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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in instant Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance.
Fig 10C refers to the board side 1154a twice in right side and left side, one of them should; be corrected to be 1154b.
Fig 10N, shows a coil on the first board side labeled 1052d, which is not defined anywhere in the specification, it should be corrected as 1152a.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20210067419 A) in view of Kim (US 20150319844 A1, hereinafter “9844”).
Claim 1, discloses a camera actuator comprising: a housing; a mover disposed in the housing (Kim, Fig. 5A-5B, Paragraph 0008) and including an optical member (Kim, Fig. 6 A Optical Member 1222, Paragraph 0052); a tilting guide unit connected to the mover in the housing (Kim, Fig. 7 - 1232 third coil, Paragraph 0065); and a driving unit configured to rotate the mover, wherein the driving unit includes a driving magnet, a driving coil facing the driving magnet (Kim, Fig. 7 – 1230 driving unit, Paragraph 0162), a board unit on which the driving coil is disposed (Kim, Fig. 7 – 1235 board part, Paragraph 0076), and attitude detection sensor disposed on the board unit, the board unit includes a first board side portion (Kim, Fig7. 1235a) and a second board side portion (Kim, Fig7. 1235b) which faces the first board side portion and on which the attitude detection sensor is disposed (Kim, Fig. 7 – 1235 board part, CE2 as place holder, Paragraph 0182 - The first circuit element (CE1) and the second circuit element (CE2) may include a driver IC, a sensor (e.g., a gyroscope sensor), etc.);
However, Kim does not disclose the thickness of the second board side portion is greater than a thickness of the first board side portion.
With reference to 9844, it teaches the thickness of the second board side portion is greater than a thickness of the first board side portion (9844, Fig 11, Paragraph 0081, 0083).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to Camera and Board design. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kim with a board with different thicknesses as seen in 9844, and increaser thickness of the second board side portion where the attitude detection on sensor is disposed.
The motivation of doing so directly addresses impact reliability of attitude sensing so the sensor sits in a more robust area, increasing the durability against heat as well.
Claim(s) 2 is dependent on claim 1, please see claim 1 analysis. Additionally claim 2 discloses wherein the board unit includes a third board side portion (Kim, Fig. 7 – 1235c, board part 1235, Paragraph 0177) disposed between the first board side portion (Kim, Fig. 7 – 1235a, board part 1235, Paragraph 0177) and the second board side portion (Kim, Fig. 7 – 1235b, board part 1235, Paragraph 0177).
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 2, please see claim 2 analyses. Additionally, it discloses wherein the board unit includes a first layer, a second layer disposed inside the first layer, and a third layer disposed outside the first layer (9844, Fig 1-3, Paragraph 0029-30).
With reference to 9844, it teaches how to change the thickness of the different sides board by adding more layers (9844, Fig. 8-9 Paragraph 0068 as example in).
The added layers will increase rigidity and add protection for the board.
Claim(s) 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20210067419 A) in view of Kim (US 20150319844 A1, hereinafter “9844”) over Jandhyala (US 12063742 B1).
Claim 7 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Additionally, it discloses wherein the attitude detection sensor is disposed on the second board side portion (Kim, Fig. 7 – 1235 board part, CE2 as place holder, Paragraph 0182 - The first circuit element (CE1) and the second circuit element (CE2) may include a driver IC, a sensor (e.g., a gyroscope sensor), etc.).
However, the combination of Kim and 9844 does not disclose the second layer and the third layer are disposed on the second board side portion.
With reference to Jandhyala, it discloses wherein the attitude detection sensor is disposed on the second board side portion (Jandhyala, Fig. 1C and Fig. 4, Column 4, Line 1-5) and the second layer and the third layer are disposed on the second board side portion (Jandhyala, Fig. 3A – insulation layer 1, insulation layer 2, routing layer 3, flexible region and rigid region and Column 10, Line 40-60).
Jandhyala describes an actuator and PCB that can host a position sensor on one side and the coil on the opposite side and describes a method (Jandhyala, Fig. 4, Column 11, Line 29-63) to change the construction of the board between them in terms of disposed layers for different regions of the PCB board by using different combinations of layers in each region (Jandhyala, Fig. 3A and 3B, Column 10, Line 40-60). Here, Jandhyala defines a “position sensor” as may broadly refer to any type of sensors suitable for measuring the distance, position, direction, and/or speed of one object (e.g., the coil) relative to another object (e.g., the magnet)
These arts are analogous since they are both related to Camera Actuator and Board design. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of combination of Kim and 9844 with the teaching of Jandhyala.
The motivation of doing so, it can facilitate creating small size camera housing, and reduce the footprint of the overall design, while increasing the reliability and durability, and protect against radiation and heat for the coils and sensors on specific regions of the board.
Claim 8 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Additionally, it discloses wherein the attitude detection sensor is disposed outside the first layer on the second board side portion, and the driving coil is disposed inside the first layer on the second board side portion (Jandhyala, Fig. 1C-4, Column 4, Line 3-4 and Fig. 3A, Column 10, Line 40-60; Byun, Fig. 1, Paragraph 27, ).
Claim 9 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Additionally, it discloses wherein the second layer is disposed on the second board side portion to correspond to the attitude detection sensor, and the third layer is disposed on the second board side portion to correspond to the driving coil (Jandhyala, Fig. 1C-4, Column 4, Line 1-5 and Fig. 3A, Column 10, Line 40-60; Byun, Fig. 1, Paragraph 27)
Claim 10 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Additionally, it discloses wherein the second layer overlaps the attitude detection sensor and the driving coil in a horizontal direction (Jandhyala, Fig 1D), the third layer overlaps the attitude detection sensor and the driving coil in the horizontal direction, and the horizontal direction corresponds to a direction from the first board side portion toward the second board side portion (Jandhyala, Fig. 1C, Column 4, Line 3-4 and Fig. 3A, Column 10, Line 40-60; Byun, Fig. 1, Paragraph 27)
Claim 4 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Additionally, it teaches wherein the second layer is disposed inside the first board side portion and the second board side portion. This is rejected for the same reason as claim 7. Please see claim 7 analysis.
The motivation of doing so, the flexibility of the board design is increased by configuring how many layers are added to which side and subsequently changing the thickness of the board side, leading to increase the durability of the board and increase radiation protection for the board, yielding a sturdier design that can handle sudden external shocks and disturbances.
Claim 5 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Additionally, it teaches wherein the first layer is disposed on the first board side portion to the third board side portion.
For the same reason claim 7 is rejected, (please see above); claim 5 is rejected.
Claim 6 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Additionally, it teaches the second layer and the third layer are disposed on at least one of the first board side portion and the second board side portion.
For the same reason claim 4 is rejected, (please see above); claim 6 is rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUHAMMAD AWNI ALJUNDI whose telephone number is (571)270-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (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 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.
/MOUHAMMAD AWNI ALJUNDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights