N O N - F I N A L A C T I O N
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/24 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Nonstatutory 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant application claims 2, 4-13, 15, and 18-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-14, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,966. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Instant application independent claim 2 is broader than claims 1 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 4 is broader than claims 1 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 5 is broader than claims 1, 5 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 6 is broader than claims 1, 6 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 7 is broader than claims 1, 4 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 8 is broader than claims 1, 5 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 9 is broader than claims 1, 6 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 10 is broader than claims 1, 7 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 11 is broader than claims 1, 8 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 12 is broader than claims 1, 9 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 13 is broader than claims 1, 10 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 15 is broader than claims 1, 12 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 18 is broader than claims 1, 14, and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application dependent claim 19 is broader than claims 1, 17 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application independent claim 20 is broader than claims 1, 11, 13 and 18 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Instant application independent claim 21 is broader than claim 1 of Patent ‘966 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Closest Prior Art
The prior art (cited on PTO-892) is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among these, the following references are considered to be the closest, collectively disclosing the state of the art concerned with a digital camera module configured with optical image stabilization components.
MAK (US 20200196447) – applied to 35 USC 102/103 rejection, see rejection below.
SHARMA (US 20190020822) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see rejection below.
LEE (US 20180203203) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see rejection below.
SILVERSTEIN (US 10,033,917) – see Fig.2A/2B: camera module embedded in the housing of a mobile device with a touchscreen display in view of Col. 2, Lines 23-41; Fig. 7-8, and Fig. 12.
TANIMURA (US 20080198249) – Examiner notes that while TANIMURA (a primary reference applied in parent app. 17/266,360) was not applied as prior art to claim 2 in this continuation instant application, TANIMURA (teaching in Figures 3 & 5) is considered to be 35 USC 102 art for reading on every limitation recited in claim 2. This is because the term “wire” in the claim 2 limitation “a wire coupled with the body of the second substrate, wherein the protrusion part of the second substrate and the wire are configured to movably support the body of the second substrate” does not distinguish itself from TANIMURA’s electrical wires 110 embedded in each protrusion arm 103 as shown below in Figures 3 and 5. Under BRI, both the wire 110 and protrusion arm 103 inherently have to movably support the body of the second substrate 107/140 (with mounted image sensor 16) relative to the fixed first substrate 20 during OIS drive of actuators 160.
PNG
media_image1.png
667
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
691
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NOTE: Examiner welcomes INTERVIEW(s) to discuss the instant application’s claimed invention as it corresponds to the specification embodiments, as well as, discussing the similarities/differences taught/not taught by prior art. In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant’s arguments/amendments should not only address the cited closest art applied/relied on in the 35 USC 102/103 rejection (below), but also address the other cited closest art not applied/relied on.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3, 15, 17-18, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MAK (US 20200196447) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 2, MAK teaches a sensor driving device (Camera module shown in Fig. 8-11 comprises an image sensor 58 that may be driven to move via anti-shake actuators i.e. magnets 53 & coils 59. The camera module is mounted in a mobile device, para [0003, 0026]) comprising:
a first substrate (See circuit board 55 in Fig. 9 in view of the circuit board in Fig. 1 & 3, which has a FIXED outer carrier plate 14 as the “first substrate” per discussion in para [0025, 0045-47]);
a second substrate comprising a body and a protrusion part protruding from the body (See circuit board 55 in Fig. 9 in view of the circuit board in Fig. 1 & 3, which has a MOVABLE inner carrier plate 13 as the “second substrate” per discussion in para [0025, 0045-46] AND flexible connectors 15 as the “protrusion part” per para [0047-48] which teaches each of the flexible connectors 15 comprises an outer connecting portion 151, an inner connecting portion 152, and an extension 153 arranged between the outer connecting portion 151 and the inner connecting portion 152, wherein the extension comprises linkage arms 154-155 and bending portion 156), the second substrate being electrically connected with the first substrate (The second substrate 13 is electrically connected with the first substrate 14 through the connectors 15 to provide power and input capture control signals to the image sensor and output obtained images to a microcomputer per para [0026, 0005]);
an image sensor configured to move together with the body of the second substrate (See inner carrier plate 13 in Fig. 1 AND second sentence of para [0025] which states – the spring system, the lens and the lens holder, the image sensor, the coil group, and the inner carrier plate of the circuit board form a movable structure. The inner carrier plate 13 holds image sensor 58 to allow movement together in multiple degrees of freedom such as by multi-axis rotation adjustment as shown in Fig. 9-11 in view of para [0058-60] AND inner carrier plate 13 (with image sensor) may also move in Y-axis direction per Fig. 3 & para [0051] and move in X-axis direction per Fig. 4 & para [0052]);
a driving unit configured to move the image sensor (Fig. 9-11 in view of para [0058-60]: image sensor 58 may be driven to move via anti-shake actuators i.e. magnets 53 & coils 59);
and a wire coupled with the body of the second substrate, wherein the protrusion part of the second substrate and the wire are configured to movably support the body of the second substrate (See spring system 54 “suspension wires” in Fig. 9 in view of para [0058-60] which couples to and movably supports inner carrier plate 13. Para [0025] states – the spring system, the lens and the lens holder, the image sensor, the coil group, and the inner carrier plate of the circuit board form a movable structure. And flexible connectors 15 “protrusion part” movably supports inner carrier plate 13 as discussed in para [0047-48]).
As per CLAIM 3, MAK teaches the sensor driving device of claim 2, wherein the wire comprises four wires (See spring system 54 “suspension wires” in Fig. 9 in view of para [0058-60] which depicts “four” springs 54).
As per CLAIM 15, MAK teaches the sensor driving device of claim 2, wherein the driving unit comprises: a first driving unit disposed on the second substrate; and a second driving unit corresponding to the first driving unit (Fig. 9-11 in view of para [0058-60]: anti-shake actuators “driving unit” comprises coils 59 “first driving unit” on movable inner carrier plate 13 which correspond to respective magnets 53 “second driving unit” on fixed outer carrier plate 14).
As per CLAIM 17, MAK teaches the sensor driving device of claim 2, wherein the image sensor is configured to move in an x-axis direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the image sensor, wherein the image sensor is configured to move in a y-axis direction perpendicular to the optical axis and the x-axis direction (The inner carrier plate 13 holds image sensor 58 to allow movement together such as by multi-degree-of-freedom movement in Y-axis direction per Fig. 3 & para [0051] which states – the inner carrier plate 13 moves in the y(+) direction (that is, the moving direction is perpendicular to the first centerline 157, but parallel to the second centerline 158 AND movement in X-axis direction per Fig. 4 & para [0052] which states – the inner carrier plate 13 moves in the x(−) direction (that is, the moving direction is perpendicular to the second centerline 158, but parallel to the first center line 157)), and wherein the image sensor is configured to rotate about the optical axis (See Fig. 10-11 in view of para [0058-60]: inner carrier plate 13 holds image sensor 58 to allow movement together such as by multi-axis rotation degrees of freedom as shown in Fig. 9-11 in view of para [0058-60]).
As per CLAIM 18, MAK teaches the camera module comprising: a lens, and the sensor driving device of the sensor driving device of claim 2, wherein the image sensor is configured to convert light that has passed through the lens into an image data (See Fig. 9-11: lens 56 and image sensor 58 which captures image data in view of para [0026, 0005]).
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 20, MAK teaches a sensor driving device (Camera module shown in Fig. 8-11 comprises an image sensor 58 that may be driven to move via anti-shake actuators i.e. magnets 53 & coils 59. The camera module is mounted in a mobile device, para [0003, 0026]) comprising:
a first substrate (See circuit board 55 in Fig. 9 in view of the circuit board in Fig. 1 & 3, which has a FIXED outer carrier plate 14 as the “first substrate” per discussion in para [0025, 0045-47]);
a second substrate comprising a body and a protrusion part protruding from the body (See circuit board 55 in Fig. 9 in view of the circuit board in Fig. 1 & 3, which has a MOVABLE inner carrier plate 13 as the “second substrate” per discussion in para [0025, 0045-46] AND flexible connectors 15 as the “protrusion part” per para [0047-48] which teaches each of the flexible connectors 15 comprises an outer connecting portion 151, an inner connecting portion 152, and an extension 153 arranged between the outer connecting portion 151 and the inner connecting portion 152, wherein the extension comprises linkage arms 154-155 and bending portion 156), the second substrate being electrically connected with the first substrate (The second substrate 13 is electrically connected with the first substrate 14 through the connectors 15 to provide power and input capture control signals to the image sensor and output obtained images to a microcomputer per para [0026, 0005]);
an image sensor coupled with the body of the second substrate (See inner carrier plate 13 in Fig. 1 AND second sentence of para [0025] which states – the spring system, the lens and the lens holder, the image sensor, the coil group, and the inner carrier plate of the circuit board form a movable structure. The inner carrier plate 13 holds image sensor 58 to allow movement together in multiple degrees of freedom such as by multi-axis rotation adjustment as shown in Fig. 9-11 in view of para [0058-60] AND inner carrier plate 13 (with image sensor) may also move in Y-axis direction per Fig. 3 & para [0051] and move in X-axis direction per Fig. 4 & para [0052]), the image sensor being electrically connected with the second substrate (See circuit board in Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 9: image sensor 58 is electrically connected with second substrate 13 which is electrically connected with the first substrate 14 through the connectors 15 to provide power and input capture control signals to the image sensor and output obtained images to a microcomputer per para [0026, 0005]);
a coil and a magnet configured to move the image sensor (Fig. 9-11 in view of para [0058-60]: image sensor 58 may be driven to move via anti-shake actuators comprising magnets 53 and coils 59);
and a wire coupled with the body of the second substrate, wherein the protrusion part of the second substrate and the wire are configured to movably support the body of the second substrate (See spring system 54 “suspension wires” in Fig. 9 in view of para [0058-60] which couples to and movably supports inner carrier plate 13. Para [0025] states – the spring system, the lens and the lens holder, the image sensor, the coil group, and the inner carrier plate of the circuit board form a movable structure. And flexible connectors 15 “protrusion part” movably supports inner carrier plate 13 as discussed in para [0047-48]).
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 21, MAK teaches a sensor driving device (Camera module shown in Fig. 8-11 comprises an image sensor 58 that may be driven to move via anti-shake actuators i.e. magnets 53 & coils 59. The camera module is mounted in a mobile device, para [0003, 0026]) comprising:
a first substrate (See circuit board 55 in Fig. 9 in view of the circuit board in Fig. 1 & 3, which has a FIXED outer carrier plate 14 as the “first substrate” per discussion in para [0025, 0045-47]);
a second substrate comprising a body and a protrusion part protruding from the body (See circuit board 55 in Fig. 9 in view of the circuit board in Fig. 1 & 3, which has a MOVABLE inner carrier plate 13 as the “second substrate” per discussion in para [0025, 0045-46] AND flexible connectors 15 as the “protrusion part” per para [0047-48] which teaches each of the flexible connectors 15 comprises an outer connecting portion 151, an inner connecting portion 152, and an extension 153 arranged between the outer connecting portion 151 and the inner connecting portion 152, wherein the extension comprises linkage arms 154-155 and bending portion 156), the second substrate being electrically connected with the first substrate (The second substrate 13 is electrically connected with the first substrate 14 through the connectors 15 to provide power and input capture control signals to the image sensor and output obtained images to a microcomputer per para [0026, 0005]);
an image sensor configured to move together with the body of the second substrate (See inner carrier plate 13 in Fig. 1 AND second sentence of para [0025] which states – the spring system, the lens and the lens holder, the image sensor, the coil group, and the inner carrier plate of the circuit board form a movable structure. The inner carrier plate 13 holds image sensor 58 to allow movement together in multiple degrees of freedom such as by multi-axis rotation adjustment as shown in Fig. 9-11 in view of para [0058-60] AND inner carrier plate 13 (with image sensor) may also move in Y-axis direction per Fig. 3 & para [0051] and move in X-axis direction per Fig. 4 & para [0052]);
and a driving unit configured to move the image sensor (Fig. 9-11 in view of para [0058-60]: image sensor 58 may be driven to move via anti-shake actuators i.e. magnets 53 & coils 59).
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 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 of this title, 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAK (US 20200196447) in view of Official Notice -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 19, MAK teaches an optical apparatus comprising: a housing, the camera module of claim 18 disposed on the housing (Camera module shown in Fig. 8-11 comprises an image sensor 58 and lens 56, which is mounted in/on a mobile device “optical apparatus” in view of para [0003, 0026], therefore, the taught mobile device inherently has a housing to accommodate the camera module).
Regarding the limitation (emphasis in bold): “a display disposed on the housing”, MAK is silent to the mobile device housing having a display. However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of configuring a mobile device “optical apparatus” housing with a display is well known and expected in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configuring a mobile device “optical apparatus” housing with a display for the MOTIVATED REASON of enhancing the user experience by providing a live preview / review of images captured by the camera module in the analogous art of a mobile device configured with a camera module.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAK (US 20200196447) in view of SHARMA (US 20190020822) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 14, MAK teaches the sensor driving device of claim 2, wherein the image sensor is electrically connected with the second substrate (See circuit board in Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 9: image sensor 58 is electrically connected with second substrate 13 which is electrically connected with the first substrate 14 through the connectors 15 to provide power and input capture control signals to the image sensor and output obtained images to a microcomputer per para [0026, 0005]),
Regarding the limitation (emphasis in bold): “and wherein the wire is parallel with an optical axis of the image sensor”, MAK’s Fig. 9 discloses a spring system 54 comprising four “suspension wires” which couples to and movably supports inner carrier plate 13. The spring “wires” 54 couple between the fixed structure (i.e. the housing, the positioning base, the magnet group, and the outer carrier plate of the circuit board) and movable structure (i.e. the spring system, the lens and the lens holder, the image sensor, the coil group, and the inner carrier plate of the circuit board) in view of para [0025] and para [0058-60] and claim 10 which states “the lens holder is disposed on the positioning base through the spring system”.
MAK’s taught spring “wires” 54 (Fig. 9) does not make clear whether the orientation of the spring “wires” 54 are parallel with the optical axis or are perpendicular with the optical axis.
However, it is well known in the related art of anti-shake / optical image stabilization (OIS) to orient suspension wires parallel with the optical axis to provide support during OIS movement. For example, prior art SHARMA discloses a camera module (see Fig. 9-11) configured with VCM (coils & magnets) actuators that performs optical image stabilization (OIS) and further includes suspension wires 938 which are arranged parallel with the optical axis of the image sensor, wherein para [0101] states the wires 938 will primarily flex during the OIS movement.
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of SHARMA (suspension wires parallel with optical axis of image sensor to support OIS) into suitable modification with the teachings of MAK (suspension spring wires to support OIS) to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation “wire is parallel with an optical axis of the image sensor” for the MOTIVATED REASON to achieve higher quality image captures by providing suspension support during OIS movement and by reducing the impact of vibrations during user hand-shake while holding the camera device in the analogous art of a digital camera module configured with optical image stabilization.
Claims 2, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20180203203) in view of MAK (US 20200196447) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 2, LEE teaches a sensor driving device (Camera module shown in Fig. 3 has image sensor 1200 mounted on flexible PCB 1300 which further mounts on OIS actuator unit 1400 shown in greater detail in Fig. 4-5 and para [0162-0170, 0192-193]) comprising:
a first substrate (Fig. 3-5: “first substrate” is considered to be the “stationary portions” (i.e. terminals 1320 connection with optical device PCB, para [0166-167] AND coils 1430 with coil substrate 1440/1451, para [0175-177]) that support the “second substrate” movable portions 1310/1330);
a second substrate comprising a body and a protrusion part protruding from the body, the second substrate being electrically connected with the first substrate (Fig. 3-5 and para [0165 & 0168]: “second substrate” is the “movable portions” being the body 1310 and connection arms “protrusion part” 1330 which are electrically connected with first substrate through terminals 1320 of FPCB 1300 per para [0166] and coil substrate 1440 per para [0177] to provide power and drive movement to the image sensor 1200 mounted on the body 1310);
an image sensor configured to move together with the body of the second substrate (Fig. 3-5 and para [0165, 168, 192-193]: image sensor 1200 mounted on the body 1310 with magnets 1420 to be moved together during OIS driving current to stationary coils 1430);
a driving unit configured to move the image sensor (Fig. 3-5 and para [0165, 168, 192-193]: OIS driver unit 1400 comprises movable portions i.e. magnets 1420, magnet substrate 1410/1456 which are driven to move via stationary portions i.e. coils 1430 with coil substrate 1440/1451. During OIS driving current to stationary coils 1430 – this drives movement of the image sensor 1200 since it is mounted on the body 1310 with magnets 1420);
wherein the protrusion part of the second substrate are configured to movably support the body of the second substrate (Fig. 4 in view of para [0167] states – connection portion “protrusion part” (1330) may elastically support the body portion (1310) relative to the terminal portion (1320). That is, the connection portion (1330) may hold elasticity. For example, the connection portion (1330) may be formed with an FPCB”).
Regarding the underlined limitation (emphasis in bold): “a wire coupled with the body of the second substrate and the wire are configured to movably support the body of the second substrate”, LEE’s taught OIS is silent to the additional configuration of arranging suspension wires to support OIS movement.
However, it is well known in the related art of anti-shake / optical image stabilization (OIS) to arrange suspension wires to support OIS movement. For example, prior art MAK discloses a camera module (see Fig. 9) configured with VCM (coils 59 & magnets 53) actuators to performs optical image stabilization (OIS) in general which further includes four suspension springs 54 “wires” to support OIS movement. See spring system 54 “suspension wires” in Fig. 9 in view of para [0025, 0058-60] which couples to and movably supports inner carrier plate 13 that holds image sensor 58.
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of LEE (coil & magnet driven OIS) into suitable modification with the teachings of MAK (suspension spring wires to support OIS) to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation “a wire coupled with the body of the second substrate and the wire are configured to movably support the body of the second substrate” for the MOTIVATED REASON to achieve higher quality image captures by providing suspension support during OIS movement and by reducing the impact of vibrations during user hand-shake while holding the camera device in the analogous art of a digital camera module configured with optical image stabilization.
As per CLAIM 16, LEE in view of MAK teaches the sensor driving device of claim 2, wherein the driving unit comprises at least three coils not symmetrical to each other about an optical axis of the image sensor, and wherein the driving unit comprises six magnets (LEE, Fig. 5 in view of para [0176]: driving unit 1400 comprises six magnets 1420 and six coils 1430, wherein at least three coils may be asymmetrically arranged).
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 20, LEE in view of MAK teaches a sensor driving device comprising: a first substrate; a second substrate comprising a body and a protrusion part protruding from the body, the second substrate being electrically connected with the first substrate; an image sensor coupled with the body of the second substrate, the image sensor being electrically connected with the second substrate; a coil and a magnet configured to move the image sensor; and a wire coupled with the body of the second substrate, wherein the protrusion part of the second substrate and the wire are configured to movably support the body of the second substrate (Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons over the prior art combination, LEE in view of MAK, as cited and discussed in claim 2. That is to say, the same citations discussed for LEE per Fig. 3-5 in view of para [0162-0177, 0192-193] taken in combination with the same citations discussed for MAK per Fig. 9 in view of para [0025, 0058-60] teaches the limitations recited in claim 20 for the same motived reasons discussed in claim 2).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the EXAMINER should be directed to AKSHAY TREHAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-5252. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 10am – 6pm during the weekdays Monday – Friday.
Interviews with the examiner are available via telephone AND video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may contact the examiner via telephone OR use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR), which can be found 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKSHAY TREHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639