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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, A) the “IR filter glass assembly” included in the “CIS + OIS subassembly” of claim 3-5, claims 13-15, and claims 18-20, and B) the wire bonds, moving magnetic steel, OIS drivers, MEMS spring and ECF, and bottom magnetic steel included in the “IR + magnet holder subassembly” of claims 6-8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The below claims include what appears to be initialisms, without a clear presentation or indication of the exact words/terms intended to be abbreviated. Initialisms are generally provided by a first use of the specific words/terms, followed by the abbreviation/initialism in parenthesis, such as “United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)”:
MEMS Claims 1-20;
IR Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20;
CIS Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 16 and 18;
OIS Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16 and 18;
RFPCB Claims 1, 7, 11 and 16;
ECF Claims 6, 7 and 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQe2d 1551 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Also see 2173.05(p), section Il.
Regarding claim 9, independent claim 1, from which claim 9 depends and inherits all limitations therefrom, is directed to an apparatus (e.g., “An electromagnetic MEMS optical image stabilization camera module”). However, claim 9 is directed to a method of installation (e.g., “is subjected to a forming process…”). In light of the above, the claim has not been drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only.
Regarding claims 16-20, independent claim 16 is directed to an apparatus (e.g., “An electromagnetic MEMS optical image stabilization camera module”). However, claim 16 is also directed to a method of installation (e.g., “is subjected to a forming process…”). In light of the above, the claim has not been drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. Claims 17-20 depend and inherit all limitations from claim 16 and are therefore rejected under than same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. -The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes (also see the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, supra). In light of this, one skilled in the art would not be put on fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 16-20, independent claim 16, from which claims 17-20 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes (also see the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, supra). In light of this, one skilled in the art would not be put on fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6-8, 10-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0088804 to Ng et al. (hereinafter “Ng”).
Regarding claim 1, Ng teaches an electromagnetic MEMS optical image stabilization camera module comprising a lens barrel assembly (e.g., fig. 1; fig. 8, element 300), an IR + magnet holder subassembly (e.g., fig. 10, element 256; [0075-76]; the Examiner notes that the term “IR + magnet holder subassembly” is merely regarded as a label), wherein the IR + magnet holder subassembly includes one or more magnet assemblies (e.g., figs. 9 and 10, element 300; [0075-76]; the Examiner notes that the term “magnet assemblies” is merely regarded as a label), a CIS + OIS subassembly (e.g., figs. 1 and 8-10, portion of element 26, fig. 11, element 352; [0087], and fig. 12, elements 402, 404, 406 and 408; [0088]; the Examiner notes that the term “CIS + OIS subassembly” is merely regarded as a label), wherein the CIS + OIS subassembly includes a camera image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 8-10, portion of element 26 that senses images; [0034]), a metal spring assembly configured to enable planar motion of the camera image sensor (e.g., fig. 11, element 352; [0087]; the Examiner notes that the term “metal spring assembly” is merely regarded as a label), and one or more OIS coils configured to enable planar movement of the metal spring assembly (e.g., fig. 12, elements 402, 404, 406 and 408; [0088]), and an RFPCB subassembly (e.g., fig. 1, element 12; [0032]; the Examiner notes that the term “RFPCB subassembly” is merely regarded as a label).
Regarding claim 2, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the lens barrel assembly includes one or more lens assemblies (e.g., fig. 8, element 300).
Regarding claim 3, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the CIS + OIS subassembly further includes one or more of: an IR filter glass assembly, a holder assembly (e.g., fig. 8, element 256), and a top magnetic steel assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the IR + magnet holder subassembly further includes one or more of: wire bonds, moving magnetic steel, OIS drivers (e.g., fig. 9, elements 302, 304, 306, 308; [0075-76]), MEMS spring and ECF (e.g., figs. 2-3, element 32, figs. 8-10; [0040]), and bottom magnetic steel.
Regarding claim 7, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 6, supra) including teaching wherein the MEMS spring and ECF is configured to flexibly electrically couple the camera image sensor and the RFPCB subassembly (e.g., [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 6, supra) including teaching wherein the OIS drivers are configured to control the OIS coils (e.g., [0088]).
Regarding claim 10, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the metal spring assembly includes one or more reinforcing ribs/folds (e.g., fig. 11, element 352; [0087], constitutes “one reinforcing rib”).
Regarding claim 11, Ng teaches an electromagnetic MEMS optical image stabilization camera module comprising a lens barrel assembly (e.g., fig. 1; fig. 8, element 300), an IR + magnet holder subassembly (e.g., figs. 9 and 10, element 256; [0075-76]; the Examiner notes that the term “IR + magnet holder subassembly” is merely regarded as a label), wherein the IR + magnet holder subassembly includes one or more magnet assemblies (e.g., fig. 10, element 300; [0075-76]; the Examiner notes that the term “magnet assemblies” is merely regarded as a label), a CIS + OIS subassembly (e.g., figs. 1 and 8-10, portion of element 26, fig. 11, element 352; [0087], and fig. 12, elements 402, 404, 406 and 408; [0088]; the Examiner notes that the term “CIS + OIS subassembly” is merely regarded as a label), wherein the CIS + OIS subassembly includes a camera image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 8-10, portion of element 26 that senses images; [0034]), a metal spring assembly configured to enable planar motion of the camera image sensor (e.g., fig. 11, element 352; [0087]; the Examiner notes that the term “metal spring assembly” is merely regarded as a label), and one or more OIS coils configured to enable planar movement of the metal spring assembly (e.g., fig. 12, elements 402, 404, 406 and 408; [0088]), and an RFPCB subassembly (e.g., fig. 1, element 12; [0032]; the Examiner notes that the term “RFPCB subassembly” is merely regarded as a label), wherein the CIS + OIS subassembly further includes a MEMS spring and ECF (e.g., figs. 2-3, element 32, figs. 8-10; [0040]) configured to flexibly electrically couple the camera image sensor and the RFPCB subassembly (e.g., [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 11, supra) including teaching wherein the lens barrel assembly includes one or more lens assemblies (e.g., fig. 8, element 300).
Regarding claim 13, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 13 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 11, supra) including teaching wherein the CIS + OIS subassembly further includes one or more of: an IR filter glass assembly, a holder assembly (e.g., fig. 8, element 256), and a top magnetic steel assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Ng teaches an electromagnetic MEMS optical image stabilization camera module comprising a lens barrel assembly (e.g., fig. 1; fig. 8, element 300), an IR + magnet holder subassembly (e.g., figs. 9 and 10, element 256; [0075-76]; the Examiner notes that the term “IR + magnet holder subassembly” is merely regarded as a label), wherein the IR + magnet holder subassembly includes one or more magnet assemblies (e.g., fig. 10, element 300; [0075-76]; the Examiner notes that the term “magnet assemblies” is merely regarded as a label), a CIS + OIS subassembly (e.g., figs. 1 and 8-10, portion of element 26, fig. 11, element 352; [0087], and fig. 12, elements 402, 404, 406 and 408; [0088]; the Examiner notes that the term “CIS + OIS subassembly” is merely regarded as a label), wherein the CIS + OIS subassembly includes a camera image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 8-10, portion of element 26 that senses images; [0034]), a metal spring assembly configured to enable planar motion of the camera image sensor (e.g., fig. 11, element 352; [0087]; the Examiner notes that the term “metal spring assembly” is merely regarded as a label), and one or more OIS coils configured to enable planar movement of the metal spring assembly (e.g., fig. 12, elements 402, 404, 406 and 408; [0088]), and an RFPCB subassembly (e.g., fig. 1, element 12; [0032]; the Examiner notes that the term “RFPCB subassembly” is merely regarded as a label), wherein the metal spring assembly is subjected to a forming process to enhance the rigidity of the metal hinge assembly (not an additional structural element further limiting the apparatus; please see the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, supra), and the metal spring assembly includes one or more reinforcing ribs/folds (e.g., fig. 11, element 352; [0087], constitutes “one reinforcing rib”).
Regarding claim 17, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 16, supra) including teaching wherein the lens barrel assembly includes one or more lens assemblies (e.g., fig. 8, element 300).
Regarding claim 18, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 18 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 16, supra) including teaching wherein the CIS + OIS subassembly further includes one or more of: an IR filter glass assembly, a holder assembly (e.g., fig. 8, element 256), and a top magnetic steel assembly.
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, 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.
Claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0018830 to Lin et al. (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 4, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 3, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein an IR filter glass assembly is configured to filter IR light passing through the lens barrel assembly.
Nevertheless, Lin teaches an image sensor that includes an IR filter glass assembly configured to filter IR light (fig. 4, at least elements 21 and 23; [0038], claim 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the IR filter glass assembly as taught by Lin into the apparatus as taught by Ng in order to filter infrared light that has passed through the lens barrel assembly from reaching the image sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Ng and Lin teach all the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4, supra) including teaching wherein the holder assembly is configured to position the IR filter glass assembly with respect to the lens barrel assembly (e.g., the resulting combination of the IR filter glass assembly of fig. 4 of Lin, when incorporated as part of the image sensor 26 of fig. 1 of Ng, which is positioned with respect to the lens barrel assembly).
Regarding claim 14, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 13, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein an IR filter glass assembly is configured to filter IR light passing through the lens barrel assembly.
Nevertheless, Lin teaches an image sensor that includes an IR filter glass assembly configured to filter IR light (fig. 4, at least elements 21 and 23; [0038], claim 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the IR filter glass assembly as taught by Lin into the apparatus as taught by Ng in order to filter infrared light that has passed through the lens barrel assembly from reaching the image sensor.
Regarding claim 15, Ng and Lin teach all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 14, supra) including teaching wherein the holder assembly is configured to position the IR filter glass assembly with respect to the lens barrel assembly (e.g., the resulting combination of the IR filter glass assembly of fig. 4 of Lin, when incorporated as part of the image sensor 26 of fig. 1 of Ng, which is positioned with respect to the lens barrel assembly).
Regarding claim 19, Ng teaches all the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 18, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein an IR filter glass assembly is configured to filter IR light passing through the lens barrel assembly.
Nevertheless, Lin teaches an image sensor that includes an IR filter glass assembly configured to filter IR light (fig. 4, at least elements 21 and 23; [0038], claim 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the IR filter glass assembly as taught by Lin into the apparatus as taught by Ng in order to filter infrared light that has passed through the lens barrel assembly from reaching the image sensor.
Regarding claim 20, Ng and Lin teach all the limitations of claim 20 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 19, supra) including teaching wherein the holder assembly is configured to position the IR filter glass assembly with respect to the lens barrel assembly (e.g., the resulting combination of the IR filter glass assembly of fig. 4 of Lin, when incorporated as part of the image sensor 26 of fig. 1 of Ng, which is positioned with respect to the lens barrel assembly).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0011537 to Chang et al. teaches a similarly recited apparatus driving a lens assembly.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0156911 to Tanaka et al. teaches a similar apparatus.
U.S. Patent No. 12,003,195 to Wang et al. teaches a similar apparatus.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638