DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/4/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
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 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US20100177238, of record, see IDS dated 9/4/2024) in view of Kwon et al. (CN104570547A, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches a camera module (figs. 1 to 2c, imaging device 50), comprising:
a unitary element (see Saito, figs. 2a to 2c, housing 20+covering member 40+ L1a+L2a+L3a+L3b+L1+L2+L3 has been referred to as a unitary element) integrally formed by a lens carrier (fig. 2b, L1a+L2a+L3a+L3b has been referred to as a lens carrier) and a lens barrel (fig. 2b, housing 20 has been referred to as a lens barrel) and forming a containing space (see fig. 2b, be forming a containing space for lenses L1, L2 and L3), wherein the unitary element has an object-side opening (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the object-side opening);
an optical image lens (fig. 2b, lenses L1, L2 and L3) assembly disposed in the containing space (see Saito, fig. 2b, the lenses L1, L2 and L3 assembly disposed in the containing space) and having an optical axis (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the optical axis; in paragraph [0064] “through housing 20, first lens L1 is precisely directed to image sensor 51, with respect to the optical axial direction, and with respect to a direction perpendicular to the optical axial direction”);
a fixed member (see fig. 2b, house 20+covering member 40+base 52 has been referred to as a fixed member) for accommodating the unitary element (Saito, fig. 2b, the unitary element), wherein the fixed member comprises a base (fig. 2b, the base 52) and a cover (Saito, fig. 2b, the 20+40 has been referred to as a cover), and the cover (the 20+40) has a through hole (see Saito, the 40 has a hole) and is connected with the base (see Saito, fig. 2b, the 20+40 has the through hole and is connected with the base 52); and
a driving member (see Saito, fig. 2b, actuator 30 has been referred to as a driving member; paragraph [0062] “Actuator 30 is configured to fit the interior circumference of housing 20 to be adhered by adhesive B, and includes cylindrical fixing section 31 including a coil and a yoke, and ring section 32 including a magnet and being movable within fixing section 31”) for driving the unitary element (fig. 2b, the unitary element) to move relative to the fixed member (the 20+40+52; as described in paragraph [0064] “Flange section L2 a of second lens L2, supported by ring section 32 of actuator 31, and integrally moved with ring section 32 of actuator 31”; since lens L2 is part of the unitary element, thus, the driving member for driving the unitary element to move relative to the fixed member), wherein the driving member (the actuator 30) comprises at least one magnet (fig. 2b, magnet 32) and at least one coils (fig. 2b, coil 31; paragraph [0062] “cylindrical fixing section 31 including a “coil” and a yoke, and ring section 32 including a “magnet” and being movable within fixing section 31”), and one of the at least one magnet (the magnet 32) and the at least one coil (the coil 31) is disposed on the fixed member (on the 20 of the 20+40+52) and is corresponding to another one (see fig. 2b, magnets 32 are positioned opposite each other, and the coils 31 are positioned opposite each other);
wherein the unitary element (fig. 2b, the unitary element) comprises a reverse inclined structure (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the reverse inclined structure), the reverse inclined structure is located on an image side of the object-side opening and surrounds the optical axis (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the reverse inclined structure is located on the image side of the object-side opening and surrounds the optical axis; paragraph [0062] “cylindrical fixing section 31”), and the reverse inclined structure comprises:
at least two annular concave structures arranged in order from the object-side opening to an image side (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b” and “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, having two annular concave structures arranged in order from the object-side opening to an image side), wherein a sectional surface of each of the annular concave structures passing through the optical axis comprises a valley point and two concave ends (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, having a sectional surface of each of the annular concave structures passing through the optical axis comprises the valley point and two concave ends), the two concave ends are respectively disposed on an object side and an image side of the valley point (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b”, and “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, having a sectional surface of each of the annular concave structures passing through the optical axis comprises the valley point and two concave ends, the two concave ends are respectively disposed on the object side and the image side of the valley point), and the valley point is located on a position farthest from the optical axis on each of the annular concave structures (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, the valley point is located on a position farthest from the optical axis on each of the annular concave structures);
PNG
media_image1.png
735
1246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
567
1262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a diameter of the object-side opening is ψ (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, diameter of the object-side opening, ψ), a diameter of the valley point of one of the at least two annular concave structures disposed closest to an object side is ψDo (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the ψDo has been referred to as a diameter of the valley point of one of the at least two annular concave structures disposed closest to an object side), a diameter of the valley point of one of the at least two annular concave structures disposed closest to the image side is ψDi (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the ψDi has been referred to as a diameter of the valley point of one of the at least two annular concave structures disposed closest to the image side), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.0% < (ψDi-ψDo)/ψ×100% < 30% (approximately 11%; the referring to the scale in the annotated image, ”Saito, fig. 2b”, the (ψDi-ψDo)/ψ×100% = (1.01-0.92)/0.84×100% is approximately 11%). It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art to modify the relative dimensions ψDi, ψDo, and ψ in Saito such that 0.0% < (ψDi-ψDo)/ψ×100% < 30% is satisfied, because it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
But Saito does not explicitly disclose wherein the object-side opening is a smallest opening of the unitary element.
