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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21, 22, 28, 29, 36, and 37 stand amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant firstly contends that Lee is not prior art, and correctly indicates that the provisional application indicated by the published copy 62/598,475 does not support the disclosure relied upon. However, the 16/220,687 application of which Lee is a U.S. PGPUB claims priority to 62/648,348 as well, filed 3/26/2018, which fully supports the cited passaged of Lee. Therefore Lee is available under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Applicant's arguments concerning the disclosure of Lee with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Hu (US 20180321504 A1, of record) necessitated by those same amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 27-29, 32, 36, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200057313 A1, of record) in view of Hu (US 20180321504 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches a camera (Figs. 4A, 6A, 7), comprising:
a folded optics arrangement configured to fold a path of light, the folded optics arrangement comprising:
one or more prisms including a first prism configured to receive light along a first light path portion of the path of light (192ax, 192bx): and
a lens group comprising one or more lens elements (193x);
an image sensor (820x) to capture light that has passed through the one or more prisms and the lens group (as in Fig. 4A); and
an actuator module (Fig. 7, 692a, 692b) comprising a first optical image stabilization (OIS) voice coil motor (VCM) actuator to tilt a first prism of the one or more prisms (Fig. 7 shows the tilt axes), the first OIS actuator comprising:
a magnet (DMa) configured to move with the first prism (Fig. 7, mounted thereon, see ¶201), and a coil attached to a stationary base of the camera (Fig. 7, DCLa mounted on CLHa, see ¶202).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
536
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee does not explicitly show wherein the coil is oriented such that directions of current flow through the coil define a plane orthogonal to the first light path portion.
Hu, drawn to an analogous system exhibiting an OIS effected by two prisms (A31 and A30), explicitly shows a different arrangement where the OIS actuator of the incident light receiving prism (A31) is below the prism itself (Figs. 2, 3-6). Thus it is considered known from the prior art to provide the OIS prism system in distinct arrangements to fold the light path in a desired direction. Rearrangement of prior art components that do not modify the operation of the device have been held to be unpatentable. See MPEP 2144 VI. C. and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the prisms of Lee and thus obtained the claimed coil orientation for the straightforward purpose of changing the light path in accordance with design needs using the same principle of operation.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Lee teaches the camera of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the first prism is configured to transmit at least a portion of the received light toward the lens group along a second light path portion of the path of light, wherein the second light path portion is orthogonal to the first light path portion (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Lee teaches the camera of claim 22, and further discloses wherein to tilt the first prism comprises to rotate the first prism around a tilt axis that is orthogonal to the first light path portion and orthogonal to the second light path portion (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Lee teaches the camera of claim 22, and explicitly shows wherein the actuator module further comprises an autofocus (AF) VCM actuator to translate the lens group in a direction parallel to the second light path portion (¶30, ¶120).
Regarding claim 28, Lee teaches an optical system (Figs. 4A, 6A, 7), comprising:
a folded optics arrangement configured to fold a path of light (Fig. 4A), the folded optics arrangement comprising:
one or more prisms including a first prism configured to receive light along a first light path portion of the path of light (192ax, bx); and
a lens group (193x) comprising one or more lens elements (Fig. 4A); and
an actuator module (692a, 692b) comprising a first optical image stabilization (OIS) voice coil motor (VCM) actuator to tilt a first prism of the one or more prisms (Fig. 7, showing the tilt axes), the first OIS actuator comprising:
a magnet (DMa) configured to move with the first prism, and a coil (DCLa) attached to a stationary base of the camera (CLHa).
Lee does not explicitly show wherein the coil is oriented such that directions of current flow through the coil define a plane orthogonal to the first light path portion.
Hu, drawn to an analogous system exhibiting an OIS effected by two prisms (A31 and A30), explicitly shows a different arrangement where the OIS actuator of the incident light receiving prism (A31) is below the prism itself (Figs. 2, 3-6). Thus it is considered known from the prior art to provide the OIS prism system in distinct arrangements to fold the light path in a desired direction. Rearrangement of prior art components that do not modify the operation of the device have been held to be unpatentable. See MPEP 2144 VI. C. and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the prisms of Lee and thus obtained the claimed coil orientation for the straightforward purpose of changing the light path in accordance with design needs using the same principle of operation.
Regarding claim 29, the modified Lee teaches the optical system of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the first prism is configured to direct at least some of the received light toward the lens group along a second light path portion of the path of light, wherein the second light path portion is orthogonal to the first light path portion (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Lee teaches the optical system of claim 29, and further discloses wherein to tilt the first prism comprises to rotate the first prism around a tilt axis that is orthogonal to the first light path portion and orthogonal to the second light path portion (Figs. 4A, 7).
Regarding claim 36, Lee teaches a device (Fig. 1, 4A, 6A, 7), comprising:
a camera (195a);
a display (180);
a processor (170) and memory (160) comprising program instructions executable to cause an image captured by the camera to be displayed on the display (Fig. 2, ¶87-88); and
the camera, comprising:
a folded optics arrangement configured to fold a path of light (Fig. 4A), the folded optics arrangement comprising:
one or more prisms including a first prism configured to receive light along a first light path portion of the path of light (192ax, bx); and
a lens group (193x) comprising one or more lens elements (Fig. 4A);
an image sensor (820x) to capture light that has passed through the one or more prisms and the lens group (Fig. 4A); and
an actuator module (692a, 692b) comprising a first optical image stabilization (OIS) voice coil motor (VCM) actuator to tilt a first prism of the one or more prisms (Fig. 7, showing the magnet DMa and coil DCLa and tilt axes), the first OIS actuator comprising:
a magnet (DMa) configured to move with the first prism (Fig. 7), and a coil (DCLa) attached to a stationary base of the camera (CLHa).
Lee does not explicitly show wherein the coil is oriented such that directions of current flow through the coil define a plane orthogonal to the first light path portion.
Hu, drawn to an analogous system exhibiting an OIS effected by two prisms (A31 and A30), explicitly shows a different arrangement where the OIS actuator of the incident light receiving prism (A31) is below the prism itself (Figs. 2, 3-6). Thus it is considered known from the prior art to provide the OIS prism system in distinct arrangements to fold the light path in a desired direction. Rearrangement of prior art components that do not modify the operation of the device have been held to be unpatentable. See MPEP 2144 VI. C. and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the prisms of Lee and thus obtained the claimed coil orientation for the straightforward purpose of changing the light path in accordance with design needs using the same principle of operation.
Regarding claim 37, the modified Lee teaches the device of claim 36, and further discloses wherein the first prism is configured to transmit the at least a portion of the received light toward the lens group along a second light path portion of the path of light, wherein the second light path portion is orthogonal to the first light path portion (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 39, the modified Lee teaches the device of claim 37, and further discloses wherein to tilt the first prism comprises to rotate the first prism around a tilt axis that is orthogonal to the first light path portion and orthogonal to the second light path portion (Figs. 4A, 7).
Claim 23, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cheo (US 20150316748 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Lee teaches the camera of claim 22, and explicitly shows a second prism (192bx) and demonstrates folding of the optical path into three orthogonal axes (Fig. 4).
Lee does not explicitly show the second prism configured to receive light refracted by the lens group and transmitted along the second light path portion, the second prism further configured to transmit the light along a third light path portion of the path of light, wherein the third light path portion is orthogonal to the second light path portion and orthogonal to the first light path portion.
Cheo teaches an analogous camera device having a first prism (702), a lens set (706), and a second prism (708) in such order such that the second prism configured to receive light refracted by the lens group and transmitted along the second light path portion, the second prism further configured to transmit the light along a third light path portion of the path of light (toward the CMOS sensor), wherein the third light path portion is orthogonal to the second light path portion and orthogonal to the first light path portion (Fig. 7, “incident light” is reflected at a right angle by prism 702, and reflected again at another right angle by prism 708).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the three orthogonal paths of Lee with the distal prism position of Cheo for the purpose of realizing a desired three dimensional form factor in accordance with design needs.
Regarding claim 31, the modified Lee teaches the optical system of claim 29, and explicitly shows a second prism (192bx) and demonstrates folding of the optical path into three orthogonal axes (Fig. 4).
Lee does not explicitly show the second prism configured to receive light refracted by the lens group and transmitted along the second light path portion, the second prism further configured to transmit the light received from the lens group along a third light path portion of the path of light, wherein the third light path portion is orthogonal to the second light path portion and orthogonal to the first light path portion.
Cheo teaches an analogous camera device having a first prism (702), a lens set (706), and a second prism (708) in such order such that the second prism configured to receive light refracted by the lens group and transmitted along the second light path portion, the second prism further configured to transmit the light along a third light path portion of the path of light (toward the CMOS sensor), wherein the third light path portion is orthogonal to the second light path portion and orthogonal to the first light path portion (Fig. 7, “incident light” is reflected at a right angle by prism 702, and reflected again at another right angle by prism 708).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the three orthogonal paths of Lee with the distal prism position of Cheo for the purpose of realizing a desired three dimensional form factor in accordance with design needs.
Regarding claim 38, the modified Lee teaches the device of claim 37, and explicitly shows a second prism (192bx) and demonstrates folding of the optical path into three orthogonal axes (Fig. 4).
Lee does not explicitly show the second prism configured to receive light refracted by the lens group and transmitted along the second light path portion, the second prism further configured to transmit the refracted light toward the image sensor along a third light path portion of the path of light, wherein the third light path portion is orthogonal to the second light path portion and orthogonal to the first light path portion.
Cheo teaches an analogous camera device having a first prism (702), a lens set (706), and a second prism (708) in such order such that the second prism configured to receive light refracted by the lens group and transmitted along the second light path portion, the second prism further configured to transmit the light along a third light path portion of the path of light (toward the CMOS sensor), wherein the third light path portion is orthogonal to the second light path portion and orthogonal to the first light path portion (Fig. 7, “incident light” is reflected at a right angle by prism 702, and reflected again at another right angle by prism 708).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the three orthogonal paths of Lee with the distal prism position of Cheo for the purpose of realizing a desired three dimensional form factor in accordance with design needs.
Claims 25, 30, 33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200057313 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Lee teaches the camera of claim 24, and explicitly shows wherein the actuator module further comprises a second OIS VCM configured to move the lens group (lens driver CIRx).
Lee does not explicitly show the lens group is moved along a direction parallel to the tilt axis.
However, folding of the optical path by prisms is known from Lee. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of Lee such that the OIS movement is along a direction parallel to the tilt axis since doing so by further folding of the optical path would not change the principle of operation and would otherwise be predictable. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 30, the modified Lee teaches the optical system of claim 29, and explicitly shows wherein the actuator module further comprises an autofocus (AF) VCM actuator to translate the lens group (¶30, ¶120).
Lee does not explicitly show the lens group is translated in a direction parallel to the second light path portion.
However, folding of the optical path by prisms is known from Lee. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of Lee such that the AF VCM movement is along a direction parallel to the tilt axis since doing so by further folding of the optical path would not change the principle of operation and would otherwise be predictable. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 33, the modified Lee teaches the optical system of claim 32, and explicitly shows wherein the actuator module further comprises a second OIS VCM configured to move the lens group (¶30, ¶120, autofocusing necessarily implying movement of the lens group along the optical path, which is parallel to the tilt axis of 192ax).
Lee does not explicitly show the lens group is translated in a direction parallel to the second light path portion.
However, folding of the optical path by prisms is known from Lee. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of Lee such that the AF VCM movement is along a direction parallel to the tilt axis since doing so by further folding of the optical path would not change the principle of operation and would otherwise be predictable. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 40, the modified Lee teaches the device of claim 39, and explicitly shows wherein the actuator module further comprises a second OIS VCM configured to move the lens group (¶30, ¶120, autofocusing necessarily implying movement of the lens group along the optical path, which is parallel to the tilt axis of 192ax).
Lee does not explicitly show the lens group is translated in a direction parallel to the tilt axis.
However, folding of the optical path by prisms is known from Lee. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts of Lee such that the AF VCM movement is along a direction parallel to the tilt axis since doing so by further folding of the optical path would not change the principle of operation and would otherwise be predictable. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Claims 26, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 25 and 33 above, and further in view of Saito (US 20210058537 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Lee teaches the camera of claim 25, but does not explicitly show wherein the second OIS VCM actuator comprises: OIS magnets, comprising: a first OIS magnet; and a second OIS magnet opposite the first magnet with respect to the lens group; and OIS coils, comprising: a first OIS coil proximate the first magnet; and a second OIS coil proximate the second magnet and opposite the first OIS coil with respect to the lens group.
Official Notice is taken that optical image stabilization voice coil motors are exceptionally well known, e.g. in the field of ubiquitous mobile phones. For example, Saito explicitly shows wherein a VCM actuator comprises: OIS magnets, comprising: a first OIS magnet (365a); and a second OIS magnet (365b) opposite the first magnet with respect to the lens group; and OIS coils, comprising: a first OIS coil proximate the first magnet (366a); and a second OIS coil proximate the second magnet (366b) and opposite the first OIS coil with respect to the lens group (Figs. 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the well known VCM features thereof to implement the optical image stabilization features of the lens driver disclosed by Lee and thus obtained a predictable result.
Regarding claim 34, the modified Lee teaches the optical system of claim 33, but does not explicitly show wherein the second OIS VCM actuator comprises: OIS magnets, comprising: a first OIS magnet; and a second OIS magnet opposite the first magnet with respect to the lens group; and OIS coils, comprising: a first OIS coil proximate the first magnet; and a second OIS coil proximate the second magnet and opposite the first OIS coil with respect to the lens group.
Official Notice is taken that optical image stabilization voice coil motors are exceptionally well known, e.g. in the field of ubiquitous mobile phones. For example, Saito explicitly shows wherein a VCM actuator comprises: OIS magnets, comprising: a first OIS magnet (365a); and a second OIS magnet (365b) opposite the first magnet with respect to the lens group; and OIS coils, comprising: a first OIS coil proximate the first magnet (366a); and a second OIS coil proximate the second magnet (366b) and opposite the first OIS coil with respect to the lens group (Figs. 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the well known VCM features thereof to implement the optical image stabilization features of the lens driver disclosed by Lee and thus obtained a predictable result.
Regarding claim 35, the modified Lee teaches the optical system of claim 34, and further discloses wherein the OIS magnets are configured to move with the lens group (¶160).
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 COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on 5712701284. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights