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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the after-final amendment filed October 20, 2025. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action (filed August 27, 2025) is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as follows.
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, 8-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2017/0187962), and further in view of Sekimoto et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2017/0235095).
Regarding claim 1:
Lee discloses a folded camera (FIGS. 1-5), comprising: a lens actuator for moving a lens ((120)/(121), [0054]; (152)/(1520), [0056-0058]) in at least one direction (Y-direction, [0054]; X-direction, [0058]) and including an envelope surrounding the lens in at least some sections and having an envelope thickness (FIG. 4, (101), [0054, 0057]), the lens having a lens height (indicated below) and being positioned in an optical path between an optical path folding element ((110), [0053]) and an image sensor ((140), [0052]) and movable in the at least one direction (Y-direction, [0054]; X-direction, [0058]), wherein the folded camera has a height equal to the sum of the lens height, the size of a first air gap extending from a top edge of the lens to an external surface of a first side of the envelope, the size of a second air gap extending from a bottom edge of the lens to an internal surface of a second side of the envelope opposing the first side, and the envelope thickness (thickness of (101)) of the second side (indicated below),
PNG
media_image1.png
627
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least one direction (Y-direction, [0054]) is parallel to the optical path (FIG. 4, (L2)/Y-direction, [0054]) and is perpendicular to a first direction (FIG. 4, Z-direction), wherein the height of the folded camera is substantially aligned with the first direction (“…height of the imaging device module 10 with respect to the second direction Z…”, [0058]).
Lee does not specifically disclose that the lens actuator comprises four sets of rails, each set of rails comprising two rails, a first rail and a second opposing rail, and a ball inside each set of rails of the four sets of rails.
Sekimoto teaches a camera module, wherein the lens actuator (FIG. 10) comprises four sets of rails, each set of rails comprising two rails, a first rail and a second opposing rail, and a ball inside each set of rails of the four sets of rails (FIG. 10, “…two side portions 4b at two surfaces of the lens holding portion 4a…including two fixed portion 6...Other configurations are the same as those described in Embodiments 1 to 5…members having the same functions as those of the members illustrated in the figures of Embodiments 1 to 5 above are denoted by the same reference signs…”, [0089]; thus, from FIGS. 2-4 and paragraph [0065] of Embodiment 1, one can deduce that the FIG. 10 configuration contains four sets of rails with each set composed of one (4c) and one (6a) sandwiching at least one (5)).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
1160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Sekimoto’s with the folded camera taught by Lee since voice coil motor, which is comparatively inexpensive and highly reliable, is well known in the art (Sekimoto: [0003, 0004]), and for the purpose of lowering power consumption, reducing size, and providing high resolution (Sekimoto: [0018]).
Regarding claim 8:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1, wherein Sekimoto further discloses that the lens is movable for focusing ([0001, 0004, 0016, 0044, 0101]).
Regarding claim 9:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1, wherein Lee and Sekimoto further disclose that the lens is movable for optical image stabilization (Lee: [0056-0058]; Sekimoto: [0001, 0004, 0101]).
Regarding claim 10:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1, wherein Sekimoto further discloses that the lens is movable in two directions in a single plane for focusing and optical image stabilization, the single plane being perpendicular to the first direction (“…drives an imaging lens in three-axis directions for the autofocus function and the image stabilizer function…”, [0004]; “three-axis directions”, [0101]).
Regarding claim 11:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1, wherein Sekimoto further discloses that the lens actuator includes a coil (FIG. 10, (8), [0064, 0089, 0094]).
Regarding claim 12:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1, wherein Sekimoto further discloses that the lens actuator includes a magnet (FIG. 10, (7), [0064, 0089, 0094]).
Regarding claim 13:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1, wherein Sekimoto further discloses that the lens actuator includes a yoke (“VCM (Voice Coil Motor)”, [0049]). It is well known in the art for a lens actuator to include a yoke.
Regarding claim 14:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1, wherein Lee and Sekimoto further disclose that the lens actuator includes a Hall sensor bar (Lee: [0062, 0078]; Sekimoto: [0109])
Regarding claim 15:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1, wherein Sekimoto further discloses that the lens actuator is a voice coil motor (“VCM (Voice Coil Motor)”, [0049]; [0004]).
Regarding claim 17:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1, wherein Lee further discloses that the folded camera is included in a mobile device ([0045]).
Regarding claim 18:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 17, wherein Lee further discloses that the mobile device is a smartphone ([0045]).
Regarding claim 19:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 17, wherein Lee further discloses that the mobile device is a tablet ([0045]).
Regarding claim 20:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 17, wherein Lee further discloses that the mobile device is a laptop ([0045]).
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2017/0187962) and Sekimoto et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2017/0235095) as applied to claims 1, 8-15, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Yoshitsugu et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2007/0188884).
Regarding claim 2:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1.
Lee and Sekimoto do not specifically disclose that each of the first and second air gaps is in the range of 10-150um.
Yoshitsugu teaches a lens system having a blur compensation, wherein the amount of movement in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the third lens unit G3 in the image blur compensation state is 0.138mm, 0.132mm, 0.160mm, 0.209mm, 0.232mm, or 0.203mm ([0199]; see (AG1) and (AG2) in claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Yoshitsugu’s with the folded camera taught by Lee and Sekimoto to enable each of the first and second air gaps to be in the range of 10-150um, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1.
Lee and Sekimoto do not specifically disclose that each of the first and second air gaps is in the range of 10-100um.
Yoshitsugu teaches a lens system having a blur compensation, wherein the amount of movement in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the third lens unit G3 in the image blur compensation state is 0.138mm, 0.132mm, 0.160mm, 0.209mm, 0.232mm, or 0.203mm ([0199]; see (AG1) and (AG2) in claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Yoshitsugu’s with the folded camera taught by Lee and Sekimoto to enable each of the first and second air gaps to be in the range of 10-100um, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1.
Lee and Sekimoto do not specifically disclose that each of the first and second air gaps is in the range of 10-50um.
Yoshitsugu teaches a lens system having a blur compensation, wherein the amount of movement in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the third lens unit G3 in the image blur compensation state is 0.138mm, 0.132mm, 0.160mm, 0.209mm, 0.232mm, or 0.203mm ([0199]; see (AG1) and (AG2) in claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Yoshitsugu’s with the folded camera taught by Lee and Sekimoto to enable each of the first and second air gaps to be in the range of 10-50um, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 5:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1.
Lee and Sekimoto do not specifically disclose that the folded camera has a height not exceeding the lens height by more than 600um.
Yoshitsugu teaches a lens system having a blur compensation, wherein the amount of movement in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the third lens unit G3 in the image blur compensation state is less than 600um (0.138mm, 0.132mm, 0.160mm, 0.209mm, 0.232mm, or 0.203mm, [0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Yoshitsugu’s with the folded camera taught by Lee and Sekimoto to enable the height of the folded camera to not exceed the lens height by more than 600um, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1.
Lee and Sekimoto do not specifically disclose that the folded camera has a height not exceeding the lens height by more than 400um.
Yoshitsugu teaches a lens system having a blur compensation, wherein the amount of movement in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the third lens unit G3 in the image blur compensation state is less than 400um (0.138mm, 0.132mm, 0.160mm, 0.209mm, 0.232mm, or 0.203mm, [0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Yoshitsugu’s with the folded camera taught by Lee and Sekimoto to enable the height of the folded camera to not exceed the lens height by more than 400um, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1.
Lee and Sekimoto do not specifically disclose that the folded camera has a height not exceeding the lens height by more than 300um.
Yoshitsugu teaches a lens system having a blur compensation, wherein the amount of movement in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the third lens unit G3 in the image blur compensation state is less than 300um (0.138mm, 0.132mm, 0.160mm, 0.209mm, 0.232mm, or 0.203mm, [0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Yoshitsugu’s with the folded camera taught by Lee and Sekimoto to enable the height of the folded camera to not exceed the lens height by more than 300um, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2017/0187962) and Sekimoto et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2017/0235095) as applied to claims 1, 8-15, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Avivi et al. (WO 2016/207754).
Regarding claim 16:
Lee and Sekimoto disclose and teach of the folded camera of claim 1.
Lee and Sekimoto do not specifically disclose included together with an upright camera in a dual-camera.
Avivi teaches a folded camera, included together with an upright camera in a dual-camera (FIG. 2B, P. 4 L. 27-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Avivi’s with the folded camera taught by Lee and Sekimoto since it is advantageous to have a folded-lens dual-aperture camera that incorporates such a folded camera module (Avivi: P. 3 L. 20-24), e.g., for multi-tasking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed October 20, 2025, with respect to the embodiment shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 of Sekimoto’s teaching two sets of grooves/rails have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 set forth in the Office action filed August 27, 2025 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2017/0187962) and the embodiment shown in FIG. 10 of Sekimoto et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2017/0235095).
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant stated on page 7 of the arguments that “…Sekimoto…teaching away from the larger number of set of grooves, i.e. four sets of grooves as described by Applicant.”
Sekimoto discloses/suggests various configurations and alternatives for the invention and also discloses specifically in FIG. 10 that one configuration may contain four sets of rails as explained in claim 1 above.
Applicant stated on page 7 of the arguments that “Positioning the two sets of grooves laterally…permits only limited lateral displacement of the movable portion…Sekimoto’s guiding structure primarily supports axial focusing movement with only minimal lateral flexibility.”
Whether Sekimoto’s invention permits limited/minimal lateral displacement/flexibility or not is immaterial since these features are not claimed.
Applicant stated on page 8 of the arguments that “Nothing in Sekimoto suggests the use of four sets of grooves or rails surrounding the movable portion…Such a modification would therefore represent impermissible hindsight...”.
Sekimoto discloses four sets of rails in the embodiment shown in FIG. 10. See claim 1 above.
Applicant stated on page 8 of the arguments that “…a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine their respective teachings to arrive at the present invention.”
Both Lee and Sekimoto disclose camera modules that aim at miniaturization.
As explained in claim 1 above, Sekimoto discloses that voice coil motor, which is comparatively inexpensive and highly reliable, is well known in the art and provides the reasoning of lowering power consumption, reducing size, and providing high resolution. See claim 1 above.
Voice coil motors, stepping motors, and piezo-based drivers are well known alternatives in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FANG-CHI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5299. The examiner can normally be reached MRF 9am-5pm.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 5712723555. 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.
/FANG-CHI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852