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 .
Amendment
The Response, filed on February 10, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated November 19, 2025, the title and claims 1, 4, 9, 10 and 18-20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to the title, Applicant has amended the title to be more clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Therefore, the outstanding objection to the title is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 5, Applicant has amended the claims to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 16-20, Applicant argues that “In this case, since the control circuit board 6 is integrated within the camera body 10, the drive controller 26 or the anti-shake section 91 (equivalent to a control module) is integrated inside the camera body 10 (i.e., camera module), not outside the camera body 10 (i.e., camera module).” (Remarks, p. 4). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Teramoto is still found to teach the added subject matter of the most recent amendment. Specifically, Teramoto teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., fig. 8, at least element 21), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the camera module (e.g., fig. 8, at least elements 23-25), a main board (e.g., fig. 20, element 6; [0121]), located outside of the camera module (e.g., fig. 6; control board 6 is located separate from at least element 21) and a control module (e.g., fig. 29, elements 900 and 91; fig. 30, element 91) arranged on the main board (e.g., [0121]) and electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., fig. 6), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., fig. 12; [0100-101]) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., figs. 6 and 12; [0101]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0101]). In light of at least the above, the Examiner stands behind the teaching of the art as applied to the claims as currently written.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 10-17, Applicant argues that “Brown fails to disclose that the main board is located outside of the camera module as recited in claim 1” (Remarks, p. 5). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Brown is still found to teach the added subject matter of the most recent amendment. Specifically, Brown can be read to teach the recited subject matter, as Brown teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., fig. 1, element 13; [0037]; the Examiner notes that the term “camera module” is merely a label open to interpretation), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, elements 30, 31-34, arranged on element 13), a main board located outside the camera module (e.g., fig. 1, element 14, with element 14 being outside of element 13), and a control module, arranged on the main board and electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., fig. 1, elements 40 and 42; [0045]; fig. 4), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., [0067-68]) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., [0071-74]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0067-74]). In light of at least the above, the Examiner stands behind the teaching of the art as applied to the claims as currently written.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 10-17, Applicant argues that “the main board 110 in Zhang cannot be equivalent to the main board 130 in claim 1, and Zhang fails to disclose that the main board is located outside of the camera module as recited in claim 1” (Remarks, p. 6). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the main board 110 in Zhang cannot be equivalent to the main board 130 in claim 1 based on their interpretation of what Applicant interprets as equivalents. However, as provided in the rejection, Zhang clearly teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 120; [0031]), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, elements 122 and 124 are arranged on element 120; [0031]), a main board (e.g. figs. 1 and 2, element 110; [0031]) located outside of the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 110 is separate from element 120), and a control module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 112; [0031]), arranged on the main board and electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., figs. 1 and 2), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., 0032-34) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., [0034-35]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0034-35]). In light of at least the above, the Examiner stands behind the teaching of the art as applied to the claims as currently written.
Applicant also argues claims 18 and 20 based on their similarities to claim 1, and the dependent claims based on their dependency to claims 1 or 18. Applicant is directed to the responses to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claim 1, supra.
* * * * * * * *
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“anti-shake determining unit” in claim 4;
“servo control unit” in claim 4;
“analog-to-digital conversion unit” in claim 5;
“digital-to-analog conversion unit” in claim 5;
“first detecting unit” in claim 8,
“second detecting unit” in claim 8,
and
“motion sensor module” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 2, 6, 7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0133786 to Teramoto.
Regarding claim 1, Teramoto teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., fig. 8, at least element 21), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the camera module (e.g., fig. 8, at least elements 23-25), a main board (e.g., fig. 20, element 6; [0121]), located outside of the camera module (e.g., fig. 6; control board 6 is located separate from at least element 21) and a control module (e.g., fig. 29, elements 900 and 91; fig. 30, element 91) arranged on the main board (e.g., [0121]) and electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., fig. 6), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., fig. 12; [0100-101]) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., figs. 6 and 12; [0101]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0101]).
Regarding claim 2, Teramoto teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the electronic device further comprising a detecting module (e.g., [0164], Hall sensors), arranged on the camera module and configured to detect a position of the camera module (e.g., [0164]), wherein the detecting module is electrically coupled to the control module to feedback the position of the camera module to the control module (e.g., [0164]; fig. 30).
Regarding claim 6, Teramoto teaches all the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the anti-shake motor assembly comprises a first driver, connected to the camera module and configured to drive the camera module to rotate around a first direction (e.g., fig. 6, element 23; figs. 4A and 4B; also, [0164]) and a second driver, connected to the camera module and configured to drive the camera module to rotate around a second direction (e.g., fig. 6, element 24; figs. 4A and 4B; also, [0164]), wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (e.g., figs. 1, 4A and 4B; also, [0164]).
Regarding claim 7, Teramoto teaches all the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 6, supra) including teaching wherein the anti-shake motor assembly further comprises a first driving chip is electrically coupled to the control module and the first driver, and configured to transmit the driving electrical signal to the first driver (e.g., fig. 12, element 2631; [0101]; the recitation “a first driving chip”, absent a recitation of structural specificity and in view of the lack of a known and accepted meaning in the camera arts, is interpreted as merely a label open to broad interpretation), and a second driving chip electrically coupled to the control module and the second driver, and configured to transmit the driving electrical signal to the second driver (e.g., fig. 12, element 2632; [0101]; the recitation “a second driving chip”, absent a recitation of structural specificity and in view of the lack of a known and accepted meaning in the camera arts, is interpreted as merely a label open to broad interpretation).
Regarding claim 16, Teramoto teaches all the limitations of claim 16 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the electronic device further comprising a motion sensor module (e.g., figs. 19 and 30, element 50; [0119], [0129-130]), electrically coupled to the control module and configured to detect the motion state of the electronic device and transmit the motion state of the electronic device to the control module (e.g., figs. 30 and 31; [0158] and [0165]).
Regarding claim 17, Teramoto teaches all the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 16, supra) including teaching wherein the motion sensor module comprises a gyroscope sensor (e.g., fig. 19, element 50; [0119], [0129-130]) or a six-axis acceleration sensor.
Regarding claim 18, Teramoto teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., fig. 8, at least element 21), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the camera module (e.g., fig. 8, at least elements 23-25), and
a control module (e.g., fig. 29, elements 900 and 91; fig. 30, element 91), electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly, non-integrated into the camera module (e.g., fig. 20, see element 6; [0121]), and located outside of the camera module (e.g., fig. 6; [0149], [0100], [0121]), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., fig. 12; [0100-101]) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., figs. 6 and 12; [0101]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0101]).
Regarding claim 19, Teramoto teaches all the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 18, supra) including teaching the electronic device further comprising a circuit board (e.g., fig. 20, element 6; [0121]), independent from the camera module and located outside of the camera module (e.g., fig. 6; control board 6 is located separate from at least element 21), wherein the control module (e.g., fig. 29, elements 900 and 91; fig. 30, element 91) is arranged on the circuit board (e.g., [0121]).
Regarding claim 20, Teramoto teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., fig. 8, at least element 21), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the module (e.g., fig. 8, at least elements 23-25), a circuit board, independent from the camera module (e.g., fig. 20, element 6; [0121]) and located outside of the camera module (e.g., fig. 6; control board 6 is located separate from at least element 21), and a control module, arranged on the circuit board and electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., fig. 20, see element 6; [0121]), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., fig. 12; [0100-101]) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., figs. 6 and 12; [0101]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0101]).
Claims 1, 2 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0019675 to Brown.
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., fig. 1, element 13; [0037]; the Examiner notes that the term “camera module” is merely a label open to interpretation), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, elements 30, 31-34, arranged on element 13), a main board located outside the camera module (e.g., fig. 1, element 14, with element 14 being outside of element 13), and a control module, arranged on the main board and electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., fig. 1, elements 40 and 42; [0045]; fig. 4), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., [0067-68]) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., [0071-74]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0067-74]).
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the electronic device further comprising a detecting module (e.g., fig. 1, element 41), arranged on the camera module and configured to detect a position of the camera module (e.g., fig. 1; [0066-67]), wherein the detecting module is electrically coupled to the control module to feedback the position of the camera module to the control module (e.g., [0066-67]).
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the camera module comprises a body (e.g., fig. 1, element 13; [0037]), a lens (e.g., element 12; [0037]), located in the body (e.g., fig. 1, element 12 is within the boundaries of element 13), configured to collect ambient lights (e.g., fig. 1, element 11; [0037]), and a sensor,
located in the body (e.g., fig. 1, element 11 is within the boundaries of element 13) and
configured to receive the lights transmitted by a lens and convert an optical signal into an electrical signal (e.g., fig. 1, elements 11, 13 and 14; [0037]).
Regarding claim 11, Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 10, supra) including teaching wherein the anti-shake motor assembly comprises a first motor, arranged on the sensor and configured to drive the sensor to achieve optical anti-shake of the sensor (e.g., fig. 2, at least elements 31, 32, 33 and 34, to the left side of the figure; [0044], [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 11, supra) including teaching wherein the first motor is a shape memory alloy motor (e.g., [0044]), and the first motor comprises a first motor body (e.g., fig. 2, element 32), and a first driving unit (e.g., fig. 2, element 33), connected to the first motor body and a rear surface of the sensor (e.g., fig. 1; the claim as currently recited does not establish what constitutes a “rear surface”, i.e., by way of an anchored point from which directions can be determined, nor does the claim as currently recited require direct connection).
Regarding claim 13, Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 13 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 10, supra) including teaching wherein the anti-shake motor assembly comprises a second motor, arranged on the lens and configured to drive the lens to achieve optical anti-shake of the lens (e.g., fig. 2, at least elements 31-34, at least indirectly; [0044], [0057]). .
Regarding claim 14, Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 13, supra) including teaching wherein the second motor comprises a second motor body (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, elements 13 and 32), and a second driving unit (e.g., fig. 2, element 33), connected to the second motor body and the lens (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; the claim as currently recited does not require direct connection).
Regarding claim 15 Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) including teaching wherein a through hole is defined on the second motor body, and the lens is disposed in the through hole (e.g., figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 16, Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 16 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the electronic device further comprising a motion sensor module (e.g., fig. 1, element 41; [0066-67]), electrically coupled to the control module and configured to detect the motion state of the electronic device and transmit the motion state of the electronic device to the control module (e.g., fig. 1; [0066-67]).
Regarding claim 17, Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 16, supra) including teaching wherein the motion sensor module comprises a gyroscope sensor (e.g., fig. 1, element 41; [0066-67]) or a six-axis acceleration sensor.
Claims 1, 2 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication No. 110012224 to Zhang (Applicant provided translation via IDS dated September 4, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 120; [0031]), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, elements 122 and 124 are arranged on element 120; [0031]), a main board (e.g. figs. 1 and 2, element 110; [0031]) located outside of the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 110 is separate from element 120), and a control module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 112; [0031]), arranged on the main board and electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., figs. 1 and 2), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., 0032-34) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., [0034-35]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0034-35]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the electronic device further comprising a detecting module, arranged on the camera module (e.g., [0042], Hall sensor) and configured to detect a position of the camera module (e.g., [0042]), wherein the detecting module is electrically coupled to the control module to feedback the position of the camera module to the control module (e.g., [0042-48]).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 120; [0031]), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, elements 122 and 124 are arranged on element 120; [0031]), and a control module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 112; [0031]), electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 124; [0037]), non-integrated into the camera module (e.g., e.g., figs. 1 and 2), and located outside of the camera module (e.g., e.g., figs. 1 and 2), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., 0032-34) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., [0034-35]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0034-35]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 18, supra) including teaching the electronic device further comprising a circuit board (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 110; [0031]), independent from the camera module and located outside of the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; element 112 is located separate from element 120), wherein the control module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; element 112) is arranged on the circuit board (e.g., [0031]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang teaches an electronic device, comprising a camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 120; [0031]), an anti-shake motor assembly, arranged on the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, elements 122 and 124 are arranged on element 120; [0031], [0037-38]), a circuit board, independent from the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 110; [0031]) and located outside of the camera module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; element 112 is located separate from element 120), and a control module (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 112; [0031]), arranged on the circuit board and electrically coupled to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 112 on element 110; [0031]), the control module being configured to determine a driving electrical signal based on a motion state of the electronic device (e.g., 0032-34) and transmit the driving electrical signal to the anti-shake motor assembly (e.g., [0034-35]), and the driving electrical signal being configured to drive the anti-shake motor assembly to achieve optical anti-shake (e.g., [0034-35]).
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 3-5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teramoto in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0006229 to Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 3, Teramoto teaches all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the detecting module comprises a Hall sensor (e.g., [0164], Hall sensors), arranged on the camera module and configured to collect the position of the camera module (e.g., [0164]). Teramoto, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly an amplification circuit, electrically coupled to the Hall sensor and the control module, and configured to amplify and transmit a signal collected by the Hall sensor to the control module. It is noted that Teramoto does teach an amplification circuit for signal amplification of position sensors (e.g., [0158]).
Nevertheless, Ishikawa teaches a similar electronic device including a Hall sensor arranged on a camera module (e.g., fig. 4, elements 3033; [0055]), an amplification circuit (e.g., figs. 5 and 6, element 4021), electrically coupled to Hall sensors (e.g., figs. 4 and 5, Hall sensors 3033; [0055]) and a control module (e.g., fig. 6, element 4021f), and configured to amplify and transmit a signal collected by the Hall sensor to the control module (e.g., figs. 5 and 6). 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 amplification circuit and teachings of Ishikawa with the teachings of Teramoto, in order to ensure the signal is useful by way of amplification, as Hall sensors are generally known to produce a very weak voltage.
Regarding claim 4, Teramoto and Ishkawa teach all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3, supra) including teaching wherein the control module (‘786 – e.g., fig. 30, element 91) comprises an anti-shake determining unit (‘786 – e.g., fig. 30, at least element 913), configured to determine a target angular displacement of an anti-shake motor of the anti-shake motor assembly based on the motion state of the electronic device (‘786 – e.g., [0158], [0165-169]; fig. 31), and a servo control unit (e.g., [0169]), electrically coupled to the anti-shake determining unit, the detecting module, and the anti-shake motor assembly (‘786 – e.g., fig. 30; [0169]), and configured to control the anti-shake motor based on the target angular displacement and the position of camera module (‘786 – e.g., [0165-169]; fig. 31).
Regarding claim 5, Teramoto and Ishkawa teach all the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4, supra) including teaching wherein the amplification circuit comprises an amplifier (‘229 – e.g., fig. 6, element 4021a) comprising an input terminal being electrically coupled to the Hall sensor (‘229 – e.g., fig. 6, element 414), an output terminal (‘229 – e.g., fig. 6, element output of position detection circuit), having an analog-to-digital conversion unit (‘229 – e.g., fig. 5, element 4022), electrically coupled to the output terminal (‘229 – e.g., fig. 5) and a motor control unit (‘229 – e.g., fig. 5, element 412), and a digital-to-analog conversion unit (‘229 – e.g., fig. 6, element 4021f), electrically coupled to a control terminal (‘229 – e.g., fig. 6). 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 teachings of Ishikawa with the teachings of Teramoto in order to both amplify a signal from a Hall sensor to a useful level and then provide said output signal in digital form for additional calculation and/or use of servo motor control.
Regarding claim 8, Teramoto teaches all the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 6, supra) including teaching wherein the detecting module comprises a first detecting unit, configured to detect an actual angle of the camera module around the first direction (e.g., fig. 19, element 50b; [0129]), and a second detecting unit, arranged on the camera module and configured to detect an actual angle of the camera module around the second direction (e.g., fig. 19, element 50a; [0129]). Teramoto, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the first detecting unit and the second detecting unit being arranged on the camera module.
Nevertheless, Ishikawa teaches the concept of arranging detecting units on a camera module of a similar electronic device (e.g., fig. 3, elements 3013). 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 teachings of Ishikawa with the teachings of Teramoto in order get a more exact positioning response relative to the center of the camera module.
Regarding claim 9, Teramoto and Ishikawa teach all the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8, supra) including teaching wherein the control module is electrically coupled to the first detecting unit and the second detecting unit (‘786 – e.g., fig. 30), the control module is configured to obtain the actual angle of the camera module around the first direction from the first detecting unit, and compensate a rotation angle of the camera module around the second direction determined by the control module based on the actual angle of the camera module around the first direction (‘786 – e.g., fig. 4A and 4B; [0061-62]; fig. 31).
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.
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