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 .
This action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/19/2025
Application is a CON of PCT/KR22/13699 09/14/2022
Application claims a FP date of 09/14/2021
Claims 1, 16 and 19 are independent
Claims 1-20 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in parts. In view of the amendments made to the Title, the objections to the Specifications has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection based on prior art, the amendments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection, nor are Applicant's arguments persuasive as discussed during the Examiner Interview.
In page 15 of the Remarks document, Applicant incorrectly alleges that Smyth in ¶0038 discloses/clarifies that “the image sensor 206 may be coupled [only] with the X stage 208 and Y stage 210”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, since no where in the entire disclosure that Smyth discloses this. In fact, Smyth clearly discloses, especially in ¶0034 and throughout that actuators may move the lens group 202 and/or the image sensor via the movement of the X stage 208, the Y stage 210 and/or Z stage 212.
Similarly, Applicant’s allegation that Smyth fails to discloses is that “the driving member configured to move the carrier member in the first orthogonal direction…. Using the plurality of guide balls” is without merit, since Smyth clearly discloses this throughout. See ¶0023, ¶0030, ¶0039-¶0042.
In view of the above arguments and the detailed explanation provided in the following action, the prior art rejection is maintained and Examiner would like to maintain the rejections as detailed in the following action.
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.
Claims 1, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant disclosed prior art Smyth (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0014677 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Smyth discloses a camera module (Fig 1 – Camera 100) comprising:
a camera housing (Fig 1- base structure 126);
at least one lens aligned along an optical axis (Fig 1- lens group 102 and optical axis 112);
a first printed circuit board (PCB) (Fig 2- substrate 216) comprising an image sensor (Fig 1- image sensor 104) disposed on a surface of the first PCB (In ¶0032 Smyth discloses that the image sensor 206 may be attached to a structure 216 with one or more circuit layers – flex circuit 220);
a carrier member configured to guide the first PCB ) (Fig 2A- substrate 216) in each of three orthogonal directions, comprising a first orthogonal direction parallel to the optical axis, orthogonal direction crossing the optical axis (In ¶0031 Smyth discloses about the sensor shift actuator and discloses about the Z stage 212. In ¶0034 he also discloses that the actuators may be used to move the lens group 202 and/or image sensor 210 using the Z state 212. In Fig 7 and in ¶0063, Smyth discloses that the flexure arrangement 700 allow for controlled movement of the image sensor in a direction parallel to the optical axis – Z axis – to provide AF movement of the image sensor;) and a third orthogonal direction crossing the first orthogonal direction and the second orthogonal direction (Further in ¶0065, Smyth also discloses that the flexure arrangement 708 may be configured to move in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis – in the X-Y plane), wherein the carrier member comprises:
a first carrier member configured to guide the first PCB in the first orthogonal direction (Fig 2A – Z stage 212);
a second carrier member configured to guide the first PCB in the second orthogonal direction (Fig 2A – X stage 208);
a third carrier member configured to guide the first PCB in the third orthogonal direction (Fig 2A – Y stage 210);
and
a driving member (In ¶0023, Smyth discloses that the sensor shift actuators may move the image sensor in multiple directions and move the image sensor in directions orthogonal and parallel to the optical axis; In ¶0034 he also discloses that the actuators may comprise of one or more voice coil motors VCM actuators) comprising:
);
; and
a plurality of guide balls (Figs 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2e – X translation ball bearing 236, Y translation ball bearings 238 and Z translation ball bearings 240),
a first driver configured to move the first carrier in the first orthogonal direction using at least one of the plurality of guide balls (In ¶0042, Smyth discloses that the Z stage 212 may be configured to translate in the Z-axis direction via the Z-translation ball bearing 240; and in ¶0023, he also discloses that the one or more stages are configured to move on ball bearings so as to allow motion enabled by the actuator; In ¶0028, he discloses that the actuator 106 may be configured to move the sensor 104 );
a second driver configured to move the second carrier in the second orthogonal direction using at least one of the plurality of guide balls (In ¶0030, Smyth discloses that the OIS bearing suspension arrangement may include X stage 208 and Y stage 210 and each of the stages may be configured to move on ball bearing so as to allow motion enabled by the actuators 106);
a third driver configured to move the third carrier in the third orthogonal direction using at least one of the plurality of guide balls (See ¶0030-¶0031 and throughout his disclosure, Smyth discloses this);
(In ¶0023 and throughout Smyth discloses that the bearing suspension may include one or more stages configured to move on ball bearings so as to allow motion enabled by the actuator.).
Regarding Claim 16, this claim is an electronic device claim that has limitation similar to claim 1. Since Smyth discloses the movement of the sensor in the Z axis direction to provide Auto-Focus and move the image sensor in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis to provide OIS, Smyth discloses all the features of Claim 16 and therefore Claim 16 is rejected on similar grounds as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, this claim is an electronic device claim that has limitation similar to claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Smyth discloses wherein the at least one optical member includes at least one of a lens, a prism, and/or a mirror (Smyth in Fig 1 discloses lens group having plurality of lens 110)
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant disclosed prior art Smyth (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0014677 A1) in view of Brodie et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0091397 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Smyth fails to clearly disclose Smyth discloses wherein the optical axis comprises a first optical axis and a second optical axis facing a third orthogonal direction crossing the first optical axis, wherein the camera module further comprises a member at least partially received in the camera housing and configured to refract or reflect the first optical axis to the second optical axis or the second optical axis to the first optical axis.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Brodie discloses wherein the optical axis comprises a first optical axis (In Fig 1 – Brodie teaches the use of first light-folding element 115 which has an optical axis along the Z axis) and a second optical axis (Brodie teaches the use of a second light folding element (Fig 1- element 120) where the light leaves the element 120 in a Z axis direction – opposite to the first – this has been interpreted as the 2nd optical axis) facing a third orthogonal direction crossing the first optical axis (Both the first and the second optical axis faces the optical axis (X-Axis) direction of the lens group 125), wherein the camera module further comprises a member at least partially received in the camera housing and configured to refract or reflect (Brodie’s invention is about light-folding elements with one or more prisms and/or reflective mirrors; Fig 1 – light folding element 115 and 120) the first optical axis to the second optical axis or the second optical axis to the first optical axis (Fig 1 teaches the direction the light travels from the first optical axis to the second optical axis via the third optical axis direction).
Smyth and Brodie are combinable because both are imaging devices using actuators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the optical element as used by damping arrangement used by Smyth with the light-folding element as taught by Brodie since each element merely performs the same function and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Smyth and Brodie to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 12, 14 and 17 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.
Claims 3-11 and 13 are objected as they depend on objected claim 2.
Claim 18 is objected as it depends on objected claim 17.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 January 12, 2026