However, Kwon teaches the analogous camera module (Kwon, paragraph [0145] “A camera module 3000 according to another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure will be described with reference to Figures 10 to 12”), and further teaches wherein the object-side opening is a smallest opening of the unitary element (see annotated image, Kwon, fig. 12, lens barrel 20 has been referred to as the unitary element, and has the object-side opening is a smallest opening of the unitary element 20).
(note: see Kwon fig. 11 and fig. 12, in paragraphs [0187]-[0189], Kwon also teaches a driving member 40 for driving the unitary element 20 to move relative to the fixed member 90, wherein the driving member 40 comprises at least one magnet 41a and at least one coil 43a, and one of the at least one magnet 41b and the at least one coil 43b is disposed on the fixed member 90 and is corresponding to another one; and see annotated image, Kwon, fig. 12, Kwon also teaches wherein the unitary element 20 comprises a reverse inclined structure, the reverse inclined structure is located on an image side of the object-side opening and surrounds the optical axis, and the reverse inclined structure comprises: at least two annular concave structures arranged in order from the object-side opening to an image side, wherein a sectional surface of each of the annular concave structures passing through the optical axis comprises a valley point and two concave ends, the two concave ends are respectively disposed on an object side and an image side of the valley point, and the valley point is located on a position farthest from the optical axis on each of the annular concave structures.)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Saito to have the specific positions as taught by Kwon for the purpose to obtain a clear image (Kwon, paragraph [0006]).
PNG
media_image3.png
557
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, combination Saito-Kwon discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Saito further teaches wherein the diameter of the object-side opening is ψ (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, diameter of the object-side opening, ψ), the diameter of the valley point of one of the at least two annular concave structures disposed closest to the object side is ψDo (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the ψDo, described in claim 1), the diameter of the valley point of one of the at least two annular concave structures disposed closest to the image side is ψDi (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the ψDi, described in claim 1), and the following condition is satisfied:
2.0% < (ψDi-ψDo)/ψ×100% < 20 (approximately 11%; the referring to the scale in the annotated image, ”Saito, fig. 2b”, the (ψDi-ψDo)/ψ×100% = (1.01-0.92)/0.84×100% is approximately 11%). It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art to modify the relative dimensions ψDi, ψDo, and ψ in Saito such that 2.0% < (ψDi-ψDo)/ψ×100% < 20 is satisfied, because it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
Regarding claim 7, combination Saito-Kwon discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Saito further teaches wherein the reverse inclined structure is integrally formed on the unitary element (see Saito, figs. 2a-2c, the reverse inclined structure is integrally formed on the unitary element).
Regarding claim 8, combination Saito-Kwon discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Saito further teaches wherein the reverse inclined structure is gradually away from the optical axis from the object side to the image side substantially (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the reverse inclined structure is gradually away from the optical axis from the object side to the image side substantially).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US20100177238, of record, see IDS dated 9/4/2024) in view of Kwon et al. (CN104570547A, English translation attached), and further in view of Kayanuma et al. (US20050035421).
Regarding claim 5, combination Saito-Kwon discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Saito does not explicitly disclose wherein the object-side opening is an aperture stop of the camera module.
However, Kayanuma teaches the analogous imaging module (Kayanuma, fig. 1, the compact imaging module 10), and further teaches wherein the object-side opening is an aperture stop (fig. 1, paragraph [0047] “aperture stop 4”) of the camera module (Kayanuma, fig. 1, the compact imaging module 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Saito to have the specific place of aperture stop as taught by Kayanuma for the purpose of the signal light from the outside and passed through the optical system directly and effect that cost down for producing a compact imaging module can be achieved (Kayanuma, paragraphs [0049]-[0051]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US20100177238, of record, see IDS dated 9/4/2024) in view of Kwon et al. (CN104570547A, English translation attached), and further in view of Gutierrez et al. (US20100284081, of record, see IDS dated 9/4/2024).
Regarding claim 9, combination Saito-Kwon discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Saito does not explicitly disclose wherein further comprising:
a transparent plate disposed on an object side of the object-side opening, wherein the object-side opening of the unitary element is disposed closer to the transparent plate than the through hole of the cover.
However, in the analogous camera module (Gutierrez in his claim 20: an integrated lens barrel for a miniature camera), and Gutierrez further teaches wherein further comprising:
a transparent plate (Gutierrez, fig.1, cover 102) disposed on an object side of the object-side opening (Gutierrez, fig.2, opening 131), wherein the object-side opening of the unitary element (fig. 2, paragraph [0088] by integrating features such as autofocus and shuttering with the lens barrel) is disposed closer to the transparent plate than the through hole of the cover (see paragraph [0046], a front 102 cover can have an opening 131 formed therein to admit light).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Saito to have the specific transparent plate as taught by Gutierrez for the purpose to construct smaller miniature cameras with desirable(Gutierrez, paragraph [0015]).
Claim 10-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US20100177238, of record, see IDS dated 9/4/2024) in view of Kwon et al. (CN104570547A, English translation attached) and Chou et al. (US8805176, of record, see IDS dated 9/4/2024).
Regarding claim 10, Saito teaches a camera module (figs. 1 to 2c, imaging device 50), comprising:
a unitary element (see Saito, figs. 2a to 2c, housing 20+covering member 40+ L1a+L2a+L3a+L3b+L1+L2+L3 has been referred to as a unitary element) integrally formed by a lens carrier (fig. 2b, L1a+L2a+L3a+L3b has been referred to as a lens carrier) and a lens barrel (fig. 2b, housing 20 has been referred to as a lens barrel) and forming a containing space (see fig. 2b, be forming a containing space for lenses L1, L2 and L3), wherein the unitary element has an object-side opening (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the object-side opening);
an optical image lens (fig. 2b, lenses L1, L2 and L3) assembly disposed in the containing space (see Saito, fig. 2b, the lenses L1, L2 and L3 assembly disposed in the containing space) and having an optical axis (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the optical axis; in paragraph [0064] “through housing 20, first lens L1 is precisely directed to image sensor 51, with respect to the optical axial direction, and with respect to a direction perpendicular to the optical axial direction”);
a fixed member (see fig. 2b, house 20+covering member 40+base 52 has been referred to as a fixed member) for accommodating the unitary element (described above, fig. 2b, the unitary element), wherein the fixed member comprises a base (fig. 2b, the base 52) and a cover (Saito, fig. 2b, the 20+40 has been referred to as a cover), and the cover (the 20+40) has a through hole (see Saito, the 40 has a hole) and is connected with the base (see Saito, fig. 2b, the 20+40 has the through hole and is connected with the base 52); and
a driving member (see Saito, fig. 2b, actuator 30 has been referred to as a driving member; paragraph [0062] “Actuator 30 is configured to fit the interior circumference of housing 20 to be adhered by adhesive B, and includes cylindrical fixing section 31 including a coil and a yoke, and ring section 32 including a magnet and being movable within fixing section 31”) for driving the unitary element (fig. 2b, the unitary element) to move relative to the fixed member (the 20+40+52; as described in paragraph [0064] “Flange section L2 a of second lens L2, supported by ring section 32 of actuator 31, and integrally moved with ring section 32 of actuator 31”; since lens L2 is part of the unitary element, thus, the driving member for driving the unitary element to move relative to the fixed member), wherein the driving member (the actuator 30) comprises at least one magnet (fig. 2b, magnet 32) and at least one coils (fig. 2b, coil 31; paragraph [0062] “cylindrical fixing section 31 including a “coil” and a yoke, and ring section 32 including a “magnet” and being movable within fixing section 31”), and one of the at least one magnet (the magnet 32) and the at least one coil (the coil 31) is disposed on the fixed member (on the 20 of the 20+40+52) and is corresponding to another one (see fig. 2b, magnets 32 are positioned opposite each other, and the coils 31 are positioned opposite each other);
wherein the unitary element (fig. 2b, the unitary element) comprises a reverse inclined structure (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the reverse inclined structure), the reverse inclined structure is located on an image side of the object-side opening and surrounds the optical axis (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the reverse inclined structure is located on the image side of the object-side opening and surrounds the optical axis; paragraph [0062] “cylindrical fixing section 31”), and the reverse inclined structure comprises:
at least two annular concave structures arranged in order from the object-side opening to an image side (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b” and “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, having two annular concave structures arranged in order from the object-side opening to an image side), wherein a sectional surface of each of the annular concave structures passing through the optical axis comprises a valley point and two concave ends (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, has a sectional surface of each of the annular concave structures passing through the optical axis comprises the valley point and two concave ends), the two concave ends are disposed on an object side and an image side of the valley point, respectively (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b”, and “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, having a sectional surface of each of the annular concave structures passing through the optical axis comprises the valley point and two concave ends, the two concave ends are respectively disposed on the object side and the image side of the valley point), and the valley point is located on a position farthest from the optical axis on each of the annular concave structures (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, the valley point is located on a position farthest from the optical axis on each of the annular concave structures).
But Saito does not explicitly disclose wherein the object-side opening is a smallest opening of the unitary element.
However, Kwon teaches the analogous camera module (Kwon, paragraph [0145] “A camera module 3000 according to another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure will be described with reference to Figures 10 to 12”), and further teaches wherein the object-side opening is a smallest opening of the unitary element (see annotated image, Kwon, fig. 12, lens barrel 20 has been referred to as the unitary element, and has the object-side opening is a smallest opening of the unitary element 20).
(note: see Kwon fig. 11 and fig. 12, in paragraphs [0187]-[0189], Kwon also teaches a driving member 40 for driving the unitary element 20 to move relative to the fixed member 90, wherein the driving member 40 comprises at least one magnet 41a and at least one coil 43a, and one of the at least one magnet 41b and the at least one coil 43b is disposed on the fixed member 90 and is corresponding to another one; and see annotated image, Kwon, fig. 12, Kwon also teaches wherein the unitary element 20 comprises a reverse inclined structure, the reverse inclined structure is located on an image side of the object-side opening and surrounds the optical axis, and the reverse inclined structure comprises: at least two annular concave structures arranged in order from the object-side opening to an image side, wherein a sectional surface of each of the annular concave structures passing through the optical axis comprises a valley point and two concave ends, the two concave ends are respectively disposed on an object side and an image side of the valley point, and the valley point is located on a position farthest from the optical axis on each of the annular concave structures.)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Saito to have the specific positions as taught by Kwon for the purpose to obtain a clear image (Kwon, paragraph [0006]).
Saito does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between each of the valley points and the concave end disposed on the image side thereof along the optical axis is a1, a distance between the two concave ends of each of the annular concave structures along the optical axis is a2, and following condition is satisfied:
0.05 < a1/a2 < 0.90.
However, Chou teaches the analogous camera module (Chou, abstract, an auto-focus driving structure), and further teaches wherein a distance between each of the valley points (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, valley point) and the concave end (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, the concave end) disposed on the image side (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, image side) thereof along the optical axis (Chou, fig. 3, optical axis, L) is a1 (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, a1), a distance between the two concave ends of each of the annular concave structures (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, the two concave ends of each of the annular concave) along the optical axis (Chou, fig. 3, optical axis, L) is a2 (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, a2), and following condition is satisfied:
0.05 < a1/a2 < 0.90 (approximately 0.52; the referring to the scale in the annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, a1/a2 = 0.12/0.23 = 0.52; it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Saito to have the specific annular concave as taught by Chou for the purpose to provide a miniaturized auto-focus driving structure which facilitates assembly (Chou, col 1, lines 26-28).
PNG
media_image4.png
730
1186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, combination Saito-Kwon-Chou discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and Saito further teaches wherein the reverse inclined structure is integrally formed on the unitary element. (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the reverse inclined structure is integrally formed on the unitary element).
Regarding claim 12, combination Saito-Kwon-Chou discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and Saito further teaches wherein a number of the at least two annular concave structures is N (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, a number of the at least two annular concave structures is 2), and the following condition is satisfied:
2 [Symbol font/0xA3] N [Symbol font/0xA3] 15 (2, N = 2, described above).
Regarding claim 13, combination Saito-Kwon-Chou discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and Saito further teaches wherein in the two concave ends of each of the annular concave structures (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, in the two concave ends of each of the annular concave structures), the concave end disposed close to the image side of the valley point is away from the optical axis than the concave end disposed close to the object side thereof (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, the concave end disposed close to the image side of the valley point is away from the optical axis than the concave end disposed close to the object side).
Regarding claim 14, combination Saito-Kwon–Chou discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and further teaches wherein in the one of the at least two annular concave structures disposed closest to an object side (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure” in the one of the at least two annular concave structures disposed closest to an object side), a distance between the valley point and the optical axis (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, a distance between the valley point and the optical axis) is D, a distance between the concave end disposed close to the image side and the optical axis (see annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, a distance between the concave end disposed close to the image side and the optical axis) is d, an elastic drafting ratio is defined as EDR, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.0% < EDR < 6.0% (approximately 0 %), wherein EDR=[(D-d)/D]×100% (the referring to the scale in the annotated image, “Saito, fig. 2b, part of the reverse inclined structure”, D is approximately d, so EDR=[(D-d)/D]×100% = 0 %, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art to modify the relative dimensions D and d in Saito such that 0.0% < EDR < 6.0% is satisfied, because it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).).
Regarding claim 15, combination Saito-Kwon-Chou discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and Chou further teaches wherein the distance between each of the valley points (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, valley point) and the concave end (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, the concave end) disposed on the image side (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, image side) thereof along the optical axis (Chou, fig. 3, optical axis, L) is a1 (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, a1), the distance between the two concave ends of each of the annular concave structures (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, the two concave ends of each of the annular concave) along the optical axis (Chou, fig. 3, optical axis, L) is a2 (see annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, a2), and following condition is satisfied:
0.10 < a1/a2 < 0.70 (approximately 0.52; the referring to the scale in the annotated image, “Chou, part of fig. 3”, a1/a2 = 0.12/0.23 =0.52; it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Saito to have the specific annular concave as taught by Chou for the purpose to provide a miniaturized auto-focus driving structure which facilitates assembly (Chou, col 1, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 17, combination Saito-Kwon-Chou discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and Saito further teaches wherein an electronic device, comprising:
the camera module of claim 10 (see claim 10, Saito, fig. 2b, camera module 50); and
an image sensor (fig. 2b, image sensor 51) disposed on an image surface of the camera module (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the image sensor 51 disposed on an image surface of the camera module 50, paragraph [0048] “CMOS-type image sensor 51, serving as a solid imaging element, including photo-electrical conversion section 51a”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US20100177238, of record, see IDS dated 9/4/2024) in view of Kwon et al. (CN104570547A, English translation attached) and Chou et al. (US8805176, of record, see IDS dated 9/4/2024), and further in view of Gutierrez et al. (US20100284081, of record, see IDS dated 9/4/2024).
Regarding claim 16, combination Saito-Kwon-Chou discloses the invention as described in Claim 10, Saito does not explicitly disclose wherein further comprising:
a transparent plate disposed on an object side of the object-side opening, wherein the object-side opening of the unitary element is disposed closer to the transparent plate than the through hole of the cover.
However, in the analogous camera module (Gutierrez in his claim 20: an integrated lens barrel for a miniature camera), and Gutierrez further teaches wherein further comprising:
a transparent plate (Gutierrez, fig.1, cover 102) disposed on an object side of the object-side opening (Gutierrez, fig.2, opening 131), wherein the object-side opening of the unitary element (fig. 2, paragraph [0088] by integrating features such as autofocus and shuttering with the lens barrel) is disposed closer to the transparent plate than the through hole of the cover (see paragraph [0046], a front 102 cover can have an opening 131 formed therein to admit light).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Saito to have the specific transparent plate as taught by Gutierrez for the purpose to construct smaller miniature cameras with desirable(Gutierrez, paragraph [0015]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claim, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper.
Specifically, with respect to claim 2, although the prior art teaches further comprising: a light blocking sheet (Saito, fig. 2b, SM light shielding mask), wherein the reverse inclined structure (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the reverse inclined structure) is disposed between the light blocking sheet (Saito, fig. 2b, SM light shielding mask) and the object-side opening (see annotated image, Saito, fig. 2b, the object-side opening), according to claim 1, but none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an apparatus including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein a distance between the light blocking sheet and the object-side opening along the optical axis is L, and the following condition is satisfied:
0.15 mm<L<1.4 mm.
Claims 3-4 are also would be allowable due to their dependence on claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Moon et al. US20190250312 (fig. 28), Wang et al. US20170123179 (fig. 2 and fig. 3), and Hirata et al. US7419315 (fig. 1 and fig. 15) teach a camera module as described in Claim 1, but none of them teaches a distance between the light blocking sheet and the object-side opening along the optical axis is L, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.15 mm<L<1.4 mm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571) 272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Sun, Pinping can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights