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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Claims 1-27 in the reply filed on 4/24/26 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-27 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,013,519. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims a broader camera module which encompasses all the limitations of the patent.
The claims correspond to each other as follows:
Claim of Instant Application 18/641,780
Corresponding Claim of Patent 12,013,519
1
1, 2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-27 would be allowable, if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, 16, and 22, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a camera module comprising: a first lens group, a first optical path folding unit; a second lens group; and a second optical path folding unit, wherein the first lens group, the first optical path folding unit, the second lens group, and the second optical path folding unit are sequentially disposed from an object side of the first lens group toward an imaging plane of the camera module, the first lens group comprises a first lens having a refractive power and a second lens having a refractive power, the first optical path folding unit comprises a first fixed reflective member and a first movable reflective member, and the second optical path folding unit comprises a second fixed reflective member and a second moveable reflective member, in combination with the remaining features recited in the claim.
The prior art of Suzuki (US 5,166,718) discloses a camera module comprising a first lens group, a first optical path folding unit, a second lens group, and a second optical path folding units, wherein the first optical path folding unit comprises a first fixed reflective member and a first movable reflective member, and the second optical path folding unit comprises a second fixed reflective member (Suzuki, Figure 1). However, Suzuki fails to disclose the lenses having refractive power and that the second optical path folding unit has a second movable reflective member. The prior art of Nagahara (JP 2016095490 A) discloses a camera module comprising a second optical path folding unit comprising a second movable reflective member (Nagahara, Figure 1). However, there is no proper motivation to combine the disclosure of Nagahara with that of Suzuki, since the disclosure of Suzuki is related to a finder optical system, while the disclosure of Nagahara is related to an optical system having an image blur correction function. The prior art of Suzuki (US 2012/0200746 A1) also discloses a zoom lens comprising first and second group of lenses and an optical path folding unit (Suzuki, Paragraph 0026). However, Suzuki also fails to particularly disclose that the first optical path folding unit comprises a first fixed reflective member and a first movable reflective member, and the second optical path folding unit comprises a second fixed reflective member and a second moveable reflective member.
Therefore, Claims 1, 10, 16, and 22 would be allowed if the double patenting rejection were overcome. Claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-21, 23-27 would be allowed by virtue of their dependence on the allowable claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Iwasawa (US 2007/0024984 A1) discloses first and second lens group having refractive power and a optical path folding unit
-Bone (US 2015/0198784 A1) discloses a two-reflector folding structure
-Nanjo (US 2007/0126911 A1) discloses first and second lens groups and an optical-axis folding means
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights