Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et al. (US 2023/0116701, hereinafter Huh) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0181460, hereinafter Lee) and further in view of Lee (KR 20210086417, hereinafter ‘417).
Re claim 1, Huh discloses, a camera module, comprising: a first lens group (LG1) comprising a lens disposed in a direction of a first optical axis (C1); a second lens group (LG2) comprising a lens disposed in a direction of a second optical axis (C2), intersecting the first optical axis; a first optical path conversion unit (P1) configured to reflect light incident through the first lens group to the second lens group (figs 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19); an image sensor (IS) configured to convert light incident through the second lens group into an electrical signal (par [0113]), and having a third optical axis which intersects the second optical axis (par [0179]); a second optical path conversion unit (P2) (fig 7) disposed between the second lens group and the image sensor and configured to reflect the light incident through the second lens group to the image sensor (fig 7); wherein the first optical axis and the third optical axis are configured to form an acute angle (fig 7).
Huh fails to explicitly disclose limitations which are disclosed by Lee as follows: a first driving unit configured to drive at least one of the first optical path conversion unit and the image sensor (pars [0066] and [0120]), wherein the first driving unit is configured to rotate the first optical path conversion unit (fig 14), and is further configured to move the first optical path conversion unit in a first direction that intersects the first optical axis (fig 14)
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine a first driving unit configured to drive at least one of the first optical path conversion unit and the image sensor, wherein the first driving unit is configured to rotate the first optical path conversion unit, and is further configured to move the first optical path conversion unit in a first direction that intersects the first optical axis of Lee with the module of Huh in order to enable image capturing or video capturing of a moving object and/or a moving camera module.
The combination of Huh and Lee fails to explicitly disclose limitations which are disclosed by ‘417 as follows: wherein the first driving unit is configured to rotate the first optical path conversion unit (fig 2, Abstract), and is further configured to move the first optical path conversion unit in a first direction that intersects the first optical axis and in a second direction that intersects the first optical axis (fig 2, Abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine wherein the first driving unit is configured to rotate the first optical path conversion unit, and is further configured to move the first optical path conversion unit in a first direction that intersects the first optical axis and in a second direction that intersects the first optical axis of ‘417 with the module of Huh and Lee in order to enable image capturing or video capturing of a moving object and/or a moving camera module.
Claims 9, 14, and 16 are rejected for the reasons stated in claims 1, 2, and 1, respectively. The module as claimed would have been obvious and expected by the module of Huh, Lee, and ‘417.
Re claim 15, the combination of Huh, Lee, and ‘417discloses the limitations of claim 9 including wherein the second optical path conversion unit is configured to include two or more reflective surfaces (Huh S13, S14).
Re claim 17, the combination of Huh, Lee, and ‘417 discloses the limitations of claim 16 including wherein a second lens of the second lens group has refractive power, and a third lens of the second lens group has negative refractive power (Huh figs 15 and 17). The combination discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of a second lens of the second lens group has positive refractive power. The refractive power is viewed as a means to optimize ambient light collection to capture an image. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a positive refractive power for a second lens, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh, Lee, and ‘417 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hartlove et al. (US 2006/0092311, hereinafter Hartlove).
Re claim 4, the combination of Huh, Lee, and ‘417 discloses the limitations of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose limitations which are disclosed by Hartlove as follows: wherein the first driving unit is configured to move the image sensor in a third direction intersecting the third optical axis (Abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine wherein the first driving unit is configured to move the image sensor in a third direction intersecting the third optical axis of Hartlove with the module of Huh, Lee, and ‘417 in order to more precisely enable image capturing or video capturing of a moving object and/or a moving camera module by controlling the image sensor.
Re claim 5, the combination of Huh, Lee, and ‘417 discloses the limitations of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose limitations which are disclosed by Hartlove as follows: wherein the first driving unit is configured to move the image sensor in a third direction intersecting the third optical axis and a fourth direction intersecting the third optical axis (Abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine wherein the first driving unit is configured to move the image sensor in a third direction intersecting the third optical axis and a fourth direction intersecting the third optical axis.of Hartlove with the module of Huh, Lee, and ‘417 in order to more precisely enable image capturing or video capturing of a moving object and/or a moving camera module by controlling the image sensor.
Claim(s) 6, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh, Lee, and ‘417 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nomura et al. (US 2008/0291543, hereinafter Nomura).
Re claim 6, the combination of Huh, Lee, and ‘417 discloses the limitations of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose limitations which are disclosed by Nomura as follows: further comprising a second driving unit configured to move the second lens group in the direction of the second optical axis (par [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine a second driving unit configured to move the second lens group in the direction of the second optical axis of Nomura with the module of Huh, Lee, and ‘417 in order to provide an imaging unit having compact design which is easy to handle during manufacturing and maintenance.
Claim 10 is rejected for the reasons stated in claim 6. The module as claimed would have been obvious and expected by the module of Huh, Lee, ‘417, and Nomura.
Re claim 11, the combination of Huh, Lee, ‘417, and Nomura discloses the limitations of claim 10 including a ball bearing disposed between the group and a housing that accommodates the second lens group (Lee 272, 274). The combination discloses the claimed invention except for disposed between the second lens group and a housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange ball bearings where necessary to prevent impact damage of moving parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
Claim(s) 7, 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh, Lee, and ‘417 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shigemitsu et al. (US 2020/0073028, hereinafter Shigemitsu).
Re claim 7, the combination of Huh, Lee, and ‘417 discloses the limitations of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose limitations which are disclosed by Shigemitsu as follows: wherein the first optical path conversion unit is configured to have positive refractive power (fig 6, par [0047]).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine wherein the first optical path conversion unit is configured to have positive refractive power of Shigemitsu with the module of Huh, Lee, and ‘417 in order to provide an imaging lens system that is capable of capturing high brightness, high resolution images under the physical constraints imposed by small form factor cameras.
Re claim 8, the combination of Huh, Lee, ‘417, and Shigemitsu discloses the limitations of claim 7 including wherein an emission surface of the first optical path conversion unit has a convex shape (Shigemitsu fig 6, par [0047]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected for the reasons stated in claims 7 and 8, respectively. The module as claimed would have been obvious and expected by the module of Huh, Lee, ‘417, and Shigemitsu.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOEL W FOSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3728. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/JOEL W FOSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights