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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 17/252,070, 17/739,381, 18/198,616, KR 10-2018-0075773 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically, none of the prior applications provide support for claim 3. Specifically, the widths of the coils are never disclosed. The drawings are never said to be drawn to scale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,610.
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 of ‘610 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 20.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,696,032.
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 of ‘032 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 20.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,991.
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 of ‘991 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 20.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hubert et al. (US 2019/0141248 A1) hereinafter referenced as Hubert.
Regarding claim 20, Hubert discloses
A camera device comprising:
first substrate (114; fig. 1),
a second substrate (122; fig. 1) disposed on the first substrate;
an image sensor (108; fig. 1) disposed on the second substrate; and
a coil (132; fig. 1) and a magnet (116; fig. 1) configured to move the image sensor.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert in view of Lee et al. (WO 2017/010745 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee (corresponding US publication US 2018/0203203 A1 is used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Hubert discloses,
A camera device comprising:
a first substrate (114; fig. 2),
a second substrate (122; fig. 2) disposed on the first substrate;
an image sensor (108; fig. 2) disposed on the second substrate;
a third substrate (124; fig. 2) connecting the first substrate and the second substrate; and
a coil (132; fig. 2) and a magnet (116; fig. 2) configured to move the image sensor,
wherein the image sensor comprises first and second lateral surfaces opposite to each other, and third and fourth lateral surfaces opposite to each other (fig. 3).
wherein the coil comprises first to third coils (316; fig. 3),
However, Hubert, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed positions of the coils. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein, when viewed from above, the first coil (Lower left coil 1432 in fig 3) is disposed on an outer side of the first lateral surface (Lower left side in fig. 3) of the image sensor, the second coil (Rightmost upper coil 1431 in fig. 3)) is disposed on an outer side of the second lateral surface (upper right side) of the image sensor, and the third coil (Upper left coil 1432; fig. 5) is disposed on an outer side of the third lateral surface of the image sensor,
wherein at least a portion of the first coil is overlapped with the second coil in a direction perpendicular to the first lateral surface of the image sensor (fig. 5), and
wherein the second coil is closer to the fourth lateral surface (Lower right side; fig. 5) of the image sensor than to the third lateral surface of the image sensor (fig. 3).
Hubert teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor. Lee teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor wherein the voice coil motor comprises 6 coils and 6 magnets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the voice coil motor of Hubert with the voice coil motor of Lee to achieve the predictable result of stabilizing captured images.
Regarding claim 2, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, Hubert, fails to explicitly disclose first to third magnets. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein the magnet comprises first to third magnets (1420; fig. 5), and wherein the image sensor is configured to move to perform an Optical Image Stabilization function by the interaction between the first coil and the first magnet, between the second coil and the second magnet, and between the third coil and third magnet ([0163], [0170]; fig. 5).
Hubert teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor. Lee teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor wherein the voice coil motor comprises 6 coils and 6 magnets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the voice coil motor of Hubert with the voice coil motor of Lee to achieve the predictable result of stabilizing captured images.
Regarding claim 3, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, Hubert, fails to explicitly disclose a width of the second coil is smaller than the width of the third coil. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein a width of the second coil (rightmost upper coil 1431 in fig. 5) in a direction perpendicular to the third lateral surface of the image sensor is smaller than a width of the third coil (Upper left coil 1432 in in fig. 5) in the direction perpendicular to the first lateral surface of the image sensor (fig. 5).
Hubert teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor. Lee teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor wherein the voice coil motor comprises 6 coils and 6 magnets wherein some coils are different lengths than others. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the voice coil motor of Hubert with the voice coil motor of Lee to achieve the predictable result of stabilizing captured images.
Regarding claim 5, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Lee discloses, wherein the third coil (Lowermost right coil 1431 can be considered the third coil as well. In this configuration, the lower left coil 1432 is the first coil and the uppermost right coil 1431 is the second coil. The lower left side is the first lateral surface, the upper right side is the second lateral surface, the lower left side is the third lateral surface and the upper left side is the fourth lateral surface; fig. 3) is closer to the first lateral surface of the image sensor than to the second lateral surface of the image sensor.
Hubert teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor. Lee teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor wherein the voice coil motor comprises 6 coils and 6 magnets wherein some coils are different lengths than others. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the voice coil motor of Hubert with the voice coil motor of Lee to achieve the predictable result of stabilizing captured images.
Regarding claim 6, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Lee discloses, wherein the coil comprises a fourth coil (One of the lower right coils 1431; fig. 5), and
wherein, when viewed from above, the fourth coil is disposed on an outer side of the fourth lateral surface of the image sensor (fig. 5).
Hubert teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor. Lee teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor wherein the voice coil motor comprises 6 coils and 6 magnets wherein some coils are different lengths than others. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the voice coil motor of Hubert with the voice coil motor of Lee to achieve the predictable result of stabilizing captured images.
Regarding claim 7, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Hubert discloses, wherein the third substrate (124; fig. 1) is electrically connected with the image sensor and comprises a bent shape ([0054]; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition, Hubert discloses, wherein the bent shape of the third substrate is formed by being bent twice or more (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Hubert discloses, wherein the second substrate is a rigid printed circuit board (Frame member 122 is referred to as a platform which implies rigidity; [0053]; The frame member 122 is connected to electrical traces 130 and therefore can be considered a printed circuit board; fig. 1), and wherein the third substrate is a flexible printed circuit board (The flexure 124 includes electrical traces 130 and is flexible and therefore can be considered a flexible printed circuit board; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose whether the second substrate and third substrate are formed integrally or not. Using a one piece structure instead of a two pieces connected together would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V.B.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the second and third substrate to be formed integrally.
Regarding claim 11, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose the thicknesses of the second and third substrates. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this. Specifically, as taught by 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), when the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions (thickness) and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, the third substrate being thinner than the second substrate is to facilitate flexibility of the third substrate with respect to the second substrate to allow the second substrate to move while being connected by the third substrate. As the device of the combination is already capable of this, the thickness dimensions are merely an obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Regarding claim 12, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Hubert discloses, wherein the third substrate (124; fig. 1) is connected to an outer lateral surface of the second substrate (122; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Lee discloses, wherein the coil (1430; fig. 5) is overlapped with the magnet (1420; fig. 5) in an optical axis direction of the image sensor.
Hubert teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor. Lee teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor wherein the voice coil motor comprises 6 coils and 6 magnets wherein some coils are different lengths than others. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the voice coil motor of Hubert with the voice coil motor of Lee to achieve the predictable result of stabilizing captured images.
Regarding claim 14, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Hubert discloses, wherein the third substrate (124; fig. 2) is configured to movably support the second substrate (122; fig. 2) with respect to the first substrate (114; fig. 2; [0053]).
Regarding claim 18, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Hubert discloses, An optical instrument comprising:
a main body (fig. 15);
the camera device (1464; fig .15) of claim 1 disposed on the main body; and
a display (1412; fig. 15) disposed on the main body and outputting an image photographed by the camera device ([0163]).
Regarding claim 19, Hubert discloses,
A camera device comprising:
a second substrate (122; fig. 2);
an image sensor (108; fig. 2) disposed on the second substrate;
a third substrate (124; fig. 2) extending from the second substrate; and
a coil (132; fig. 2) and a magnet (116; fig. 2) configured to move the image sensor,
wherein the image sensor comprises first and second lateral surfaces opposite to each other, and third and fourth lateral surfaces opposite to each other (fig. 3).
wherein the coil comprises first to third coils (316; fig. 3),
However, Hubert, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed positions of the coils. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein, when viewed from above, the first coil (Lower left coil 1432 in fig 3) is disposed on an outer side of the first lateral surface (Lower left side in fig. 3) of the image sensor, the second coil (Rightmost upper coil 1431 in fig. 3)) is disposed on an outer side of the second lateral surface (upper right side) of the image sensor, and the third coil (Upper left coil 1432; fig. 5) is disposed on an outer side of the third lateral surface of the image sensor,
wherein at least a portion of the first coil is overlapped with the second coil in a direction perpendicular to the first lateral surface of the image sensor (fig. 5), and
wherein the second coil is closer to the fourth lateral surface (Lower right side; fig. 5) of the image sensor than to the third lateral surface of the image sensor (fig. 3).
Hubert teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor. Lee teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor wherein the voice coil motor comprises 6 coils and 6 magnets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the voice coil motor of Hubert with the voice coil motor of Lee to achieve the predictable result of stabilizing captured images.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert in view of Lee further in view of Ito (US 2017/0272658 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose that the first coil is closer to the fourth lateral surface. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Ito.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ito discloses wherein the first coil (CZC; fig. 2A) is closer to the fourth lateral surface (Upper side; fig. 2A) of the image sensor than to the third lateral surface (Lower side; fig. 2A) of the image sensor.
The combination teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor. Ito teaches a camera module having an OIS which moves the image sensor using a voice coil motor wherein the voice coil motor comprises two coils on opposite sides of the image sensor that are closer to the same perpendicular side. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the voice coil motor of the combination with the voice coil motor of Ito to achieve the predictable result of stabilizing captured images.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert in view of Lee further in view of Teramoto et al. (US 2008/0049109 A1) hereinafter referenced as Teramoto.
Regarding claim 15, Hubert and Lee, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Hubert discloses,
wherein the second substrate (122; fig. 2) comprises a coupling part coupled to the image sensor (Sensor is fixed to platform 122; [0054]), and an extension part (Any part of the platform 122 between the image sensor 108 and flexure 124; fig. 2) extending outwardly from the coupling part,
wherein at least a portion of the extension part of the second substrate is overlapped with the first substrate (114; fig. 2) in an optical axis direction of the image sensor (fig. 2).
However, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose a ball between the first substrate and extension part of the second substrate. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Teramoto.
In a similar field of endeavor, Teramoto discloses wherein a ball (112; figs. 3, 4) is disposed between the first substrate (52; fig. 3) and the extension part of the second substrate (Part of substrate 60 outside of the image sensor 54; fig. 3).
The combination teaches a camera module wherein a substrate carrying an image sensor is moved relative to another substrate underneath in a plane orthogonal to the optical axis for image stabilization. Teramoto teaches a substrate carrying an image sensor which moves relative to another substrate underneath in a plane orthogonal to the optical axis for image stabilization wherein a ball is provided between the two substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of providing a ball between the two substrates to achieve the predictable result of facilitating movement of the image sensor within a specified space.
Regarding claim 16, Hubert, Lee, and Teramoto, the combination discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 15), in addition, Teramoto discloses, wherein the first substrate (52; fig. 3) comprises a groove (56a; fig. 3) formed on an upper surface of the first substrate, and
wherein the ball (112; fig. 3) is disposed on the groove of the first substrate.
The combination teaches a camera module wherein a substrate carrying an image sensor is moved relative to another substrate underneath in a plane orthogonal to the optical axis for image stabilization. Teramoto teaches a substrate carrying an image sensor which moves relative to another substrate underneath in a plane orthogonal to the optical axis for image stabilization wherein a ball is provided between the two substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of providing a ball between the two substrates to achieve the predictable result of facilitating movement of the image sensor within a specified space.
Regarding claim 17, Hubert, Lee, and Teramoto, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 15), in addition, Teramoto discloses, wherein the second coil (124; fig. 6A) is overlapped with the ball (112; fig. 6A) in the optical axis direction.
The combination teaches a camera module wherein a substrate carrying an image sensor is moved relative to another substrate underneath in a plane orthogonal to the optical axis for image stabilization. Teramoto teaches a substrate carrying an image sensor which moves relative to another substrate underneath in a plane orthogonal to the optical axis for image stabilization wherein a ball is provided between the two substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of providing a ball between the two substrates to achieve the predictable result of facilitating movement of the image sensor within a specified space.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2011/0097061 A1) discloses a VCM having coils on four sides of the image sensor where the second coil is closer to one perpendicular edge of the image sensor than the other (fig. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 1/8/2026