DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Specification (Abstract)
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because, on line 4, the phrase “configured to and” between “flexure pad” and “aligned” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
III. Claim Interpretation
The qualification of the camera module in the preamble of claims 1,12, and 17 as “compact” will not be granted patentable weight. According to MPEP 2111.02, if the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.” See, also, Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). However, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes at 1305. MPEP 2111.02 (I) continues: Any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation. See, also, Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application “to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim” as drafted without importing “‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification.” Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801.
Here, the specification does not elaborate on the “compactness” of the camera module, like through specific dimensions of the module’s housing. It merely suggests that a compact camera module is conventionally used in a portable electronic device, like a mobile phone (p. 1, [0002]). The crux of the instant invention is mitigation of the accumulation of electrostatic charge in camera module parts that frequently contact each other during optical image stabilization, which appears to be an endeavor wholly independent of the size of the camera module. Therefore, the examiner submits that “compact” is used in the context of the camera module’s implementation in a portable electronic and is more suggestive of its intended use rather than its structure. Moreover, all limitations that facilitate electrostatic charge mitigation are recited in the bodies of the claims (i.e., flexure element(s), movable element, boss(es), etc.). Accordingly, the examiner submits that “compact” does not limit claims 1,12, and 17.
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
A. Claims 1,5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2021/0044727 A1) in view of Tseng et al. (US 2024/0022803 A1) and further in view of the WIPO publication of Goudy (WIPO publication number: WO 2008/092063 A2)
As to claim 1, Sharma et al. et al. teaches a compact camera module (Fig. 1A, camera “100”) comprising:
a module housing (Fig. 1A, shield can “108”) enclosing an interior volume (e.g., Figs. 1A and 1E);
a flexure element (Figs. 1D,1E, and 1G, spring bumper “130” and adhesive “140”) within the interior volume (e.g., Figs. 1A and 1E) and comprising a flexure pad (Figs. 1D,1E, and 1G, spring bumper “130”);
a movable element (Figs. 1D and 1E, movable platform “110”) within the interior volume
(e.g., Figs. 1A and 1E) comprising the flexure pad ([0026], lines 7-9), a surface of the flexure pad configured to engage with a boss (Fig. 1D, protrusion “132”; [0026], lines 11-14);
and
an image sensor (Fig. 1C, image sensor “104”) disposed within the interior volume (Fig.
1C).
The claim differs from Sharma et al. in that it requires (1) that the movable element comprises the boss rather than the flexure pad and (2) that the surface of the flexure pad is roughened.
(1) In the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Tseng et al. teaches a camera module (Fig. 20, camera module “3”) with a first frame (Fig. 20, first frame “320”) that moves relative to a second frame (Fig. 20, second frame “330”) during an optical image stabilization process ([0108], lines 1-9). The first frame includes a boss (Fig. 30, counterpart “91a”) that contacts a spring member (Fig. 30, elastic protrusion structure “90a”) on the second frame to, like Sharma et al., reduce the impact of collision between the two ([0108], lines 1-9). In light of the teaching of Tseng et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to rearrange the spring bumper and protrusion of Sharma et al. so that the bumper spring is positioned on the shield can and the protrusion juts from the movable platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification to be a simple rearrangement of parts that can be performed through conventional camera module manufacturing steps and that would yield a predictable result. Sharma’s movable platform moves as usual, only with the protrusion moving toward the spring bumper, and Sharma’s goal of lessening unwanted acoustics remains fulfilled. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B) for more information regarding the examiner’s rationale for combining Sharma et al. and Tseng et al.
(2) Sharma et al. further discusses how contact between the bumper and the protrusion causes accumulation of static charge. As a solution, however, the reference discusses material compositions of the bumper and the protrusion that may reduce this accumulation ([0029]). That is, the reference fails to specifically disclose roughening of the surface of the bumper and the protrusion as a solution for static charge accumulation. However, being pertinent to the problem addressed by the instant application, Goudy discloses a case (Fig. 1, case “20”) for a portable electronic device (Fig. 1, device “23”). The case includes inner side walls (Fig. 1, side walls “24”) and an inner housing (Fig. 1, housing “22”) that are formed of textured, non-conductive dielectric materials to prevent accumulation of static charge (p. 6, lines 6-11).
In light of the teaching of Goudy, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to roughen both the protrusion-contacting surface of Sharma’s spring bumper and the bumper-contacting surface of Sharma’s protrusion. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that roughening these surfaces, in addition to designing the spring bumper and protrusion from materials that naturally resist static charge accumulation, would further reduce the charge accumulation that Sharma et al. discusses in para. [0029].
As to claim 5, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al. and Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 1, wherein:
the roughened surface is a first roughened surface (see Goudy, p. 6, lines 6-11); and
the boss comprises a second roughened surface (see Goudy, p. 6, lines 6-11), the second roughened surface configured to engage with the first roughened surface upon movement of the movable element (see Sharma et al., [0026], lines 11-14).
As to claim 9, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al. and Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 5, wherein the boss extends from a surface of a carrier (see Sharma et al., Figs. 1D and 1E, movable platform “110”; see Tseng et al., Fig. 26, first frame “320”) coupled to the lens group (see Sharma et al., [0023], lines 1-7).
As to claim 10, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al. and Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 9, wherein the carrier is formed from an insulating material and the flexure pad is formed from a conductive material (see Sharma et al., [0029], lines 8 and 9, “…a metal [conductive] component that comes into contact with a plastic [insulating] component.”; {The movable platform includes the boss, which may be formed from plastic as disclosed by Sharma et al. in para. [0029].}).
As to claim 11, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al. and Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 10, wherein the flexure element is formed from metal (see Sharma et al., [0029], lines 8 and 9; {At least a portion of Sharma’s flexure element, as read by the examiner, is formed from metal (i.e., the spring bumper).}).
B. Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2021/0044727 A1) in view of the Tseng et al. (US 2024/0022803 A1) in view of Goudy (WO 2008/092063 A2) and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2024/0012182 A1)
As to claim 2, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al. and Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 1. The claim differs from Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al. and Goudy, in that it further requires that the roughened surface is an etched surface. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Moon et al. discloses a camera module (e.g., Fig. 4, camera module “400”) with a plurality of lens flanges (Fig. 4, flanges “6121” and “6122”) whose surfaces are roughened using laser etching ([0181]) and in a pattern that resembles peaks and valleys ([0109], lines 4-8).
In light of the teaching of the teaching of Moon et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the peak-and-valley roughened profile on both the protrusion-facing surface of Sharma’s spring bumper and the bumper-facing surface of Sharma’s protrusion using a laser etching technique. Forming a peak-and-valley profile on the roughened surfaces represents an obvious design that would yield a predictable and reliable charge accumulation prevention result. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that laser etching provides comparative advantages in terms of speed and precision.
As to claim 3, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al., Goudy, and Moon et al., teaches the compact camera module of claim 2, wherein the etched surface is formed by mechanical, plasma, laser (see Moon et al., [0181]), or chemical etching.
The combination of Sharma et al., Tseng et al., Goudy, and Moon et al. forms the basis for the rejection of claims 4 and 6-8 that follow.
As to claim 4, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al., Goudy, and Moon et al., teaches the compact camera module of claim 1, wherein the roughened surface comprises a debossed feature (see Moon et al., [0109], lines 4-8; {The valleys represent debossed features.}).
As to claim 6, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al., Goudy, and Moon et al., teaches the compact camera module of claim 5, wherein the roughened surface is an etched surface (see Moon et al., [0181]).
As to claim 7, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al., Goudy, and Moon et al., teaches the compact camera module of claim 5, wherein the second roughened surface comprises a debossed feature (see Moon et al., [0109], lines 4-8; {The valleys represent debossed features.}).
As to claim 8, Sharma et al., as modified by Tseng et al., Goudy, and Moon et al., teaches the compact camera module of claim 5, wherein the second roughened surface comprises an etched pattern (see Moon et al., [0109], lines 4-8; [0181]).
C. Claims 12,13,15,17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2021/0044727 A1) in view of Goudy (WO 2008/092063 A2)
As to claim 12, Sharma et al. teaches a compact camera module (Fig. 1A, camera “100”) comprising:
a module housing (Fig. 1A, shield can “108”) enclosing an interior volume (e.g., Figs. 1A and 1E);
a flexure element (Figs. 1D,1E, and 1G, spring bumper “130” and adhesive “140”) within the interior volume (e.g., Figs. 1A and 1E) and comprising a first surface (Figs. 1D, surface facing protrusion “138”);
a boss (Figs. 1D and 1E, protrusion “138”) disposed within the interior volume (Fig. 1D) and comprising a second surface (Fig. 1D, surface facing spring bumper “138”) configured to engage with the first surface ([0026], lines 11-14);
a movable element (Figs. 1D and 1E, movable platform “110”) disposed within the interior volume (e.g., Figs. 1A and 1E) and coupled to at least one of the flexure element ([0026], lines 7-9) or the boss; and
an image sensor (Fig. 1C, image sensor “104”) disposed within the interior volume (Fig. 1C), the image sensor positioned below the movable element (Fig. 1C).
Sharma et al. further discusses how contact between the bumper and the protrusion causes accumulation of static charge. As a solution, however, the reference discusses material compositions of the bumper and the protrusion that may reduce this accumulation ([0029]). That is, the reference fails to specifically disclose roughening of the surface of the bumper and the protrusion as a solution for static charge accumulation. However, being pertinent to the problem addressed by the instant application, Goudy discloses a case (Fig. 1, case “20”) for a portable electronic device (Fig. 1, device “23”). The case includes inner side walls (Fig. 1, side walls “24”) and an inner housing (Fig. 1, housing “22”) that are formed of textured, non-conductive dielectric materials to prevent accumulation of static charge (p. 6, lines 6-11).
In light of the teaching of Goudy, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to roughen both the protrusion-contacting surface of Sharma’s spring bumper and the bumper-contacting surface of Sharma’s protrusion. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that roughening these surfaces, in addition to designing the spring bumper and protrusion from materials that naturally resist static charge accumulation, would further reduce the charge accumulation that Sharma et al. discusses in para. [0029].
As to claim 13, Sharma et al., as modified by Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 12, wherein the boss is formed from an insulating material and the flexure element is formed from a conductive material (see Sharma et al., [0029], lines 8 and 9, “…a metal [conductive] component that comes into contact with a plastic [insulating] component.”).
As to claim 15, Sharma et al., as modified by Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 12, wherein the boss is stationary relative to the module housing (see Sharma et al., [0026], lines 9-11) and the flexure element is configured to move relative to the module housing (see Sharma et al., [0026], lines 7-9).
As to claim 17, Sharma et al. teaches a compact camera module (Fig. 1A, camera “100”) comprising:
a module housing (Fig. 1A, shield can “108”) enclosing an interior volume (e.g., Figs. 1A and 1E);
a suspension arrangement (Figs. 1D and 1E, movable platform “110” and protrusions “132”) comprising a carrier (Figs. 1D and 1E, movable platform “110”) supporting a lens ([0023], lines 1 and 2), the suspension arrangement comprising:
a first flexure element (Figs. 1D,1E, and 1G, spring bumper “130” and adhesive “140”) within the interior volume (e.g., Figs. 1A and 1E) and comprising a first surface (Figs. 1D, surface facing protrusion “138”);
a first boss (Figs. 1D and 1E, protrusion “138”) disposed within the interior volume (Fig. 1D) and configured to engage with the first surface ([0026], lines 11-14);
a second flexure element within the interior volume and comprising a second roughened surface (Fig. 1E; [0028], lines 1-6);
a second boss disposed within the interior volume and configured to engage with the second roughened surface (Fig. 1E; [0028], lines 1-6); and
an image sensor disposed within the interior volume (Fig. 1C, image sensor “104”), the image sensor positioned below the lens (Fig. 1C).
Sharma et al. further discusses how contact between the bumper and the protrusion causes accumulation of static charge. As a solution, however, the reference discusses material compositions of the bumper and the protrusion that may reduce this accumulation ([0029]). That is, the reference fails to specifically disclose roughening of the surface of the bumper and the protrusion as a solution for static charge accumulation. However, being pertinent to the problem addressed by the instant application, Goudy discloses a case (Fig. 1, case “20”) for a portable electronic device (Fig. 1, device “23”). The case includes inner side walls (Fig. 1, side walls “24”) and an inner housing (Fig. 1, housing “22”) that are formed of textured, non-conductive dielectric materials to prevent accumulation of static charge (p. 6, lines 6-11).
In light of the teaching of Goudy, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to roughen both the protrusion-contacting surface of Sharma’s spring bumper and the bumper-contacting surface of Sharma’s protrusion. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that roughening these surfaces, in addition to designing the spring bumper and protrusion from materials that naturally resist static charge accumulation, would further reduce the charge accumulation that Sharma et al. discusses in para. [0029].
As to claim 18, Sharma et al., as modified by Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 17, wherein the first roughened surface is localized to a flexure pad of the first flexure element (see Sharma et al., [0029], lines 1-8; see Goudy, p. 6, lines 6-11), the flexure pad aligned to engage with the first boss (see Sharma et al., [0026], lines 11-13).
D. Claims 14,19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2021/0044727 A1) in view of Goudy (WO 2008/092063 A2) and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2024/0012182 A1)
As to claim 14, Sharma et al., as modified by Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 12. The claim differs from Sharma et al., as modified by Goudy, in that requires that the first roughened surface defines a first pattern and the second roughened surface defines a second pattern. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Moon et al. discloses a camera module (e.g., Fig. 4, camera module “400”) with a plurality of lens flanges (Fig. 4, flanges “6121” and “6122”) whose surfaces are roughened in a pattern that resembles peaks and valleys ([0109], lines 4-8). Additionally, roughening of the plurality of lens flange surfaces is performed in the same manufacturing method (e.g., [0134] and [0135]).
In light of the teaching of the teaching of Moon et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the peak-and-valley roughened profile on both the protrusion-facing surface of Sharma’s spring bumper and the bumper-facing surface of Sharma’s protrusion (The peak-and-valley pattern on both the bumper surface and the protrusion surface are the claimed first and second patterns, which are the same.). Additionally, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to roughen Sharma’s spring bumper and protrusion during a single manufacturing process. Forming a peak-and-valley profile as the roughened surfaces represents an obvious design that would yield a predictable and reliable charge accumulation prevention result. Furthermore, roughening the bumper and protrusion surfaces during a single manufacturing process would increase the efficiency of the camera module fabrication.
The combination of Sharma et al., Goudy, and Moon et al. forms the basis for the rejection of claims 19 and 20 that follow.
As to claim 19, Sharma et al., as modified by Goudy and Moon et al., teaches the compact camera module of claim 17, wherein the first and second roughened surfaces are formed in the same process (see Moon et al., e.g., [0134] and [0135]).
As to claim 20, Sharma et al., as modified by Goudy and Moon et al., teaches the compact camera module of claim 17, wherein at least one of the first and second roughened surfaces comprise a pattern (see Moon et al., [0109], lines 4-8).
E. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2021/0044727 A1) in view of Goudy (WO 2008/092063 A2) and further in view of Tseng et al. (US 2024/0022803 A1)
As to claim 16, Sharma et al., as modified by Goudy, teaches the compact camera module of claim 12, further comprising a carrier (see Sharma et al., Fig. 1D, movable platform “110”) supporting a lens (see Sharma et al., [0023], lines 1-7) aligned with and positioned over the image sensor (see Sharma et al., Fig. 1C). The claim differs from Sharma et al., as modified by Goudy, in that requires that the boss extends from a surface of the carrier.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Tseng et al. teaches a camera module (Fig. 20, camera module “3”) with a first frame (Fig. 20, first frame “320”) that moves relative to a second frame (Fig. 20, second frame “330”) during an optical image stabilization process ([0108], lines 1-9). The first frame includes a boss (Fig. 30, counterpart “91a”) that contacts a spring member (Fig. 30, elastic protrusion structure “90a”) on the second frame to, like Sharma et al., reduce the impact of collision between the two ([0108], lines 1-9). In light of the teaching of Tseng et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to rearrange the spring bumper and protrusion of Sharma et al. so that the bumper spring is positioned on the shield can and the protrusion juts from the movable platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification to be a simple rearrangement of parts that can be performed through conventional camera module manufacturing steps and that would yield a predictable result. Sharma’s movable platform moves as usual, only with the protrusion moving toward the spring bumper, and Sharma’s goal of lessening unwanted acoustics remains fulfilled. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B) for more information regarding the examiner’s rationale for combining Sharma et al. and Tseng et al.
VI. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571) 272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
12/4/2025