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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1:
In line 8 of claim 1, “180degrees” should be amended to read as – 180 degrees --.
In lines 20-21 of claim 1, “wherein in the spun-out position the first and second directions are perpendicular to the screen.” should be corrected to read as – wherein, in the spun-out position, the first and second directions are perpendicular to the screen. --.
As to claim 3:
In lines 1-2 of claim 3, “wherein in the stowed position the first and second directions are parallel to the screen.” should be corrected to read as – wherein, in the stowed position, the first and second directions are parallel to the screen. --.
As to claim 4:
In lines 1-2 of claim 4, “wherein in the stowed position the camera housing is flush with both a front surface and a rear surface of the mobile device.” should be corrected to read as – wherein, in the stowed position, the camera housing is flush with both a front surface and a rear surface of the mobile device. --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-18, 21-23 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,870 B2 in view of Sukeno et al. (US 2003/0016214 A1, hereinafter “Sukeno”).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations of claim 1 are met by the limitations of Patent claims 1 and 3 except for “a screen” and “in the spun-out position the first and second directions are perpendicular to the screen.” The Patent claim 3 discloses: “[T]he camera module of claim 1, included in a mobile device, wherein in the spun-out operational position the camera module optical axis is perpendicular to a front surface of the mobile device.” Although the Patent claim 3 is silent about that the front surface of the mobile device includes “a screen”, such notoriously well-known feature is taught by Sukeno in Figs. 1B & 1C, wherein a screen (4) is disposed on the front surface of a mobile device for displaying the captured image (see Sukeno, par. [0046]).
For that reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a screen on the front surface of the mobile device for displaying the captured image as taught by Sukeno. As such, the combined teaching of the Patent claims 1 & 3 and Sukeno would have arrived at the claimed limitations of “in the spun-out position the first and second directions are perpendicular to the screen.”
Regarding claims 2-4, these claims are directly met by Patent claims 2, 4 and 5, respectively.
Regarding claims 5-15, these claims are directly met by Patent claims 8-18, respectively.
Regarding claims 16-19, these claims are directly met by Patent claims 20-23, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is met by Patent claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/NHAN T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights