DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Priority
A. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) or 386(c) is acknowledged.
B. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is also acknowledged of the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
III. Claim Interpretation
A. 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): MPEP guidance
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, that presumption is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
B. Functional limitations invoking 112(f): detection module
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “a detection module…configured to detect a change in capacitance….” The limitation satisfies prongs (A) and (B) above because it recites the generic placeholder, mechanism, followed by the transition phrase, configured to, linking the generic placeholder to the function of detecting a change in capacitance. The limitation also satisfies prong (C) because the generic placeholder is not modified by any structure, material, or acts for detecting the change in capacity. Therefore, the limitation invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
C. Functional limitations NOT invoking 112(f): first and second drive mechanisms
Claim 6 recites the functional limitations, “a first drive mechanism…configured to drive the substrate to move” and “a second drive mechanism…configured to drive the lens to move.” The limitations satisfy prongs (A) and (B) above because they each recite the generic placeholder, mechanism, followed by the transition phrase, configured to, linking the generic placeholder to the functions of moving the substrate and lens. The limitations also satisfy prong (C) because the generic placeholder is not modified by any structure, material, or acts for detecting the change in capacity. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the drive mechanisms is limited to structure. Specifically, claim 6 recites that both mechanisms have physical connection to the substrate or lens, which necessarily implies structure. Therefore, the first and second drive mechanisms of claim 6 do not invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, the claim limitation, “detection module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as detailed above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
A. The detection module is a special-purpose, computer-implemented limitation requiring an algorithm as it corresponding structure
The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure in the context of a means-plus-function limitation.
Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Pursuant to MPEP 2181 (II)(B), for a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Special programming includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer. Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data.
Here, after reviewing the specification, the examiner understands the detection module to
be performing the computer-implemented function of detecting a change in capacitance. The specification does not embody the detection module as a specific structural component, and its description as a module suggests computer implementation. Fig. 6 shows a meager connection between the detection module and a control module with no depiction of data flow between each other or how they are connected with other components of the camera module. Moreover, a general microprocessor would not possess the coextensive capability to detect a change in capacitance of a capacitor. Therefore, to meet the definiteness requirement, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the capacitance change detection function, which it does not.
Para. [0050] of the specification merely restates what is already in the claim, that the detection module detects a change in capacitance of capacitor. There is no discussion of how, for example, the signal from the capacitor is used to infer a capacitance change. Therefore, the disclosure does not describe an algorithm for detecting a change in capacitance of the capacitor, rendering the detection module indefinite.
B. Applicant’s options to overcome this rejection
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted
as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly
recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
3. Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links
the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
1. Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly
recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
2. Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts,
which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
V. Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggests deleting “of camera module” on line 1 of claim 13 and line 4 of claim 18.
VI. 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.
Claims 1,4,6,9,10,12,13,16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (US 2023/0148358 A1).
As to claim 1, Sharma et al. teaches a camera module (Fig. 4B, optical system “430”), comprising:
a base (Fig. 4B, actuator frame “160”);
a lens (Fig. 4B, lens “112” and lens holder “120”), wherein the lens is disposed on the base (Fig. 4B; [0071], lines 1-4);
a substrate (Fig. 4B, substrate “130”), wherein the substrate and the lens are sequentially arranged along an optical axis direction of the lens (Fig. 4B), and the substrate is movable along the optical axis direction of the lens ([0071], lines 10-13);
a photosensitive chip (Fig. 4B, image sensor “140”), wherein the photosensitive chip is disposed on the substrate ([0071], line 9), and the photosensitive chip is located between the lens and substrate (Fig. 4B); and
a capacitor assembly (Fig. 4B, capacitor “446”; [0083], lines 12-15), wherein the capacitor assembly comprises a first capacitor plate (Fig. 4B, electrode “406”) and a second capacitor plate (Fig. 4B, portion “436”), the first capacitor plate is disposed on the substrate ([0083], lines 12 and 13), the second capacitor plate is disposed on the base ([0083], lines 14 and 15), and the first capacitor plate is opposite the second capacitor plate (Fig. 4B).
As to claim 4, Sharma et al. teaches the camera module according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is a circuit board ([0037], lines 2-4), the first capacitor plate is electrically connected to the substrate ([0083], lines 12 and 13), and the camera module further comprises: a connection plate, wherein the connection plate is a flexible circuit board ([0038], lines 2-5), and the connection plate is electrically connected to the second capacitor plate ([0039], lines 1-10).
As to claim 6, Sharma et al. teaches the camera module according to claim 1, further comprising:
at least one of a first drive mechanism (Fig. 4B, actuator “194”) or a second drive mechanism, wherein the first drive mechanism is connected to the substrate ([0071], lines 8), the first drive mechanism is configured to drive the substrate to move (Fig. 4B), the second drive mechanism is connected to the lens, and the second drive mechanism is configured to drive the lens to move.
As to claim 9, Sharma et al. teaches the camera module according to claim 1, wherein the base has an accommodating cavity (Fig. 4B; {The claimed accommodating cavity is formed by the left and right vertical walls and bottom wall of the actuator frame “160”), and the substrate and the photosensitive chip are disposed in the accommodating cavity (Fig. 4b).
As to claim 10, Sharma et al. teaches the camera module according to claim 1, further comprising: a filter (Fig. 4B, filter “210”; [0056], lines 11 and 12), wherein the filter is disposed between the lens and the photosensitive chip (Fig. 4B).
As to claim 13, Sharma et al. teaches a control method ([0028])
a base (Fig. 4B, actuator frame “160”);
a lens (Fig. 4B, lens “112” and lens holder “120”), wherein the lens is disposed on the base (Fig. 4B; [0071], lines 1-4);
a substrate (Fig. 4B, substrate “130”), wherein the substrate and the lens are sequentially arranged along an optical axis direction of the lens (Fig. 4B), and the substrate is movable along the optical axis direction of the lens ([0071], lines 10-13);
a photosensitive chip (Fig. 4B, image sensor “140”), wherein the photosensitive chip is disposed on the substrate ([0071], line 9), and the photosensitive chip is located between the lens and substrate (Fig. 4B); and
a capacitor assembly (Fig. 4B, capacitor “446”; [0083], lines 12-15), wherein the capacitor assembly comprises a first capacitor plate (Fig. 4B, electrode “406”) and a second capacitor plate (Fig. 4B, portion “436”), the first capacitor plate is disposed on the substrate ([0083], lines 12 and 13), the second capacitor plate is disposed on the base ([0083], lines 14 and 15), and the first capacitor plate is opposite the second capacitor plate (Fig. 4B);
wherein the control method of camera module comprises:
detecting a change in capacitance of the capacitor assembly ([0028], lines 1 and 2; note, also, [0027]; {As a reference voltage is applied to the capacitor(s), any change in that voltage will cause movement of the image sensor to the target distance.}); and
controlling, based on the detected change in capacitance of the capacitor assembly, the substrate to move along the optical axis direction of the lens ([0028], lines 2-5).
Claim 16 is a method claim reciting limitations similar to those of claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected as detailed above.
As to claim 18, Sharma et al. teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1, sensor system “100”), comprising a processor (Fig. 1, processor “188”) and a memory (Fig. 1, memory “190”), wherein the memory stores a program or instructions capable of running on the processor, wherein the program or instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform ([0049], lines 8-13) a control method ([0028])
a base (Fig. 4B, actuator frame “160”);
a lens (Fig. 4B, lens “112” and lens holder “120”), wherein the lens is disposed on the base (Fig. 4B; [0071], lines 1-4);
a substrate (Fig. 4B, substrate “130”), wherein the substrate and the lens are sequentially arranged along an optical axis direction of the lens (Fig. 4B), and the substrate is movable along the optical axis direction of the lens ([0071], lines 10-13);
a photosensitive chip (Fig. 4B, image sensor “140”), wherein the photosensitive chip is disposed on the substrate ([0071], line 9), and the photosensitive chip is located between the lens and substrate (Fig. 4B); and
a capacitor assembly (Fig. 4B, capacitor “446”; [0083], lines 12-15), wherein the capacitor assembly comprises a first capacitor plate (Fig. 4B, electrode “406”) and a second capacitor plate (Fig. 4B, portion “436”), the first capacitor plate is disposed on the substrate ([0083], lines 12 and 13), the second capacitor plate is disposed on the base ([0083], lines 14 and 15), and the first capacitor plate is opposite the second capacitor plate (Fig. 4B);
wherein the control method of camera module comprises:
detecting a change in capacitance of the capacitor assembly ([0028], lines 1 and 2; note, also, [0027]; {As a reference voltage is applied to the capacitor(s), any change in that voltage will cause movement of the image sensor to the target distance.}); and
controlling, based on the detected change in capacitance of the capacitor assembly, the substrate to move along the optical axis direction of the lens ([0028], lines 2-5).
VII. 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.
A. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2023/0148358 A1) in view of
Hsu et al. (US 2022/0103744 A1)
As to claim 7, Sharma et al. teaches the camera module according to claim 1. The claim differs from Sharma et al. in that it requires (1) that the camera module further comprises a first drive mechanism comprising a first magnet and a second magnet, (2) that the first magnet is disposed on the base, (3) that the second magnet is disposed on the substrate, (4) that the first magnet and the second magnet are magnetically attractable or repulsive to each other; (5) that in a case that the first magnet and the second magnet are magnetically attractable to each other, the base approaches the lens along the optical axis direction of the lens, and (6) that in a case that the first magnet and the second magnet are magnetically repulsive to each other, the base leaves the lens along the optical axis direction of the lens.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Hsu et al. discloses a camera module (Fig. 1A, camera “100”) comprising a driving assembly for moving an image sensor in the optical axis direction ([0023], lines 2-4). The assembly includes a magnet (1) (Fig. 1B, magnet “112”; {The claimed first magnet is the magnet “112.”}) attached to an enclosure (2) ([0024], lines 5-10) that surrounds a substrate (Fig. 1A, substrate “110”) that includes a bracket (Fig. 1A, coil carrier “118”). The image sensor is positioned on the substrate ([0023], lines 11 and 12) and is bookended on its left and right sides by the bracket (Fig. 1A). A coil of the driving assembly is positioned on the bracket (1), (3) (Fig. 1A, coil “114”; {The claimed second magnet is the coil “114.” Note that the specification, in para. [0029], states that the second magnet can be a coil.}), and after inducing current in the coil, interaction between the coil and magnet causes the image sensor to move in the optical axis direction (4)-(6) ([0024], lines 19-25).
In light of the teaching of Hsu et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to position a coil on the left or right ‘bracket’ wall that bookends the image sensor of Sharma et al., to position a magnet on the actuator frame, and to facilitate movement of Sharma’s substrate through current induction in the coil and the subsequent interaction between the coil and magnet. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this configuration would alleviate the need to position the actuator under the substrate, thereby reducing the vertical dimension of Sharma’s optical system.
As to claim 8, Sharma et al., as modified by Hsu et al., teaches the camera module according to claim 7, further comprising: a bracket (see Sharma et al., Fig. 4B, left and right walls that bookend the image sensor), wherein the bracket is disposed on the substrate (see Sharma et al., Fig. 4B), the bracket is provided with a placement groove, the photosensitive chip is disposed in the placement groove (see Sharma et al., Fig. 4B), and the second magnet is disposed on the bracket (see Hsu et al., Fig. 1, coil “114” on coil carrier “118”).
B. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2023/0148358 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0392251 A1)
As to claim 11, Sharma et al. teaches the camera module according to claim 10, further comprising: a bracket (Fig. 4B, left and right walls that bookend the image sensor), wherein the bracket is disposed on the substrate (Fig. 4B), the bracket is provided with a placement groove, the photosensitive chip is disposed in the placement groove (Fig. 4B). The claim differs from Sharma et al. in that it requires that an inner side wall of the placement groove is provided with a support table and that the filter is disposed on the support table.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Wang et al. teaches a camera module (Fig. 21) including left and right bracket walls positioned on a substrate (Fig. 21, circuit board “20121”) and forming a placement groove for positioning an image sensor (Fig. 21, photosensitive chip “2030”). The inner side walls of the placement groove include a support (Fig. 21, support “2070C”) on which a filter is positioned, above the image sensor (Fig. 21, filter “2071C”). In light of the teaching of Wang et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a support positioned on the inner side walls of Sharma’s left and right bracket walls for supporting Sharma’s filter because, as Wang et al. notes in para. [0343], this design would allow for utilization of through-hole space and stable mounting of the filter and prevent occupation of external space by the filter.
VIII. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,3,5,14,15,17,19, and 20 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 the examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 2,14, and 19, the examiner has been unable to find a prior art reference that discloses a camera module comprising a lens, a substrate on which a photosensitive chip is located, and a base, where a first capacitor plate is disposed on the substrate, a second capacitor plate is disposed on the base, and both the first capacitor plate and the second capacitor plate are located on an optical axis of the lens. Of the particularly relevant prior art, Sharma et al., Zhang et al. (CN 113572938 A – cited by Applicant), and Deng et al. (CN 108242907 A – cited by Applicant) each discloses a camera module with position sensing capacitor plates that are located off the optical axis of the module. Claims 3,15, and 20 are allowable because they depend on claims 2,14, and 19, respectively. As to claims 5 and 17, Deng et al. illustrates a camera module with position sensing capacitor plates that appear to have the same area. However, Deng et al. is not combinable with Sharma et al. because Sharma et al. teaches away from a design in which the capacitor plates have the same area. Specifically, in para. [0090], Sharma et al. discloses that it is particularly beneficial to design opposing capacitor plates to have unequal area to minimize displacement sensitivity.
IX. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Topliss et al. (US # 9,736,345 B1) discloses a camera module having a capacitive auto-focus position detection solution. However, the reference’s capacitor plates are not located on a substrate and base as claimed, are located off the optical axis, and detect the position of a lens not a substrate. Sharma et al. (US 2017/0054883 A1) discloses a sensing arrangement similar to Topliss et al. but for sensing the position of a lens during image stabilization.
X. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
1/21/2026