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 .
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-19 received 9/24/2024, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 9/24/2024 and 12/9/2025 were considered.
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, an opening penetrating the rotation holder (3300) in a direction in which the first shake correction magnet and the first shake correction coil face each other, as set forth in claim 5, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that it is interpreted that claim 5 is intended to be referring to the reflective holder (3200), and not to the rotation holder (3300).
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 13-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minamisawa et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0283404 A1 (hereafter Minamisawa).
Regarding claim 1, Minamisawa discloses a camera module (see at least the abstract), comprising:
a housing (see at least element 10);
a reflection module comprising a reflective member, and supported on the housing (see at least elements 5, 33, 34, 37, 38);
a lens module comprising a plurality of lenses arranged in an optical axis direction, and supported on the housing in a direction different from that of the reflection module (see at least elements 6, 37, 38, para. [0026]),
wherein the reflection module is configured to be rotatable with respect to the housing using an optical axis and a first axis perpendicular to the optical axis, as rotation axes (see at least elements 5, 33, 34, 37, 38, 16, 17, para. [0028]), and
the reflection module is supported on the housing in the optical axis direction (see at least element 5 which is supported indirectly through elements 37, 38 in the optical axis direction).
It is noted that claim 1 lacks any specific structure which would make the reflection module be “configured to” be rotatable with respect to the housing using an optical axis and a first axis perpendicular to the optical axis, such as the structure set forth in the limitations of claims 2, 3 and 5 which appears to enable the reflection module to be rotatable with respect to the housing using an optical axis and a first axis perpendicular to the optical axis. Therefore, absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the reflection module of Minamisawa from the claimed invention, the reflection module of Minamisawa is considered capable of achieving the claimed characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to be rotatable with respect to the housing using an optical axis and a first axis perpendicular to the optical axis”.
Additionally, it is emphasized that "[w]hile features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 13, Minamisawa discloses a camera module (see at least the abstract), comprising:
a housing (see at least element 10);
a reflection module comprising a reflective member, and supported on one surface of the housing (see at least elements 5, 33, 34, 37, 38);
a first lens module comprising at least one lens through which light is incident, and disposed on the reflection module so that light passing through the at least one lens is incident on the reflective member (see at least element 3); and
a second lens module comprising a plurality of lenses through which the light reflected by the reflective member is incident and emitted (see at least elements 6, para. [0026]),
wherein the reflection module is configured to be rotatable with respect to the housing using an optical axis of the second lens module and a first axis perpendicular to the optical axis of the second lens module as rotation axes (see at least elements 5, 33, 34, 37, 38, 16, 17, para. [0028]), and
wherein the reflection module is supported on the housing in the optical axis direction of the second lens module (see at least element 5 which is supported indirectly through elements 37, 38 in the optical axis direction).
It is noted that claim 13 lacks any specific structure which would make the reflection module be “configured to” be rotatable with respect to the housing using an optical axis of the second lens module and a first axis perpendicular to the optical axis of the second lens module as rotation axes. Therefore, absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the reflection module of Minamisawa from the claimed invention, the reflection module of Minamisawa is considered capable of achieving the claimed characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to be rotatable with respect to the housing using an optical axis of the second lens module and a first axis perpendicular to the optical axis of the second lens module as rotation axes”.
Additionally, it is emphasized that "[w]hile features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 14, Minamisawa discloses the limitations of claim 13, and wherein the reflection module comprises: a rotation holder supported on the housing, and configured to be rotated using the optical axis of the second lens module as a rotation axis (see at least elements 9, 37, 38 and 17); and a reflective holder supported on the rotation holder, and configured to be rotated using the first axis as a rotation axis (see at least elements 15, 33, 34 and 16).
Regarding claim 18, Minamisawa discloses a camera module (see at least the abstract), comprising:
a housing (see at least element 10);
a reflection module comprising a reflective member (see at least element 5) disposed on a reflective holder (see at least element 15) rotatably disposed on a rotation holder (see at least elements 33, 34, 9), and rotatably disposed in the housing supported on a surface of the housing (see at least elements 15, 33, 34, 37, 38, 10);
a lens module disposed in the housing and comprising a plurality of lenses disposed in an optical axis direction along which light reflected by the reflective member is incident (see at least elements 6, para. [0026]);
a first shake correction magnet disposed on a bottom surface of the reflective holder and a first shake correction coil disposed in the housing to face the first shake correction magnet configured to generate driving force to rotate the reflective holder about a first axis perpendicular to the optical axis (see at least elements 22 and 23, para. [0036], wherein without further defining structure it is interpreted that “a bottom surface of the reflective holder” is subjective and dependent on an orientation of the reflective holder/camera module); and
a second shake correction magnet disposed on a side surface of the rotation holder and a second shake correction coil disposed in the housing to face the second shake correction magnet configured to generate a driving force to rotate the rotation holder about the optical axis (see at least elements 28 and 29, para. [0038]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minamisawa et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0283404 A1 (hereafter Minamisawa) in view of Hegels et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0164415 A1 (hereafter Hegels).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Minamisawa discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 18, and further comprising: at least one lens through which light is incident is mounted (see at least element 3).
Minamisawa does not specifically disclose a lens barrel, wherein the lens barrel is coupled to the reflection module and rotated with the reflection module using the optical axis and the first axis as rotation axes.
However, Hegels teaches a camera module including a lens which is rotated with a reflection module (see at least figures 2A-2C, elements 101, 103 of Hegels).
Additionally, Official Notice is taken that lens barrels and mounts for holding optical elements in relation to each other are old and well-known in the optical arts for holding optical elements in desired relationships to one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the lens be held in a lens barrel coupled to the reflection module, for the purpose of holding optical elements in desired relationships to one another, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-BlackRock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673,675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303,306 (1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the camera module of Minamisawa to include the teachings of Hegels so that the lens barrel is coupled to the reflection module and rotated with the reflection module using the optical axis and the first axis as rotation axes, for the purpose of directing light into the camera module while enabling rotation of the lens barrel and reflection module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 15-17 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:
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited art of record, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a camera module including a plurality of ball members disposed between the reflection module and the housing, wherein the plurality of ball members comprise: a rotation axis ball through which the optical axis passes; and a plurality of guide balls disposed to be spaced apart from the rotation axis ball, and configured to roll when the reflection module rotates, as generally set forth in claim 2, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited art of record, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a camera module wherein the reflection module further comprises: a rotation holder supported on the housing, and configured to rotate using the optical axis as a rotation axis; and a reflective holder supported on the rotation holder, and configured to rotate using the first axis as a rotation axis, and wherein a direction in which the reflective holder is supported on the rotation holder is parallel to a direction in which the rotation holder is supported on the housing, as generally set forth in claim 3, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1 from which claim 3 depends.
Claims 4-11 depend from claim 3 and therefore are objected to for at least the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited art of record, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a camera module including a plurality of ball members disposed between the rotation holder and a surface of the housing facing in the optical axis direction of the second lens module, wherein the plurality of ball members comprise: a rotation axis ball through which the optical axis passes; and a plurality of guide balls disposed to be spaced apart from the rotation axis ball, and configured to roll when the reflection module rotates, as generally set forth in claim 15, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 14 from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited art of record, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a camera module including a plurality of ball members disposed between the reflective holder and the rotation holder, wherein the reflective holder is supported on the rotation holder in the optical axis direction of the second lens module by the plurality of ball members, as generally set forth in claim 16, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 14 from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited art of record, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a camera module wherein the reflection module comprises: a first shake correction driving unit comprising a first shake correction magnet and a first shake correction coil disposed to face each other in a second axis direction perpendicular to both the optical axis of the second lens module and the first axis, configured to generate driving force to rotate the reflective member using the first axis as a rotation axis; and a second shake correction driving unit comprising a second shake correction magnet and a second shake correction coil disposed to face each other in a direction of the first axis, configured to generate driving force to rotate the reflective member using the optical axis of the second lens module as a rotation axis, as generally set forth in claim 17, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 13 from which claim 17 depends.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Osaka et al., US 2024/0045309 A1, discloses a similar camera module wherein a reflection module is rotated around an optical axis and a first perpendicular axis (figs. 2-29); and
Chang et al., US 2022/0030168 A1, discloses a similar camera module wherein a reflection module is rotated around an optical axis and a first perpendicular axis (figs. 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, 22, 25, 26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/2/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights