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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 10 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 20 recites the limitations "the printed circuit board", “the second carrier”, and “the optical filter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As the recited limitations are present in claims 9 and 19 and for the purpose of compact examination claims 10 and 20 will be examined as though they were dependent on claims 9 and 19 respectively
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1,6-8, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210132407 A1 (Hereafter Minamisawa1) in view of US 20220019087 A1 (Hereafter Minamisawa2).
Regarding claim 1:
Minamisawa1 teaches a gimbal module (See Abstract) comprising:
a first carrier comprising a receiving chamber; (Fig. 3 Fixed body [6] acts as a carrier with a receiving chamber)
a first bracket accommodated in the receiving chamber; (Fig. 3, Holder [31] is accommodated in the receiving chamber of [6])
a lens assembly fixed to the first bracket; and (Fig. 3, Camera module [3] includes lens [2] and acts as a lens assembly. Para. [0054] Camera module [3] is fixed to holder [31] to form movable body [4])
Minamisawa1 does not teach or disclose
a flexible circuit board connected to the lens assembly, wherein the flexible circuit board extends in an S-shape on a plane as viewed in a height direction of the gimbal module. (Minamisawa1 is silent on any electrical connections to the lens assembly.)
Minamisawa2 teaches a gimbal module comprising:
a flexible circuit board connected to the lens assembly (Fig. 3, optical module [4]), wherein the flexible circuit board extends in an S-shape on a plane as viewed in a height direction of the gimbal module. (Minamisawa2 Fig. 4 shows a flexible circuit board [9] extending in an S-shape when viewed from above. Fig. 3 shows the flexible circuit board [9] is connected to optical module [4].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have “a flexible circuit board connected to the lens assembly, wherein the flexible circuit board extends in an S-shape on a plane as viewed in a height direction of the gimbal module” as taught by Minamisawa2 in the gimbal module of Minamisawa1 for the purpose of allowing the lens assembly to move freely while providing an electrical connection.
Regarding claim 6:
Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 teaches the gimbal module of claim 1,
Minamisawa1 additionally teaches a gimbal module further comprising
a second bracket [10] disposed on a side of the lens assembly facing away from the first carrier [6], wherein the second bracket comprises a main body [70], a first engaging part [72], and a second engaging part [71], the first engaging part and the second engaging part extend from the main body in the same direction (See fig. 3), the first engaging part is clamped between the first carrier (Fig. 3 and 6 show that the first engaging part [72] is clamped between [6] and [31]) and the first bracket, and the second engaging part is clamped between the first bracket and the lens assembly. (Fig. 3 and 5 show that the second engaging part [71] is clamped between the lens assembly [3] and the first bracket [31], specifically the outer corner [40] of first bracket [31])
Regarding claim 7:
Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 teaches the gimbal module of claim 6,
Minamisawa1 additionally teaches a gimbal module wherein
the second bracket is a metal spring sheet. (Para. [0050], the gimbal frame [10] is a plate spring made of metal)
Regarding claim 8:
Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 teaches the gimbal module of claim 1,
Minamisawa2 additionally teaches a gimbal module further comprising
a connector, wherein the connector is electrically connected to the flexible circuit board [9]. (Fig. 1 connector [96], and Para. [0056] circuit board [96] is an “external connection board”)
Regarding claim 11:
The difference between claims 1 and 11 is the use of the gimbal module in an electronic device Minamisawa1 teaches the use of the gimbal module in an electronic device (See Para. [0046]). Accordingly the combined invention of Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 teaches the gimbal module of claim 11 for the same reasons as claim 1 listed above.
Regarding claim 16
Claims 16 rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 in addition to the reasons for claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 17:
Claims 17 rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 in addition to the reasons for claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 rejected for the same reasons as claim 68 in addition to the reasons for claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210132407 A1 (Minamisawa1) in view of US 20220019087 A1 (Minamisawa2) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 20250386100 A1 (Park et al.).
Regarding claims 2&3:
Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 teaches the gimbal module of claim 1, wherein
the first bracket (Minamisawa1 [31]) comprises a plurality of side walls, the plurality of side walls is connected and encloses an accommodation space (Minamisawa1 Fig. 3, Side walls [35]-[38]), the lens assembly [3] is fixed in the accommodation space (Minamisawa1 Fig. 3, the lens assemble [3] is fixed in the space formed by the sidewalls of [31]),
Neither Minamisawa1 or Minamisawa2 teach or suggest
and an outer surface of one of the plurality of side walls defines a first groove which is configured for holding a coil. (Minamisawa1 teaches a grove in a sidewall for accommodating a magnet. See Fig. 3 magnets [25X] and [25Y])
an inner surface of the receiving chamber defines a second groove which is configured for holding a magnetic member, the second groove corresponds in position to the first groove. (Minamisawa1 teaches a grove [58] for accommodating a coil [26].)
Park teaches a gimbal module, wherein
an outer surface of one of the plurality of side walls defines a first groove (Fig. 5, Groove [105]) which is configured for holding a coil (Para. [0161], groove [105] holds coil [120])
and
an inner surface of the receiving chamber defines a second groove which is configured for holding a magnetic member, the second groove corresponds in position to the first groove (Fig. 4A, Magnet [130] is held in a groove on the inner surface of first carrier [140])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the positions of the coils and the magnets as taught by park in the gimbal module of Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 for the purpose of driving the gimbal mechanism.
Regarding claim 9:
Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 teaches the gimbal module of claim 1,
Minamisawa2 additionally teaches a gimbal module wherein
the lens assembly comprises a lens (Fig. 3 lens [2]), a lens holder holding the lens (Fig. 3 lens barrel [4a]), a second carrier (Fig. 3 [4]), and a printed circuit board (Fig. 3 circuit board [30]), the lens holder is disposed on the second carrier (Fig. 3 lens barrel [4a] is disposed on [4]), the second carrier is disposed on the printed circuit board (Fig. 3, the second carrier [4] is disposed on circuit board [30]), and the printed circuit board is electrically connected to the flexible circuit board. (Fig. 3 shows that circuit board [30] is connected to flexible circuit board [9])
However Minamisawa1 and Minamisawa2 fail to teach or suggest
the lens assembly comprises an optical filter (Minamisawa1 and Minamisawa2 are silent on the use of a filter)
Park teaches a gimbal module wherein
the lens assembly comprises an optical filter (Fig. 4a optical filter [610])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lens assembly comprising an optical filter as taught by Park in the gimbal module of Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 for the purpose of filtering the camera image.
Regarding claim 10:
Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 and Park teaches the gimbal module of claim 9,
Park additionally teaches a gimbal module wherein
the lens assembly further comprises an image sensor (Fig. 4a, image sensor [810]), the image sensor is disposed on a surface of the printed circuit board facing the second carrier and is aligned with the optical filter. (Fig. 4a shows image sensor [810] on circuit board [801] and aligned with the optical filter [610])
Regarding claims 12 and 13:
Claims 12 and 13 rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 3 in addition to the reasons for claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 in addition to the reasons for claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 rejected for the same reasons as claim 10 in addition to the reasons for claim 11 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4:
While Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 and Park teaches the electronic device of claim 3,
they fail to teach or suggest
the gimbal module further comprises a magnet yoke, the magnet yoke is disposed on the top surface and corresponds in position to the second groove. (See Minamisawa1 Fig. 3, while Minamisawa1 teaches a yoke, the yoke [44] is disposed behind the magnet [25] and not on top.)
Claim 5 allowable subject matter due to its dependance on claim 4.
Regarding claim 13:
While Minamisawa1 in combination with Minamisawa2 and Park teaches the electronic device of claim 13,
they fail to teach or suggest
the gimbal module further comprises a magnet yoke, the magnet yoke is disposed on the top surface and corresponds in position to the second groove. (See Minamisawa1 Fig. 3, while Minamisawa1 teaches a yoke, the yoke [44] is disposed behind the magnet [25] and not on top.)
Claim 15 allowable subject matter due to its dependance on claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH D MOSER whose telephone number is (703)756-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10am-6pm.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)270-1782. 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.
/SETH D MOSER/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872