DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication filed on July 8, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that there is no motivation for one skilled in the art to modify Jun in view of Chen. Chen discloses a housing configured to receive a camera, wherein the housing is attachable to a computing device, such as a PC. The housing itself is capable of tilting, rotating, and translating relative to the computing device. Thus, Chen is concerned with adjusting the position or orientation of an external camera housing relative to a host device. In contrast, both the present invention and Jun are directed to devices in which a camera module is rotatable or rockable within a housing, while the housing itself remains stationary relative to the computing device (i.e., a smartphone). These different arrangements address different mechanical environments and design considerations: Chen's movable housing must support and reposition the entire camera housing relative to the computing device, whereas Jun's structure concerns internal support and rocking of a camera module within a fixed housing. Nothing in Chen suggests modifying Jun's internal support arrangement, much less replacing or reconfiguring Jun's internal support members based on Chen's external housing positioning structure. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Chen's housing adjustment mechanism to modify Jun's module rocking mechanism, and the Office Action has not articulated a rational reason why such a modification would have been made.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As per Applicant’s assertion that the Examiner has not provided a motivation or articulated a rational reason for modifying Jun in view of Chen et al., the Examiner explicitly stated in the rejection of claim 1 that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical module and two first supports taught by Jun comprise an imaging element and a metallic material, respectively, as taught by Chen et al. for the benefit of enabling video conferencing and still image capture (Chen et al., paragraph 0019) while preventing structural failure and improving heat dissipation (Chen et al., paragraph 0026). As per Applicant’s argument that the housings of Jun and Chen et al. operate in different mechanical environments and have different design considerations, the Examiner points out that Chen et al. is only being relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 to teach an image sensor and the material of the tilt structure. The housing structures themselves of Chen et al. are not being incorporated into Jun in the rejection of claim 1, so whether these housing structures are different than the housing structures of Jun is inconsequential.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that even if Chen discloses certain tilt-related structures formed of metal, Chen does not teach or suggest the claimed two first supports formed of metal or ceramic in the context of Jun's internal module-driving device. Chen merely provides a general materials disclosure, stating that components may be formed from metal or non-metal materials and identifying polymer materials as examples. See Chen, paras. [0026]-[0027]. Such a broad and generic disclosure does not provide a reason to select ceramic, nor does it explain why one skilled in art would replace or modify Jun's internal support structure with ceramic supports. Ceramic is not simply an interchangeable material in this context; its hardness, wear resistance, dimensional stability, and thermal stability are relevant to the particular contact and support interface recited in the claims. Chen, however, is directed to a different housing level adjustment structure and provides no teaching that these ceramic related properties would be beneficial, necessary, or even applicable to Jun's internal rocking support arrangement. Accordingly, Chen's generalized reference to possible materials does not supply the missing teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Jun in the manner required by Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, the Examiner has provided an explicit motivation for modifying Jun in view of Chen et al., as discussed above. Applicant has not addressed this motivation or provided any reasons as to why it is allegedly improper. Chen et al. provides two supports (see the tilt structure (104) of figure 1) that are made of metal (“of a metal material”, paragraph 0026). Claim 1 requires that the first two supports are formed “of a metal or ceramic”. Thus claim 1 only requires that the first two supports are formed of one of either metal or ceramic. The combination of Jun and Chen et al. teaches that the two support members are formed of metal (see claim 1 rationale). Applicant’s arguments that Chen et al. does not teach using ceramic supports is irrelevant, as claim 1 does not requires that the first two supports be formed of ceramic, and Chen et al. is not relied upon to teach supports formed of ceramic.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that materials used for structures that adjust the position of an external housing relative to a computing device are selected to satisfy different mechanical requirements than materials used for supports that define a rocking interface for an imaging module within a compact module driving device. Chen's housing level structure must accommodate movement and positioning of the housing as a whole, whereas the claimed first supports provide localized contact surfaces between the module holder and the connection member and thereby directly affect rocking accuracy, friction, wear, durability, and dimensional stability at the internal support interface. Because Chen is directed to a different structure operating in a different mechanical environment, Chen provides no reasoned basis for selecting ceramic for Jun's internal support structure, much less for forming two opposed supports with projecting curved surfaces as claimed. Therefore, Chen does not teach or suggest the claimed ceramic support structure, and one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to modify Jun in view of Chen to arrive at the claimed arrangement.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, claim 1 requires that the first two supports are formed “of a metal or ceramic”. Thus claim 1 only requires that the first two supports are formed of one of either metal or ceramic. The combination of Jun and Chen et al. teaches that the two support members are formed of metal (see claim 1 rationale). Applicant’s arguments that Chen et al. does not teach using ceramic supports is irrelevant, as claim 1 does not requires that the first two supports be formed of ceramic, and Chen et al. is not relied upon to teach supports formed of ceramic. In the rejection of claim 1, the type of structure of the two first supports of Jun is not being modified by Chen et al. Rather, Jun is silent with respect to what material the two first supports (104) are comprised of, and Chen et al. suggests that metal is suitable material for the two supports because it is durable and can lead to long-term use without structural breakdown (see paragraph 0026 of Chen et al.).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained by the Examiner.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (US 2022/0086311) in view of Chen et al. (US 2024/0098349).
The Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments, as outlined above, is hereby incorporated into the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 7 by reference.
Consider claim 1, Jun teaches:
A module driving device (figures 2-11), comprising:
a module holder (second rotating case, 130) configured to hold an optical module (sub-module, 160, paragraph 0061) including a lens body (lens holder, 164, paragraph 0078);
a connection member (first rotating case, 120, paragraph 0061) connected to the module holder (130) such that the module holder (130) is rockable about a first axial line that crosses a direction of an optical axis (“For example, the second rotating case 130 may be installed in the first rotating case 120 so as to be rotatable about the second rotation shafts 104.” paragraph 0072);
a fixed-side member (fixed case, 110, paragraph 0061) connected to the connection member (120) such that the connection member (120) is rockable about a second axial line that crosses the direction of the optical axis and is perpendicular to an axial line direction of the first axial line (“For example, the first rotating case 120 may be installed on/using the first rotation shafts 102 to rotate about the first rotation shafts 102.” paragraph 0066, see figures 3-5 and 9-11); and
a driver (first driving wire, 140, second driving wire, 150, paragraph 0061) including a plurality of shape memory alloy wires (see paragraphs 0074 and 0076) configured to move the module holder (130) relative to the fixed-side member (110, see figures 9-11, paragraphs 0075 and 0077), wherein
two first supports (second rotation shafts, 104) are fixed to a first member (120, paragraph 0072) and disposed so as to face each other across the optical axis, in the axial line direction of the first axial line (see figure 5), the first member being one of the connection member (120, paragraph 0072, see figure 5),
at least a surface of the two first supports (104) that faces a second member (130) is formed as a projecting curved surface (see figure 5), the second member being another of the module holder (130) (see figure 5, paragraph 0072), and
the module holder (130) and the connection member (120) are disposed to overlap with each other in the direction of the optical axis via the two first supports (see figures 5 and 9-11, paragraph 0072).
However, Jun does not explicitly teach that the optical module includes an imaging element or that the two first supports are formed of a metal or ceramic.
Chen et al. similarly teaches a device housing (102) for image capture (see paragraph 0019), wherein the device housing (102) includes a tilt structure (104) for enabling rotation thereof (see paragraph 0022).
However, Chen et al. additionally teaches that the device housing includes an imaging element (imaging device, 140, paragraphs 0019 and 0020), and that the tilt structure (104) is made of metal (“For example, the tilt structure 104, the swivel structure 106, and/or the rail structure 108 can be of a metal material to allow for tilting of the housing 102 (e.g., via the tilt structure 104), rotation of the housing 102 (e.g., via the swivel structure 106), and/or translation of the housing 102 (e.g., via the rail structure 108) for a lifecycle of the apparatus 100 without structural failure of either the tilt structure 104, the swivel structure 106, and/or the rail structure 108.” paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical module and two first supports taught by Jun comprise an imaging element and a metallic material, respectively, as taught by Chen et al. for the benefit of enabling video conferencing and still image capture (Chen et al., paragraph 0019) while preventing structural failure and improving heat dissipation (Chen et al., paragraph 0026).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Jun further teaches that two second supports (first rotational shafts, 102) are fixed to a third member (110) and disposed so as to face each other across the optical axis (see figure 4, paragraphs 0065 and 0066), in an axial line direction of the second axial line (see figure 4), the third member being one of the fixed-side member (110), at least a surface of the two second supports (102) that faces a fourth member (120) is formed as a projecting curved surface (see figure 4), the fourth member being another of the connection member (120), and the connection member (120) and the fixed-side member (110) are disposed to overlap with each other in the direction of the optical axis (see figures 4 and 9-11) via the two second supports (102, see figures 4 and 9-11, and paragraphs 0065-0067).
However, Jun does not explicitly teach that the two second supports (102 are formed of a metal or ceramic.
Chen et al. similarly teaches a device housing (102) for image capture (see paragraph 0019), wherein the device housing (102) includes a tilt structure (104) for enabling rotation thereof (see paragraph 0022).
However, Chen et al. additionally teaches that the tilt structure (104) is made of metal (“For example, the tilt structure 104, the swivel structure 106, and/or the rail structure 108 can be of a metal material to allow for tilting of the housing 102 (e.g., via the tilt structure 104), rotation of the housing 102 (e.g., via the swivel structure 106), and/or translation of the housing 102 (e.g., via the rail structure 108) for a lifecycle of the apparatus 100 without structural failure of either the tilt structure 104, the swivel structure 106, and/or the rail structure 108.” paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the two second supports taught by Jun be made of a metallic material as taught by Chen et al. for the benefit of preventing structural failure and improving heat dissipation (Chen et al., paragraph 0026).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Jun further teaches that the plurality of shape memory alloy wires (140, 150) included in the driver include a plurality of first shape memory alloy wires (150) that are provided between a first movable portion including the module holder (130) and a second movable portion including the connection member (120, see figures 3 and 7), and
a plurality of second shape memory alloy wires (140) that are provided between the second movable portion (120) and the fixed-side member (110, see figures 3 and 7),
the first shape memory alloy wires (150) are disposed such that a straight line passing through one end and another end of the first shape memory alloy wires is substantially parallel to the second axial line as viewed along the direction of the optical axis (see figures 3 and 7),
the second shape memory alloy wires (140) are disposed such that a straight line passing through one end and another end of the second shape memory alloy wires is substantially parallel to the first axial line as viewed along the direction of the optical axis (see figures 3 and 7), and
the one end and the another end of the first shape memory alloy wires (150) and the second shape memory alloy wires (140) are at positions different in the direction of the optical axis (see figures 3 and 7).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (US 2022/0086311) in view of Chen et al. (US 2024/0098349) and Takasaki et al. (US 2010/0060757).
Consider claim 19, Jun teaches:
A module driving device (figures 2-11), comprising:
a module holder (second rotating case, 130) configured to hold an optical module (sub-module, 160, paragraph 0061) including a lens body (lens holder, 164, paragraph 0078);
a connection member (first rotating case, 120, paragraph 0061) connected to the module holder (130) such that the module holder (130) is rockable about a first axial line that crosses a direction of an optical axis (“For example, the second rotating case 130 may be installed in the first rotating case 120 so as to be rotatable about the second rotation shafts 104.” paragraph 0072);
a fixed-side member (fixed case, 110, paragraph 0061) connected to the connection member (120) such that the connection member (120) is rockable about a second axial line that crosses the direction of the optical axis and is perpendicular to an axial line direction of the first axial line (“For example, the first rotating case 120 may be installed on/using the first rotation shafts 102 to rotate about the first rotation shafts 102.” paragraph 0066, see figures 3-5 and 9-11); and
a driver (first driving wire, 140, second driving wire, 150, paragraph 0061) including a plurality of shape memory alloy wires (see paragraphs 0074 and 0076) configured to move the module holder (130) relative to the fixed-side member (110, see figures 9-11, paragraphs 0075 and 0077), wherein
two first supports (second rotation shafts, 104) are fixed to a first member (120, paragraph 0072) and disposed so as to face each other across the optical axis, in the axial line direction of the first axial line (see figure 5), the first member being one of the connection member (120, paragraph 0072, see figure 5),
at least a surface of the two first supports (104) that faces a second member (130) is formed as a projecting curved surface (see figure 5), the second member being another of the module holder (130) (see figure 5, paragraph 0072), and
the module holder (130) and the connection member (120) are disposed to overlap with each other in the direction of the optical axis via the two first supports (see figures 5 and 9-11, paragraph 0072).
However, Jun does not explicitly teach that the optical module includes an imaging element or that the two first supports are formed of a metal or ceramic.
Chen et al. similarly teaches a device housing (102) for image capture (see paragraph 0019), wherein the device housing (102) includes a tilt structure (104) for enabling rotation thereof (see paragraph 0022).
However, Chen et al. additionally teaches that the device housing includes an imaging element (imaging device, 140, paragraphs 0019 and 0020), and that the tilt structure (104) is made of metal (“For example, the tilt structure 104, the swivel structure 106, and/or the rail structure 108 can be of a metal material to allow for tilting of the housing 102 (e.g., via the tilt structure 104), rotation of the housing 102 (e.g., via the swivel structure 106), and/or translation of the housing 102 (e.g., via the rail structure 108) for a lifecycle of the apparatus 100 without structural failure of either the tilt structure 104, the swivel structure 106, and/or the rail structure 108.” paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical module and two first supports taught by Jun comprise an imaging element and a metallic material, respectively, as taught by Chen et al. for the benefit of enabling video conferencing and still image capture (Chen et al., paragraph 0019) while preventing structural failure and improving heat dissipation (Chen et al., paragraph 0026).
However, the combination of Jun and Chen et al. does not explicitly teach that the imaging element is housed by a spacer.
Takasaki et al. similarly teaches a solid-state image pickup device (figures 2 and 7) having an imaging element (solid-state image sensors, 3, paragraph 0060).
However, Takasaki et al. additionally teaches that the imaging element (3) is housed by a spacer (“a frame-shaped spacer 5 mounted in the solid-state image sensor chip 2, and surrounding the solid-state image sensors 3” paragraph 0060, “the spacer 5 illustrated in FIG. 1 is mounted so as to surround the solid-state image sensors 3” paragraph 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the imaging element taught by the combination of Jun and Chen et al. be housed by a spacer as taught by Takasaki et al. for the benefit of enabling miniaturization in manufacture to be achieved (Takasaki et al., paragraph 0003).
Consider claim 20, and as applied to claim 19 above, the combination of Jun and Chen et al. does not explicitly teach the spacer.
Takasaki et al. further teaches that the imaging element (3) is not in contact with the spacer (5, see figures 2 and 7, paragraph 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the imaging element taught by the combination of Jun and Chen et al. be housed by a spacer in the manner taught by Takasaki et al. for the benefit of enabling miniaturization in manufacture to be achieved (Takasaki et al., paragraph 0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 are allowed.
Claims 3-6 and 8-10 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 11 corresponds to previously objected-to claim 3 rewritten in independent form, and is thus allowed for the reasons provided with respect to claim 3 on page 8 of the Office Action filed April 10, 2026.
Claims 12-18 are allowed as depending from an allowed claim 11.
Consider claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the two first supports and the two second supports are formed by a spherical body, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claims 1 and 2.
Consider claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the module holder includes a support-mounting portion that is disposed below the connection member, the two first supports are disposed above the support-mounting portion, and the two first supports and the two second supports are fixed on a lower side of the connection member, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claims 1 and 2.
Consider claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the two first supports and the two second supports are formed of a magnetic material, a magnet is fixed to the second member, which is the another of the module holder or the connection member, at a position apart from the two first supports in the direction of the optical axis, the magnet being configured to exert an attractive force between the second member and the two first supports, and a magnet is fixed to the fourth member, which is the another of the connection member or the fixed-side member, at a position apart from the two second supports in the direction of the optical axis, the magnet being configured to exert an attractive force between the fourth member and the two second supports, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claims 1 and 2.
Consider claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that A) the module holder and the connection member are configured to be rotatable relative to each other, centered on the optical axis, a first groove having an arc shape in a plan view is formed in the second member, which is the another of the module holder or the connection member, and the two first supports slide on the first groove during relative rotation; B) the connection member and the fixed-side member are configured to be rotatable relative to each other, centered on the optical axis, a second groove having an arc shape in a plan view is formed in the fourth member, which is the another of the connection member or the fixed-side member, and the two second supports slide on the second groove during relative rotation; or C) the module holder and the connection member are configured to be rotatable relative to each other, centered on the optical axis, a first groove having an arc shape in a plan view is formed in the second member, which is the another of the module holder or the connection member, the two first supports slide on the first groove during relative rotation, the connection member and the fixed-side member are configured to be rotatable relative to each other, centered on the optical axis, a second groove having an arc shape in a plan view is formed in the fourth member, which is the another of the connection member or the fixed-side member, and the two second supports slide on the second groove during relative rotation, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claims 1 and 2.
Consider claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the one end and the another end of the first shape memory alloy wires are positioned on different sides of a first imaginary plane that is perpendicular to the second axial line and includes the first axial line, the one end and the another end of the second shape memory alloy wires are positioned on different sides of a second imaginary plane that is perpendicular to the first axial line and includes the second axial line, in a plan view along the direction of the optical axis, one of the one end or the another end of the first shape memory alloy wires is at a position that is near the first axial line and at which a distance between the first axial line and one of the one end or the another end of the first shape memory alloy wires is smaller than a distance between the first axial line and the another of the one end or the another end of the first shape memory alloy wires, and in the plan view along the direction of the optical axis, one of the one end or the another end of the second shape memory alloy wires is at a position that is near the second axial line and at which a distance between the second axial line and one of the one end or the another end of the second shape memory alloy wires is smaller than a distance between the second axial line and another of the one end or the another end of the second shape memory alloy wires, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claims 1 and 7.
Consider claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the first shape memory alloy wires include a first wire and a second wire that are disposed so as to cross each other as viewed along the first axial line, and, as viewed along the first axial line, a first crossing point between a straight line passing through one end and another end of the first wire and a straight line passing through one end and another end of the second wire is at a position different from the first axial line, and the second shape memory alloy wires include a third wire and a fourth wire that are disposed so as to cross each other as viewed along the second axial line, and, as viewed along the second axial line, a second crossing point between a straight line passing through one end and another end of the third wire and a straight line passing through one end and another end of the fourth wire is at a position different from the second axial line, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claims 1 and 7.
Claim 10 contains allowable subject matter as depending from claim 9.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT H CUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1460. The examiner can normally be reached approximately Mon - Fri 8:00-4:30.
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.
/ALBERT H CUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights