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 6/19/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner notes that the current title “SHAKE CORRECTION DEVICE” is a good starting point, but recommends adding analogous language to “CAMERA” and “FOR DRIVING IMAGE SENSOR” into the current title. For example, Examiner recommends the following amended new title:
“CAMERA COMPRISING SHAKE CORRECTION DEVICE FOR DRIVING IMAGE SENSOR”
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 comprising an optical image stabilization (OIS) device for driving an image sensor.
NAITO (US 20200201139) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see Abstract, Fig. 10-13, and para [0136-141, 0145-151], discloses an anti-shake mechanism 14/114 comprising a fixed part 100 that has an upper magnet 103, a lower magnet 107, an upper yoke 101, and a lower yoke 108, and a movable frame 206 that has coils 205a, 250b, 205c and an imaging element package 6, wherein a movable PCB 203 or an image capture device holding frame 6c of the imaging element package 6 is adhered and fixed to the movable frame 206 by an adhesive 40.
ORIHASHI (US 20080055420) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see Abstract, Fig. 4-6, and para [0069-70] in view of Table 1, discloses an optical image stabilization (OIS) device for an image sensor 22/221 attached to a holder 20 formed of resin materials with high thermal conductivity for achieving thermal management of an image sensor. The resin materials include carbon fiber or graphite powder having a heat conductivity of 100 W/mK or greater, a ceramic powder such as carbon nanotube (CNT).
VERKUIJLEN (US 20100091148) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see Abstract, Fig. 3-4, and para [0011-13, 0023-24, 0030-33], discloses a two-step alignment securement method of adhering an image sensor 110 to a supporting body “holder” 104 using two different types of “adhesive” (first & second fixative agents). VERKUIJLEN discloses adhering an image sensor 110 to a prism 104 “holder” that serves as a support member to hold the image sensor as shown in Fig. 3 using two different types of adhesive taught by method in Fig. 4: steps 404-406. VERKUIJLEN discloses a two-step positioning process in which during the first step – a first fixative agent (202) comprising a UV curing adhesive is first applied between the image sensor 110 and prism 104 (Fig. 4: steps 404-406) to initially set the position of the image sensor relative to the prism AND then second step – after the image sensor 110 is accurately positioned and fixed, a second fixative agent 204 (i.e. UV adhesive different adhesive) is applied to permanently secure the image sensor 110 into place (Fig. 4: step 408). VERKUIJLEN also discloses that the second fixative agent 204 may be another adhesive type with different properties relative to the initial UV glue fixative which can be used for the second fixation process to increase certain performance based on desired system design criteria per para [0030].
AOKI (US 20090079863) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1 & 3 and Fig. 5 in view of Fig. 7) discloses a camera module which bonds an image sensor to a circuit board in which the joining surfaces (elements 3 & 11 with groves) that are to be bonded may be configured with one/more “grooves” recesses and protrusions in one / both surfaces (Fig. 4B-4D and Fig. 5A-5C). Fig. 4B-4D illustrates joining surfaces (elements 3 & 11) having increased surface area created by the recesses/protrusions “grooves” instead of being two flat surfaces which would have smaller surface area.
ISHIBIKI JUMPEI (JP 2021144165) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, (English translation attached), see Abstract, Fig. 2-9, and para [0030-33], discloses a first blur correction unit 20 provided with first to third magnet groups 23a-23c, a fixed part 20a that has first to third rear yokes 25a-25c, and a movable part 20b that has first to third coils 38a-38c and a movable member 32 for holding an imaging element 11, wherein the imaging element 11 is fixed to the movable member 32 with an adhesive. ISHIBIKI also discloses the magnet 31 is fixed to fixed member 21 by an adhesive per para [0030] AND discloses the movable member 20b/32 has openings 32a-c for the coils 38a-c (para [0032]) which are fixed to movable member 20b/32 by an adhesive per para [0033].
MIYAKE (US 20020140837) – see Abstract, Fig. 2-4, and para [0043-47, 0059], discloses recess-protrusion shapes on two sides of a frame (Fig. 2-4: elements 6, 13 & 16). Further discloses a fixing mechanism 18 such as an adhesive is included for fixing the leg portion 9a to the circuit board 3 drawn out of the recess 17 (cutout part) of the leg portion 9a. The fixing mechanism 18 may be, for example, an ultraviolet curing type resin (para [0059]).
MILLER (US 20180171991) – see Abstract, Fig. 26-29, and para [0088-89], discloses an optical image stabilization (OIS) device for an image sensor 2508/2808 attached to a holder 2522/2822 configured with heatsink features (2502, 2802 & 2810) for achieving thermal management of an image sensor.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAITO (US 20200201139) in view of VERKUIJLEN (US 20100091148) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1, NAITO teaches a shake correction device that drives an imaging element by using a drive mechanism to perform a shake correction (see Fig. 10-13 in view of para [0136-141, 0145-151]: anti-shake mechanism 14/114 comprising a fixed part 100 and a movable frame 206 / PCB 203 adhesively attached to an imaging element package 6 by adhesive 40), the shake correction device comprising:
a fixing section that includes a magnet and a yoke that constitute the drive mechanism (Fig. 10-13 in view of para [0136-141, 0145-151]: fixed part 100 has an upper magnet 103, a lower magnet 107, an upper yoke 101, and a lower yoke 108);
and a movable section that includes a holding member that holds a coil constituting the drive mechanism and the imaging element, and that supports the holding member in a movable manner (Fig. 10-13 in view of para [0136-141, 0145-151]: movable frame 206 that has coils 205a, 250b, 205c and an imaging element package 6, wherein a movable PCB 203 or an image capture device holding frame 6c of the imaging element package 6 is adhered and fixed to the movable frame 206 by an adhesive 40).
Regarding underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold): “wherein the imaging element and the holding member adhere to each other with a first adhesive and a second adhesive different from the first adhesive, and a second adhesive is applied to a portion different from a portion to which the first adhesive is applied”,
NAITO teaches the imaging element 6 and the holding member 203/206 adhere to each other with a first adhesive 40 (para [0146-0150]) as noted above. NAITO’s disclosure is silent to (with emphasis in bold) “and a second adhesive different from the first adhesive, and a second adhesive is applied to a portion different from a portion to which the first adhesive is applied”.
However, the bolded feature of said underlined limitation is considered obvious since it was known in the related art to adhere an image sensor to a support member “holder” using two different types of adhesive in general for motivated reason to enhance the alignment process of an image sensor being secured to a support member by usage of a first adhesive to initially fix the position of the image sensor (i.e. for temporary securement) and by usage of a second adhesive for permanent securement purposes.
For example, this two-step securement method can be appreciated over prior art VERKUIJLEN which discloses adhering an image sensor 110 to a prism 104 “holder” that serves as a support member to hold the image sensor as shown in Fig. 3 using two different types of adhesive taught by method in Fig. 4: steps 404-406 in view of para [0011-13, 0023-24, 0030-33]. VERKUIJLEN discloses a two-step positioning process in which during the first step – a first fixative agent (202) comprising a UV curing adhesive is first applied between the image sensor 110 and prism 104 (Fig. 4: steps 404-406) to initially set the position of the image sensor relative to the prism AND then second step – after the image sensor 110 is accurately positioned and fixed, a second fixative agent 204 (i.e. UV adhesive different adhesive) is applied to permanently secure the image sensor 110 into place (Fig. 4: step 408). VERKUIJLEN also discloses that the second fixative agent 204 may be another adhesive type with different properties relative to the initial first UV glue fixative which can be used for the second fixation process to increase certain performance based on desired system design criteria per para [0030].
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 VERKUIJLEN (i.e. two-step alignment securement process of an image sensor using a first adhesive and second adhesive in general) into suitable modification with the teachings of NAITO (i.e. adhesively attaching an image sensor to a holder in a shake correction device) to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON to optimize the alignment process of securing an image sensor to a supportive holder in the analogous art of a digital camera.
Furthermore, given the above combined teachings of NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use “a second adhesive different from the first adhesive” as preferred materials for securing an image sensor to a supporting holder, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As per CLAIM 2, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN teaches the shake correction device according to claim 1, wherein the drive mechanism is a voice coil motor (NAITO’s drive mechanism is a voice coil motor by comprising a coil and magnet configuration. See Fig. 10-13 in view of para [0136-141, 0145-151]: fixed part 100 has an upper magnet 103, a lower magnet 107, an upper yoke 101, and a lower yoke 108 AND movable frame 206 that has coils 205a, 250b, 205c).
As per CLAIM 3, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN teaches the shake correction device according to claim 1, wherein the movable section supports the holding member in a movable manner in a plane parallel to an imaging surface of the imaging element with respect to the fixing section (NAITO’s Fig. 11-13 in view of para [0136-141, 0145-151]: movable frame 206 / PCB 203 supports imaging element package 6 in a movable manner in a plane parallel to fixed part 100).
As per CLAIM 16, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN teaches the shake correction device according to claim 1, wherein the first adhesive is an ultraviolet curable adhesive (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over VERKUIJLEN’s teachings to use a UV curing adhesive (para [0030-31]) for motivated reasons discussed in claim 1).
As per CLAIM 17, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN teaches the shake correction device according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation: “wherein the second adhesive has a lower hardness than the first adhesive”, VERKUIJLEN discloses in para [0030] that the second fixative agent 204 may be another adhesive type with different properties relative to the initial first UV glue fixative which can be used for the second fixation process to increase certain performance based on desired system design criteria.
Furthermore, given VERKUIJLEN teachings as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use “the second adhesive having a lower hardness than the first adhesive” as preferred materials for securing an image sensor to a supporting holder, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 4-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAITO (US 20200201139) in view of VERKUIJLEN (US 20100091148) in view of ORIHASHI (US 20080055420) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 4, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN teaches the shake correction device according to claim 1.
NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN are silent to (with emphasis in bold) “wherein the holding member is a resin member molded of a high thermal conductivity resin”.
However, the bolded feature of said underlined limitation was previously known in the related art for a digital camera. For example, prior art ORIHASHI (see Fig. 4-6, and para [0069-70] in view of Table 1) discloses a an optical image stabilization (OIS) device for an image sensor 22/221 attached to a holder 20 formed of resin materials with high thermal conductivity for achieving thermal management of an image sensor. The resin materials may also include carbon fiber or graphite powder having a heat conductivity of 100 W/mK or greater, a ceramic powder such as carbon nanotube (CNT).
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 ORIHASHI into suitable modification with the teachings of NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of achieving thermal management of an image sensor in the analogous art of a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 5, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of ORIHASHI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 4, wherein a thermal conductivity of the high thermal conductivity resin is 2 (W/m/K) or more (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over ORIHASHI’s teachings which recognize a variety of heat conductive W/m/K values may be achieved based on the type of resin material used to dissipate heat. Para [0017] states holder include a molded part of a resin material having a heat conductivity of 1 W/mK or greater AND para [0069-70] in view of Table 1 discloses heat conductive values of 0.2 W/m/K and 6 W/m/K. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a high thermal conductivity resin of 2 (W/m/K) or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
As per CLAIM 6, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of ORIHASHI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 4, wherein a thermal conductivity of the high thermal conductivity resin is preferably 3 (W/m/K) or more (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over ORIHASHI’s teachings which recognize a variety of heat conductive W/m/K values may be achieved based on the type of resin material used to dissipate heat. Para [0017] states holder include a molded part of a resin material having a heat conductivity of 1 W/mK or greater AND para [0069-70] in view of Table 1 discloses heat conductive values of 0.2 W/m/K and 6 W/m/K. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a high thermal conductivity resin of 3 (W/m/K) or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
As per CLAIM 7, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of ORIHASHI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 4, wherein the high thermal conductivity resin is a resin containing fibrous fillers (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over ORIHASHI’s teachings over para [0069-70] which discloses the resin materials may also include carbon fiber or graphite powder having a heat conductivity of 100 W/mK or greater, a ceramic powder such as carbon nanotube (CNT)).
As per CLAIM 8, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of ORIHASHI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 7, wherein the holding member is molded in a frame shape and includes fibrous fillers (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over ORIHASHI’s teachings over para [0069-70] which discloses the resin materials may include glass fibers as a filler to secure dimensional stability and also may include carbon fiber or graphite powder having a heat conductivity of 100 W/mK or greater, a ceramic powder such as carbon nanotube (CNT)).
NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of ORIHASHI are silent to “and a direction of the fibrous fillers in the holding member is aligned in a direction along the frame shape”.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of configuring the direction of the fibrous fillers in the holding member being aligned in a direction along the frame shape 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 configure the direction of the fibrous fillers in an image sensor holder for the MOTIVATED REASON to control the directionality of heat transfer pathways in a holder for efficiently dissipating heat from an image sensor towards an electronic device’s exterior environment for thermal management purposes in the analogous art of a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 9, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of ORIHASHI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 1, wherein the holding member is a resin member molded of a conductive resin (Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons discussed by the prior art combination made in claim 4 over the additional teachings of ORIHASHI disclosed in para [0069-70] in view of Fig. 4-6).
As per CLAIM 10, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of ORIHASHI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 4, wherein the holding member is a resin member molded of a conductive resin (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over ORIHASHI’s teachings over para [0069-70] which discloses a holder 20 formed of resin materials with high thermal conductivity for achieving thermal management of an image sensor. The resin materials may also include carbon fiber or graphite powder having a heat conductivity of 100 W/mK or greater, a ceramic powder such as carbon nanotube (CNT)).
As per CLAIM 21, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of ORIHASHI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 4 but remain silent to: “wherein the holding member is formed with a screw hole that is a non-through hole deeper than a length of a male screw”.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of configuring a holder with non-penetrating screw holes fastened by screws 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 configure a holding member to be formed with a screw hole that is a non-through hole deeper than a length of a male screw for the MOTIVATED REASON to optimize compactness in an electronic device when fastening electronic components together in the analogous art of a digital camera.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAITO (US 20200201139) in view of VERKUIJLEN (US 20100091148) in view of AOKI (US 20090079863) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 11, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN teaches the shake correction device according to claim 1.
Regarding underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold): “wherein the holding member has a shape that increases an adhesive area of the first adhesive”,
NAITO teaches adhering the holder 203/206 to the image sensor 6, wherein para [0147] states when bonding components with an adhesive, it is necessary to provide a place where the adhesive is applied (hereinafter referred to as the adhesive pool). For this reason, it’s possible to freely arrange the adhesive pool with a higher degree of freedom in shape, it is preferable that the bonding surface is formed by a resin.
Furthermore, when bonding two surfaces together in the related prior art, it was also previously known to provide recesses / protrusions in one / both surfaces that are to be adhesively joined for the motivated reason of achieving a stronger bond between both surfaces and also achieving a more compact camera module. For example, prior art AOKI (see Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1 & 3 and Fig. 5 in view of Fig. 7) discloses a camera module which bonds an image sensor to a circuit board in which the joining surfaces (elements 3 & 11 with groves) that are to be bonded may be configured with one/more “grooves” recesses and protrusions in one / both surfaces (Fig. 4B-4D and Fig. 5A-5C). Fig. 4B-4D shown below with joining surfaces (elements 3 & 11) having increased surface area created by the recesses/protrusions instead of being two flat surfaces which would have smaller surface area.
PNG
media_image1.png
153
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
153
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 AOKI (joining surfaces configured with one/more recesses and protrusions) into suitable modification with the teachings of NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN (adhesive pool for adhesively joining a holder to an image sensor) to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of achieving a stronger bond between both joining surfaces and also achieving a more compact camera module in the analogous art of a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 12, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of AOKI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 11, wherein the first adhesive is applied in the shape (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over NAITO’s teachings to provide an adhesive pool for adhesive per para [0147] in further view of AOKI’s teachings in which the joining surfaces (elements 3 & 11) that are to be bonded may be configured with one/more recesses and protrusions in one / both surfaces as shown in Fig. 4B-4D and Fig. 5A-5C).
As per CLAIM 13, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of AOKI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 11, wherein the shape is a recess-protrusion shape (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over NAITO’s teachings to provide an adhesive pool for adhesive per para [0147] in further view of AOKI’s teachings in which the joining surfaces (elements 3 & 11) that are to be bonded may be configured with one/more recesses and protrusions in one / both surfaces as shown in Fig. 4B-4D and Fig. 5A-5C).
As per CLAIM 14, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of AOKI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 13, wherein the holding member has a plurality of the recess-protrusion shapes (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over NAITO’s teachings to provide an adhesive pool for adhesive for joining an image sensor to a holder per para [0147] in further view of AOKI’s teachings in which the joining surfaces (elements 3 & 11) that are to be bonded may be configured with one/more recesses and protrusions in one / both surfaces as shown in Fig. 4D and Fig. 5A-5C).
As per CLAIM 15, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of AOKI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 14, wherein the holding member is molded in a frame shape and has the plurality of recess-protrusion shapes on at least two sides of the frame shape (Given prior art combined teachings, this feature is obvious over NAITO’s teachings to provide an adhesive pool for adhesive for joining an image sensor to a holder per para [0147] in further view of AOKI’s teachings in which the joining surfaces (elements 3 & 11) that are to be bonded may be configured with one/more recesses and protrusions in one / both surfaces as shown in Fig. 4B-4D and Fig. 5A-5C. This is considered obvious to apply to any two surfaces that are to be joined for the same motivational reasons discussed in claim 11, including sides surfaces – see AOKI’s Fig. 13-17).
NOTE: also see prior art example MIYAKE (US 20020140837) per Fig. 2-4 in view of para [0043-47, 0059] having recess-protrusion shapes on two sides of a frame as cited in Closest Prior Art section above.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAITO (US 20200201139) in view of VERKUIJLEN (US 20100091148) in view of ISHIBIKI JUMPEI (JP 2021144165) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 22, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN teaches the shake correction device according to claim 1, wherein the holding member includes a first opening portion in which the imaging element is disposed and includes, on an outer side of the first opening portion, a second opening portion in which the coil is disposed (NAITO’s Fig. 11-13: holder 206 with opening for image sensor 6/203 and outer opening for coils 205 teaches this feature).
and a space between the coil and an inner peripheral surface of the second opening portion is filled with the first adhesive.
Regarding the limitation: “a second opening portion in which the coil is disposed, and a space between the coil and an inner peripheral surface of the second opening portion is filled with the first adhesive”, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN appear to be silent to using adhesive to attach the coils in the second opening.
However, the bolded feature of said underlined limitation is considered obvious since it was previously known in the related art to secure coils to an opening on a holder in general. For example, prior art ISHIBIKI (see Abstract, Fig. 2-9, and para [0030-33]) discloses a first blur correction unit 20 provided with first to third magnet groups 23a-23c, a fixed part 20a that has first to third rear yokes 25a-25c, and a movable part 20b that has first to third coils 38a-38c and a movable member 32 for holding an imaging element 11, wherein the imaging element 11 is fixed to the movable member 32 with an adhesive. ISHIBIKI also discloses the magnet 31 is fixed to fixed member 21 by an adhesive per para [0030] AND further discloses the movable member 20b/32 has openings 32a-c for the coils 38a-c (para [0032]) which are fixed to movable member 20b/32 by an adhesive per para [0033]. Given ISHIBIKI’s teachings, filling a space between the coil and an inner peripheral surface of the second opening portion with the first adhesive is considered obvious and would require routine skill in the art for optimizing securement of coils to a holder for OIS.
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 ISHIBIKI into suitable modification with the teachings of NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON to optimize securement of coils to a holder for OIS in the analogous art of a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 23, NAITO in view of VERKUIJLEN in view of ISHIBIKI teaches the shake correction device according to claim 22, wherein the second opening portion has a first opening shape in which a periphery of the second opening portion is closed or a second opening shape in which a part of the periphery of the second opening portion is open (Given the prior art combined teachings discussed in claim 22 – (see NAITO’s Fig. 11-13: holder 206 with opening for coils 205 in view of ISHIBIKI’s para [0031-33]: movable member 32 “holder” has openings 32a-c for coils 38a-38c which are secured by adhesive) – it is considered obvious to fill, with an adhesive, the locations (openings) at which the coils are disposed, and the shape of the locations where the coils are disposed would be expected to suitably accommodate the coils to ensure proper functionality of the shake correction mechanism with respect to the holder).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
The closest/related prior art (cited/discussed in this Office Action), when taken alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach the following limitations as recited in dependent claim 18 (with emphasis in bold):
“wherein the holding member includes a restricting member that restricts a movable range of the movable section by abutting on the fixing section, and the first adhesive is applied between the imaging element and the holding member that are spaced apart from the restricting member by a first distance or more”.
Claims 19-20 are objected as allowable for depending from claim 18.
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
Prosecution Insights