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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to claims 1, 5, and 15, that “Goldenberg and Brown, whether taken alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest "wherein the first image stabilization component is configured to drive the optical path steering element to rotate around a first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a first direction," and "wherein the second image stabilization component is configured to drive the imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction," as recited in amended claim 1.” And to support this argument, Applicant states:
“as can be seen in Brown Fig. 11, these cited portions of Brown are directed to multiple actuators all providing for stabilization in a single direction. The "Z" axis in Brown is analogous to the "Y" axis in the present application, and all three actuators in Brown (704, 705 and 711) are all providing for movement in the same direction (orthogonal to Brown's "Z" axis).
Brown thus does not disclose or suggest a first stabilization component drives an optical path steering element to rotate around a first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a first direction and a second stabilization component drive an imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction, as recited in amended claim 1. In Brown, "mirror tilt" actuator 704 drives element 710 to rotate around an axis going into / out of the page, and actuators 705 and 711 drive elements 701 and 702 respectively in an extension direction of a different axis (i.e., vertical axis on the page).”
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the Examiner notes that Brown was not relied upon for the claimed features of the “first stabilization component drives an optical path steering element to rotate around a first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a first direction”, but rather, Goldenberg is relied upon for the disclosure of this limitation, wherein the prism 208 is rotated around the axis 232, corresponding to the Y-axis (i.e., a ”first axis”), in order to provide stabilization in the X-axis direction (i.e., a “first direction”) (see figures 1-2 and 5).
Additionally, with respect to the claimed limitation of “a second stabilization component drive an imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction”, the Examiner notes that Brown does disclose a stabilization component driving an imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction, since Brown discloses that the actuator 711 drives the imaging element 702 “in any direction in a plane orthogonal to the first axis Z”. That is, Brown discloses that the imaging element 702 can be driven in the direction of the X-axis and/or the Y-axis, and as such, when the image sensing element 702 is driven in a direction going in/out of the page (corresponding to the Y-axis of Goldenberg), the imaging element is moved in an extension direction of the first axis (Y-axis) for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction (Y-axis direction) different from the first direction (X-axis direction).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 12-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenberg et al. (US Pub. 2018/0024329), in view of Brown et al. (US Patent 12,554,096).
In regard to claim 1, note Goldenberg discloses a periscope camera module (figures 1-2), comprising an optical path steering element configured to perform angle folding on incident light (paragraphs 0071, 0080-0081, and figures 2A & 5A: 208), an imaging element (paragraph 0012, and figure 1: 106), a lens group disposed between the optical path steering element and the imaging element (paragraphs 0012, 0071, and figures 1 & 2A: 104/204), a first image stabilization component connected to the optical path steering element, wherein the first image stabilization component is configured to drive the optical path steering element to rotate around a first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a first direction, wherein the first axis is perpendicular to a plane formed by an input optical axis and an output optical axis of the optical path steering element (paragraphs 0080, 0085-0087, and figures 5A: 260; the prism 208 is rotated around the axis 232, i.e., around the Y-axis, in order to provide stabilization in the X-axis direction).
Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose a second image stabilization component flexibly connected to the imaging element, wherein the second image stabilization component is configured to drive the imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction.
In analogous art, Brown discloses a periscope camera module (figure 11) having a second image stabilization component flexibly connected to the imaging element, wherein the second image stabilization component is configured to drive the imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction (column 16, lines 12-15, and figure 11: 702, 711; the sensor 702 is moved in any direction orthogonal to the Z axis, e.g., in the direction of the X-axis and/or the Y-axis, such that when the sensor is moved along the Y-axis, i.e., in a direction going in/out of the page, the second direction is considered to be different from the first direction). Brown teaches that the use of a second image stabilization component flexibly connected to the imaging element, wherein the second image stabilization component is configured to drive the imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction is preferred in order to combine OIS effects to provide an overall OIS effect that is greater than the effect of an individual OIS element/actuator (column 16, lines 27-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference to include a second image stabilization component flexibly connected to the imaging element, wherein the second image stabilization component is configured to drive the imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction, in order to provide an overall OIS effect that is greater than the effect of an individual OIS element/actuator, as suggested by Brown.
In regard to claim 2, note Brown discloses that the second image stabilization component is further configured to drive the imaging element to rotate around a second axis, and the second axis is parallel to the output optical axis of the optical path steering element (column 16, lines 40-46, and figure 11: 702, 711; the second axis is considered to be the Z axis).
In regard to claim 3, note Goldenberg discloses that the first image stabilization component has a tilted platform, and the optical path steering element is drivably disposed on the tilted platform (paragraph 0081, and figure 5A: 208, 215; the prism 208 is drivably disposed on the platform 215).
In regard to claims 5-6, these are method claims, corresponding to the apparatus in claims 1-2. Therefore, claims 5-6 have been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect claims 1-2.
In regard to claim 12, note Goldenberg discloses that the optical path steering element is a prism (paragraphs 0080-0081, and figure 5A: 208; prism 208).
In regard to claim 13, note Goldenberg discloses that the first image stabilization component comprises an inclined surface connected to the optical path steering element (figure 5A: 208, 215; the adapter 215 includes an inclined surface that couples to the prism 208).
In regard to claim 14, note Goldenberg discloses that the first image stabilization component comprises protrusions on two sides to avoid translation of the optical path steering element along the second axis (figure 5A: 208, 215; the adapter 215 includes two protrusions on the sides to rigidly hold the prism 208).
In regard to claim 15, note Goldenberg discloses a terminal device (paragraph 0075, and figure 2B: 250; the device 250 is considered to be a terminal), comprising a periscope camera module (figures 1-2), wherein the periscope camera module comprises an optical path steering element, wherein the optical path steering element is configured to perform angle folding on incident light (paragraphs 0071, 0080-0081, and figures 2A & 5A: 208), a lens group (paragraphs 0012, 0071, and figures 1 & 2A: 104/204), an imaging element (paragraph 0012, and figure 1: 106), and a first image stabilization component, wherein the first image stabilization component is connected to the optical path steering element, and is configured to drive the optical path steering element to rotate around a first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a first direction (paragraphs 0080, 0085-0087, and figures 5A: 260; the prism 208 is rotated around the axis 232).
Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose a second image stabilization component, and wherein the second image stabilization component is flexibly connected to the imaging element, and is configured to drive the imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction.
In analogous art, Brown discloses a periscope camera module (figure 11) having a second image stabilization component, and wherein the second image stabilization component is flexibly connected to the imaging element, and is configured to drive the imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis (column 16, lines 12-15, and figure 11: 702, 711; the sensor 702 is moved in any direction orthogonal to the Z axis, e.g., in the direction of the X-axis and/or the Y-axis, such that when the sensor is moved along the Y-axis, i.e., in a direction going in/out of the page, the second direction is considered to be different from the first direction). Brown teaches that the use of a second image stabilization component, wherein the second image stabilization component is flexibly connected to the imaging element, and is configured to drive the imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction is preferred in order to combine OIS effects to provide an overall OIS effect that is greater than the effect of an individual OIS element/actuator (column 16, lines 27-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference to include a second image stabilization component, and wherein the second image stabilization component is flexibly connected to the imaging element, and is configured to drive the imaging element to move in an extension direction of the first axis for stabilization of the periscope camera module along a second direction different from the first direction, in order to provide an overall OIS effect that is greater than the effect of an individual OIS element/actuator, as suggested by Brown.
In regard to claim 16, note Goldenberg discloses that the first axis is perpendicular to a plane formed by an input optical axis and an output optical axis of the optical path steering element (paragraphs 0080, 0085-0087, and figures 5A: 260; the prism 208 is rotated around the axis 232).
In regard to claim 17, note Brown discloses that the second image stabilization component is further configured to drive the imaging element to rotate around a second axis, and the second axis is parallel to an output optical axis of the optical path steering element (column 16, lines 40-46, and figure 11: 702, 711; the second axis is considered to be the Z axis).
In regard to claim 18, note Goldenberg discloses that the first image stabilization component has a tilted platform, and the optical path steering element is drivably disposed on the tilted platform (paragraph 0081, and figure 5A: 208, 215; the prism 208 is drivably disposed on the platform 215).
In regard to claim 19, note Goldenberg discloses that the optical path steering element is a prism (paragraphs 0080-0081, and figure 5A: 208; prism 208).
In regard to claim 20, note Goldenberg discloses that the first image stabilization component comprises an inclined surface connected to the optical path steering element (figure 5A: 208, 215; the adapter 215 includes an inclined surface that couples to the prism 208).
In regard to claim 21, note Goldenberg discloses that the first image stabilization component comprises protrusions on two sides to avoid the optical path steering element to translate along the second axis (figure 5A: 208, 215; the adapter 215 includes two protrusions on the sides to rigidly hold the prism 208).
In regard to claim 22, note Goldenberg discloses that the first direction corresponds to an extension direction of the input optical axis (paragraphs 0080, 0085-0087, and figures 5A: 260; the prism 208 is rotated around the axis 232, i.e., around the Y-axis, in order to provide stabilization in the X-axis direction), and Brown discloses that the second direction corresponds to the extension direction of the first axis (column 16, lines 12-15, and figure 11: 702, 711; the sensor 702 is moved in any direction orthogonal to the Z axis, e.g., in the direction of the X-axis and/or the Y-axis, such that when the sensor is moved along the Y-axis, i.e., in a direction going in/out of the page).
In regard to claim 23, note Goldenberg discloses that the first direction corresponds to an extension direction of the input optical axis (paragraphs 0080, 0085-0087, and figures 5A: 260; the prism 208 is rotated around the axis 232, i.e., around the Y-axis, in order to provide stabilization in the X-axis direction), and Brown discloses that the second direction corresponds to the extension direction of the first axis (column 16, lines 12-15, and figure 11: 702, 711; the sensor 702 is moved in any direction orthogonal to the Z axis, e.g., in the direction of the X-axis and/or the Y-axis, such that when the sensor is moved along the Y-axis, i.e., in a direction going in/out of the page).
In regard to claim 24, note Goldenberg discloses that the first direction corresponds to an extension direction of the input optical axis (paragraphs 0080, 0085-0087, and figures 5A: 260; the prism 208 is rotated around the axis 232, i.e., around the Y-axis, in order to provide stabilization in the X-axis direction), and Brown discloses that the second direction corresponds to the extension direction of the first axis (column 16, lines 12-15, and figure 11: 702, 711; the sensor 702 is moved in any direction orthogonal to the Z axis, e.g., in the direction of the X-axis and/or the Y-axis, such that when the sensor is moved along the Y-axis, i.e., in a direction going in/out of the page).
In regard to claim 25, note Goldenberg discloses that the optical path steering element is a prism (paragraphs 0080-0081, and figure 5A: 208; prism 208).
In regard to claim 26, note Goldenberg discloses that the first image stabilization component comprises an inclined surface connected to the optical path steering element (figure 5A: 208, 215; the adapter 215 includes an inclined surface that couples to the prism 208).
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 CHRISS S YODER III whose telephone number is (571)272-7323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Lin Ye can be reached at (571) 272-7372. 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.
/C.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights