason above.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20220103744 A1) in view of Ma et al (CN-113163098-A) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Ozimek et al (US 5865935 A).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hsu and Ma teaches everything as claimed in claim 11. In addition, Hsu teaches further comprising a
but fails to teach
a wire bond providing electronic communication between the image sensor [and a ceramic substrate].
However, in the same field of endeavor Ozimek teaches
a wire bond (16) providing electronic communication between the image sensor (14) [and a ceramic substrate 12] (Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Ozimek in the combination to have a wire bond providing electronic communication between the image sensor [and a ceramic substrate] for utilizing an alternative well-developed method using wire bonds for connecting the image sensor for quick and cheap productions yielding a predicted result.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights