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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment and the Request for continuing Examination filed on 09/21/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-15 are now pending in the Application. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended and new claims 11-15 have been added by the Applicant. Previous claims 1-10 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been partially withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
Examiner Notes
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.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application JP 2021-139959, filed 08/30/2021 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the first groove” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the claim or define the limitation earlier in the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitations for “a front stopper portion”, and “a rear stopper portion” in lines 1-3. However, these limitations are confusing because it is unclear if these limitations are the same as limitations for “a front-side stopper portion” and “a rear-side stopper portion” recited in base claim 1, or if they refer to some other and new front and rear stopper portion, different from the front-side and rear-side stopper portions, respectively. For the purposes of examination the above limitations will be treated broadly such that they can refer to same limitations as the front-side and rear-side stopper portions, respectively. It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issue.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (hereafter Kim) US 20210373278 A1 in view of Kawanabe US 20190271825 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) an optical actuator (i.e. camera/module actuator 100, see title, abstract, paragraphs [1-5, 10-42, 59-66,98-106, 140-149]), comprising:
a movable part on which a lens part is mountable (movable lens housing 110, lens housing for lens 112, paragraphs [14, 38-42, 61-75]), the movable part being configured to move, by driving of a driving part, in a direction parallel to a direction of an optical axis of light passing through the lens part (as 110 moved by driving VCM 220, 260, in optical axis of 112 direction, Z-axis direction, e.g. for AF, see paragraphs [38-42, 61-75], Figs. 1-6);
a fixing part accommodating the movable part (base 20 with guide pin/plate and ball 70, accommodating the moving 110, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]); and
a first shaft and a second shaft, each extending in a direction parallel to the direction of the optical axis, spaced apart from each other in a width direction of the movable part orthogonal to the direction of the optical axis (guide pin and plate 50, 60 with balls 70 71,72 extending in Z-optical axis direction, spaced in width direction of 110 that is perpendicular to Z-optical axis direction, as depicted in Figs. 1-5a, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]), and fixed to the fixing part (as disposed and fixed on base 20 support parts 21,22, Figs. 1-2, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]), wherein:
the movable part (110) is configured to slide on the first shaft and the second shaft (as 110 slides on along z-axis direction on guides 50, 60 with 70, Figs. 1-5a, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]) while making contact with the first shaft at two places in a direction of the optical axis and with the second shaft at one place in the direction of the optical axis (i.e. as 110 makes contact at two receiving portion places groove 114P with two 71,50 in Z-direction as there are two balls 71, and as 110 makes contact at e.g. one or two receiving portion places of groove 116P/T with 72,60 in Z-direction as there are can be one (or two) balls 72, as depicted in Figs.1-5a, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-91]).
But Kim is silent that the movable part includes a front-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided in front of the one place, and a rear-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided behind the one place, and that the front-side stopper portion (702c) or the rear-side stopper portion (702d) is provided to suppress inclination of the movable part (70) beyond a predetermined angle in the optical axis direction.
However, Kawanabe teaches in the same field of invention of lens guide and driving device and imaging apparatus (see Figs. 1-15, abstract, paragraphs [6-20, 37-50, 54-59,76-82], with relative movable parts including guide mechanism 45, lens/guide frame 44,50, holding barrel, plate 43,46, lens moving device/mechanism 11,12,42, Figs. 1-6,8) and further teaches that movable part includes a front-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided in front of one place, and a rear-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided behind the one place (i.e. as the front and the rear restricting protrusions 61 of 44,50 in front and behind the one place where of 51,49A contacts 67,54, or also as protrusions 60A, 62, or 62-60A in front and behind the one place with contact of 52,49B and 53,43 or 52,49C and 53,43, as depicted in Figs. 2-6,8, paragraphs [54-59,76-82], restricting the rolling of the first rolling body 49A beyond a predetermined range on the first rail 51, providing that respective rolling bodies 49A to 49C can be reliably returned to the reference positions by the initialization, and allowing focusing to be accurately performed), and that the front-side stopper portion (702c) or the rear-side stopper portion (702d) is provided to suppress inclination of the movable part (70) beyond a predetermined angle in the optical axis direction (i.e. as due to the structures of the restricting protrusions e.g. front 61 and rear 61 (or front and rear 60A, 62) restricting rolling bodies on rails as depicted in Figs. 2-6,8, paragraphs [54-59,76-82], as structures of protrusions noted above would prevent the lens frame 44,50 to incline i.e. as movable part lens frame 44 is moved smoothly without rattling, see e.g. abstract, paragraphs [06-09,20,78], as it is held that because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding limiting inclination of movable part. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP § 2114.2111.04).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the movable lens housing of Kim to include front and rear restricting protrusions provided in front of and behind the position where the second shaft comes into contact according to teachings of Kawanabe, in order to provide for restricting the rolling of the rolling body beyond predetermined range on the rail, and provide that respective rolling body(ies) be reliably returned to the reference positions by the initialization, and allowing focusing to be accurately performed, and limiting the lens frame not rattle or incline in case of fall or impact, (see Kawanabe, paragraphs [6-9,20,56-59,78-80]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that at each of the two places in the direction of optical axis (e.g. at each two optical axis receiving portion places 114p contacting e.g. two 71,50, Figs.1-5a, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-91]), the movable part and the first shaft make contact with each other at two places in the width direction (as contact is made with 110 at two places in width direction as 114P has V-groove shape, as depicted Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-27, 83-91]), and
at the one place in the direction of the optical axis, the movable part and the second shaft make contact with each other at one place in the width direction (as contact is made with 110 one place axially with 60,72 contact at one place in width direction as 116P,116T has flat pate shape, as depicted Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-27, 83-91]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that the movable part (110) includes a pair of first groove portions (e.g. two axial receiving portion places 114p contacting e.g. two 71,50, Figs.1-5a, see paragraphs [25-28, 74-76, 83-91]) and a second groove portion (e.g. one axial receiving portion places 114P,T contacting 71,60, Figs.1-5a, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-91]), the first groove portions being disposed in a bottom portion (bottom of 110) respectively at the two places in the direction of the optical axis (e.g. at each two axial receiving portion places 114p contacting e.g. two 71,50, as depicted Figs.1-5a, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-91], each of the first groove portions making contact with the first shaft at two places in the width direction (as contact is made with 110 at two places in width direction as 116P has V-groove shape, as depicted Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-27, 83-91]), the second groove portion being disposed in the bottom portion (bottom of 110) at the one place in the axial direction and making contact with the second shaft at one place in the width direction (as contact is made with 110 one place axially with 60,72 contact at e.g. one place in width direction as 116P,116T has flat pate shape, as depicted Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-27, 83-91]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that the first groove portion (114P V-shaped Figs. 2, 4) includes a support surface that is formed in a V-shape in a section seen in the direction of the optical axis so as to make contact with the first shaft at the two places in the width direction (as contact is made with 110 at two places in width direction as 116P has V-groove shape, as depicted Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-27, 83-91]), and the second groove potion includes a support surface that is formed in a flat shape (e.g. 11p,T has flat shape surface, Figs. 2,4) in a section seen in the direction of the optical axis so as to make contact with the second shaft at the one place in the width direction (as contact is made with 110 one place axially with 60,72 contact at one place in width direction as 116P,116T has flat pate shape, as depicted Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-28, 83-91]).
Regarding claim 5 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that the support surface of the second groove portion (116P,T) is an arc-shaped curved surface having a central axis extending in the width direction (i.e. as arc shape of receiving portion 116P,T, having axis in width direction, paragraphs [83-91], Figs. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 6 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that a projection, along the width direction, of the one place in the direction of the optical axis at which the movable part and the second shaft make contact with each other is located (i.e. as one receiving portion 116P/T with contact of 72, 60, can be projected onto 50,71 in width X-direction, Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-27, 83-91]) in the direction of the optical axis, between the two places in the direction of the optical axis at which the movable part and the first shaft make contact with each other (as best understood, as case with one 116P/T contact 72, 60 is on different spaces/position on Z-axis from two receiving positions 114P contact 71,50, is seen between in width viewing direction, as 116P/T is on different spaced axis, as best depicted Figs.2,4-5, paragraphs [25-28, 83-91]).
In the alternative that Kim does not explicitly disclose that projected one receiving portion is not between two places in the direction of the optical axis (i.e. as one 116P/T can be on different spaces on Z-axis from two receiving potions 114P, Figs.2,4-5, paragraphs [25-28, 83-91]), the above limitation is obvious since Kim teaches that yoke assembly 210 and the first magnet 260 are disposed in the lower center of the lens housing 110, and that so positioned yoke 210 and magnet 260 hold the center of gravity of the lens housing 110 with lens 112, such that the center is in triangle formed by lines between one or two receiving portion places 114P at two or one 71 on 50, two or one receiving places 116P/T 72 on 60, given their spaced corner placement on the bottom portion of sides 114, 116 of 110 as depicted in e.g. Figs. 5a, also Figs.1-g, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-91]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the center of gravity of movable part with lens housing/barrel (110/112) that is held by centered yoke/magnet (210/260) of movable part is within triangle lines formed by receiving portions in the corners of bottom portion of moving part, and whereby that the projection of one place is between two places in the direction of optical axis, as described by Kim, in order to provide special technical effect of preventing the occurrence of lens decenter or lens tilt by preventing tilting (see Kim paragraphs [40, 127,138]).
Regarding claim 7 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that a center of gravity of the lens part and the movable part (i.e. as center of gravity of the lens housing 110 and lens part 112 that is held by yoke, magnet 210, 260 below 112, on lower parts of 110, Figs. 1-2,4-6, paragraphs [40,127, 138]) as seen in plan view is included in a triangular region formed by an imaginary line connecting together the two places in the axial direction at which the movable part and the first shaft make contact with each other, and, the one place in the axial direction at which the movable part and the second shaft make contact with each other (i.e. because yoke assembly 210 and the first magnet 260 are disposed in the lower center of the lens housing 110, and yoke 210 and magnet 260 hold the center of gravity of the lens housing 110 with lens 112, and the center is in triangle formed by lines between one or two receiving portion places 114P at two or one 71 on 50, two or one receiving places 116P/T 72 on 60, as depicted in e.g. Figs. 5a, also Figs.1-g, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-91]). In the alternative that Kim does not explicitly disclose that center of gravity of the lens part and the movable part (i.e. as center of gravity of the lens housing 110 and lens part 112 that is held by yoke, magnet 210, 260 below 112, on lower parts of 110, Figs. 1-2,4-6, paragraphs [40,127, 138]) seen in plan view is included in a triangular region (defined above, i.e. of any three points of 114P, 116P/T on 50 and 60 sides of 110,112) as plan view of the device with triangular region is not shown, the above limitation is obvious since Kim teaches that yoke assembly 210 and the first magnet 260 are disposed in the lower center of the lens housing 110, and that so positioned yoke 210 and magnet 260 hold the center of gravity of the lens housing 110 with lens 112, such that the center is in triangle formed by lines between one or two receiving portion places 114P at two or one 71 on 50, two or one receiving places 116P/T 72 on 60, given their spaced corner placement on the bottom portion of sides 114, 116 of 110 as depicted in e.g. Figs. 5a, also Figs.1-g, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-91]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the center of gravity of movable part with lens housing/barrel (110/112) that is held by centered yoke/magnet (210/260) of movable part is within triangle lines formed by receiving portions in the corners of bottom portion of moving part as described by Kim, in order to provide special technical effect of preventing the occurrence of lens decenter or lens tilt by preventing tilting (see Kim paragraphs [40, 127,138]).
Regarding claim 8 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that each of the first shaft and the second shaft (50 with 71 and 60 with 72) makes contact, at each of the two places in the axial direction (e.g. Z-direction), with the fixing part (20) at each of two places in the width direction (as best understood due to 112(b) issues noted above, as 110 makes contact at e.g. two receiving portion places 114p with two 71,50, and as 110 makes contact at e.g. two receiving portion places 116Pwith 72,60, which are spaced in width X-direction as receiving portions 114P, 116P have V-shape or flat rectangular shape, as depicted in Figs.1-5a, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-92]).
Regarding claim 9 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) camera module (camera module 1000, with camera actuator 100 of electronic device 1500, paragraphs [1-6,10-14,140-149]), comprising:
an optical actuator according to claim 1 (i.e. as camera module 1000, with camera actuator 100 of electronic device 1500, paragraphs [1-6,10-14,140-149]); and an image capturing device disposed downstream of the lens part (i.e. image sensor of camera module 1000, paragraphs [36, 65, 144], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) A camera-mounted device (electronic device/mobile terminal 1500 with camera module 1000, and camera actuator 100, paragraphs [1-6,10-14,140-149]), comprising:
a camera module according to claim 9 (i.e. with camera module 1000, with camera actuator 100 of electronic device 1500, paragraphs [1-6,10-14,140-149]); and a control part for controlling the camera module (i.e. as digital camera of mobile terminal with functions of control and processing, e.g. paragraphs [81-82, 143-147]).
Regarding claim 11 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that the first shaft and the second shaft are guide shafts (i.e. as both guides 50, 60 are guide shafts extending in Z-optical axis direction, see Figs. 1-5a, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]) and first guide shaft having a cylindrical shape (i.e. as guide pin 50 has cylindrical shape Figs. 1-5a, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 61-75]). Kim thus teaches the invention except that second guide shaft has cylindrical shape (i.e. as guide shaft 60 has elongated plate shaft extending in optical Z-axis direction, paragraphs [14-28, 61, 73]).
However, 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 elongated plate (rectangular profile) shape of second guide shaft into cylindrical (round profile) shape given that both guide shafts in Kawanabe (51, 52 or 53, paragraphs [46-57, 77, 80]) all have elongated cylindrical shape (see Figs. 2-4, paragraphs [46-57, 77, 80]), and since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of second guide to be same as the first guide for the purpose of allowing lens movable frame to be smoothly moved in the optical axis direction without rattling.
Regarding claim 12 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that the movable part (110) comprises:
a first groove that makes contact with the first shaft at two places (as contact is made by 50 with 110 at two places as 114P has V-groove shape, as depicted Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-27, 83-91]); and a second groove that makes contact with the second shaft at the one place (as contact is made with 110 one place with 60,72 contact at e.g. one place as 116P,116T, as depicted Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-27, 83-91]), wherein the first groove has an upper surface and a pair of inclined surfaces provided continuously to the upper surface (i.e. as 114P has upper slightly rounded surface and a pair of inclined surfaces continuously provided to upper surface, as depicted Figs.2,4, paragraphs [25-27, 83-91]), but Kim is silent that the shape has a trapezoidal cross-section. However, 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 first groove upper surface slightly rounded shape into slightly flatter shape of the cross-section turning the V-groove shape into trapezoidal cross section shape, as the shape is not limited, while providing for disposed balls 71 to be guided smoothly (see paragraphs [83-84, 93]), and since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one would have been motivated to select the cross-sectional shape of first guide to be same as the first guide as the shape is not limited strictly to V-shape, but provides that the balls 71 are received and are guided smoothly (see paragraphs [83-84, 93]).
Regarding claim 14 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that the first groove includes a pair of support portions for contacting the first shaft (i.e. as support balls 71 in 114P contacting guide shaft pin 50, paragraphs [74-75], Figs. 2,4-5), the second groove includes a support portion for contacting the second shaft (i.e. as support ball 72 in 116P/T contacting guide shaft 60, paragraphs [74-76, 87-91],Figs. 2,4-5, with modification per Kawanabe, see above), the pair of support portions has a width, in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis, narrower than a width of the first groove (i.e. as 71 are narrower in e.g. X-direction than the receiving groove 114P,see Figs. 2,4, paragraphs [74-75]), and the support portion has a width, in the direction perpendicular to the optical axis, narrower than a width of the second groove (i.e. as 72 is narrower in e.g. X-direction than the receiving groove 116P/T, see Figs. 2,4, paragraphs [74-75, 87-91]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that a front stopper portion is a projection protruding downward from an upper surface of the second groove and a rear stopper portion is a projection protruding downward from the upper surface of the second groove (i.e. as the front and rear stopper portions are restricting protrusions e.g. 61 or 60A protruding from upper surface of second groove 116P/T, Figs.1-5a, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-91], as per modification with Kawanabe, Figs. 2-6,8, paragraphs [54-59,76-82]).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (hereafter Kim) US 20210373278 A1 in view of Kawanabe US 20190271825 A1, and further in view of US 20190265432 A1 (hereafter Kawanabe ‘432).
Regarding claim 13 Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-7) that the fixing part (20) comprises: a third groove facing the first groove (i.e. as support part 21 facing 114P, paragraphs [24-28, 66-71, Fig. 2); and a fourth groove facing the second groove (i.e. as support part 22 facing 116P/T, paragraphs [24-28, 66-74, Fig. 2), wherein each of the third groove and the fourth groove has an upper surface and a pair of inclined surfaces provided continuously to the upper surface (i.e. as groove supports on 21 and 22 include upper and side inclined surfaces, paragraphs [24-28, 66-74, Fig. 2), but Kim is silent that each has a trapezoidal cross-section.
However, Kawanabe 432 teaches in the same field of invention of lens guide and driving device and imaging apparatus (see Figs. 1-15, abstract, paragraphs [6-17, 33-50, 54-59,68-73, 75-76], with relative movable parts including guide mechanism 45, lens/guide frame 44,50, holding barrel, plate 43,46, lens moving device/mechanism 11,12,42, Figs. 1-6,8) and further teaches that fixing part grooves that each has a trapezoidal cross-section (i.e. as fixed lens holding barrel 33, frame 51 have trapezoidal grooves opposite grooves of guide frame 40 of the movable lens frame 30, and are securing guide shafts e.g. 41A, 43A paragraphs [40-48, 50-52,75-76], as depicted in Figs. 8, 10, 12, allowing that the guide shafts are accommodated in the grooves enabling that the lens frame is smoothly guided, paragraphs [40-48, 50-52,75-77]).
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 fixing part grooves on support parts of Kim to have trapezoidal cross section shapes according to teachings of Kawanabe ‘432 in order to provide that the guide shafts are accommodated in such grooves enabling that the lens frame is smoothly guided, paragraphs [40-48, 50-52,75-77]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 09/21/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because they appear not the be related to the instant application case. Applicant’s arguments dated 08/19/2025
Applicant's arguments filed in the remarks dated 08/19/2025 to the extent that they apply to the latest claim set dated 09/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argues on page 10-12 that the cited prior art of Kim alone or in combination with cited prior art of Kawanabe does not disclose features and amended features of claim 1, namely (1) “a first shaft and a second shaft, each extending in a direction parallel to the direction of the optical axis”, “the movable part is configured to slide on the first shaft and the second shaft ”, because the in Kim guide plate 60 is not a shaft as elongate rod-like member as in Figs. 14,16,18 of instant application, and since guide plate 60 supports balls that contact movable part and not directly the guide shaft, and (2) “a front-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided in front of the one place, and a rear-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided behind the one place, the front-side stopper portion (702c) or the rear-side stopper portion (702d) is provided to suppress inclination of the movable part (70) beyond a predetermined angle in the optical axis direction” because restriction protrusions of Kawanabe are provided in relation to tolling bodies and rails, rather than shaft at “one place” which is contact position, and because stopper portions (projections) do not directly contact upper end of the second shaft to suppress inclination. The Examiner disagrees. With respect to the above issues (1) and (2) as noted in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Kim teaches most and in combination with cited prior art of Kawanabe teaches and renders obvious all limitations of amended claim 1, as Kim teaches an optical actuator (i.e. camera/module actuator 100, see title, abstract, paragraphs [1-5, 10-42, 59-66,98-106, 140-149]), comprising:
a movable part on which a lens part is mountable (movable lens housing 110, lens housing for lens 112, paragraphs [14, 38-42, 61-75]), the movable part being configured to move, by driving of a driving part, in a direction parallel to a direction of an optical axis of light passing through the lens part (as 110 moved by driving VCM 220, 260, in optical axis of 112 direction, Z-axis direction, e.g. for AF, see paragraphs [38-42, 61-75], Figs. 1-6);
a fixing part accommodating the movable part (base with guide pin/plate and ball 70, accommodating the moving 20, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]); and
a first shaft and a second shaft, each extending in a direction parallel to the direction of the optical axis, spaced apart from each other in a width direction of the movable part orthogonal to the direction of the optical axis (guide pin and plate 50, 60 with balls 70 71,72 extending in Z-optical axis direction, spaced in width direction of 110 that is perpendicular to Z-optical axis direction, as depicted in Figs. 1-5a, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]), and fixed to the fixing part (as disposed and fixed on base 20 support parts 21,22, Figs. 1-2, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]), wherein:
the movable part (110) is configured to slide on the first shaft and the second shaft (as 110 slides on along z-axis direction on guides 50, 60 with 70, Figs. 1-5a, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]) while making contact with the first shaft at two places in a direction of the optical axis and with the second shaft at one place in the direction of the optical axis (i.e. as 110 makes contact at two receiving portion places 114P with two 71,50 in Z-direction as there are two balls 71, and as 110 makes contact at e.g. one or two receiving portion places 116P/T with 72,60 in Z-direction as there are can be one (or two) balls 72, as depicted in Figs.1-5a, see paragraphs [25-27, 74-76, 83-91]).
But Kim is silent that the movable part includes a front-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided in front of the one place, and a rear-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided behind the one place, and that the front-side stopper portion (702c) or the rear-side stopper portion (702d) is provided to suppress inclination of the movable part (70) beyond a predetermined angle in the optical axis direction.
However, Kawanabe teaches in the same field of invention of lens guide and driving device and imaging apparatus (see Figs. 1-15, abstract, paragraphs [6-20, 37-50, 54-59,76-82], with relative movable parts including guide mechanism 45, lens/guide frame 44,50, holding barrel, plate 43,46, lens moving device/mechanism 11,12,42, Figs. 1-6,8) and further teaches that movable part includes a front-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided in front of one place, and a rear-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided behind the one place (i.e. as the front and the rear restricting protrusions 61 of 44,50 in front and behind the one place where of 51,49A contacts 67,54, or also as protrusions 60A, 62, or 62-60A in front and behind the one place with contact of 52,49B and 53,43 or 52,49C and 53,43, as depicted in Figs. 2-6,8, paragraphs [54-59,76-82], restricting the rolling of the first rolling body 49A beyond a predetermined range on the first rail 51, providing that respective rolling bodies 49A to 49C can be reliably returned to the reference positions by the initialization, and allowing focusing to be accurately performed), and that the front-side stopper portion (702c) or the rear-side stopper portion (702d) is provided to suppress inclination of the movable part (70) beyond a predetermined angle in the optical axis direction (i.e. as due to the structures of the restricting protrusions e.g. front 61 and rear 61 (or front and rear 60A, 62) restricting rolling bodies on rails as depicted in Figs. 2-6,8, paragraphs [54-59,76-82], as structures of protrusions noted above would prevent the lens frame 44,50 to incline i.e. as movable part lens frame 44 is moved smoothly without rattling, see e.g. abstract, paragraphs [06-09,20,78], as it is held that because the prior art device meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus it therefore also meets the limitation regarding limiting inclination of movable part. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP § 2114.2111.04).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the movable lens housing of Kim to include front and rear restricting protrusions provided in front of and behind the position where the second shaft comes into contact according to teachings of Kawanabe, in order to provide for restricting the rolling of the rolling body beyond predetermined range on the rail, and provide that respective rolling body(ies) be reliably returned to the reference positions by the initialization, and allowing focusing to be accurately performed, and limiting the lens frame not rattle or incline in case of fall or impact, (see Kawanabe, paragraphs [6-9,20,56-59,78-80]).
Specifically, Kim teaches the first shaft and the second shaft, each extending in a direction parallel to the direction of the optical axis, spaced apart from each other in a width direction of the movable part orthogonal to the direction of the optical axis (guide pin and plate 50, 60 with balls 70 71,72, where both 50 and 60 are shafts extending in the optical axis i.e. Z-axis direction, spaced in width direction of 110 that is perpendicular to Z-optical axis direction, as depicted in Figs. 1-5a, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]). Specifically, it is note that extending shape and extending direction are expressly taught in Kim for both the first and second shaft. Further, the claim language does not recite or define specific shape of the shaft. Moreover, a round or cylindrical or rod-line shape is not recited in the claim, and neither a shaft or a rod-like object require that the side surfaces are round.
No special definition of “shaft” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “shaft”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification or the drawings are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “shaft,” which states/seems to imply that shaft must be elongated round cylindrical member. However, the specification is silent as to interpretation of the shaft. The specification does not prohibit such an interpretation. Therefore, Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
Kim also teaches specifically that the movable part (110) is configured to slide on the first shaft and the second shaft (as 110 slides on along z-axis direction on guides 50, 60 with 70, Figs. 1-5a, e.g. paragraphs [14-28, 38-42, 61-75]). The configuration allows the movable part 110 to slide over the shafts. The claim language does not recite or require that the movable part as a unitary body slides directly on the first and second shaft without any other element in- between, nor does the claim language otherwise suggest that there cannot be any additional elements allowing gliding motion of the movable part over the fixed part.
Additionally, it is noted that the singular elements recited by the claims are not required by Applicant’s claim language to be exclusive. The preamble word “comprising” is open-ended and thus does not require the exclusivity of the recited elements, but allows the reference or combination of references to contain other elements as well. Additionally, “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 74 USPQ2d 1586 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“like the term comprising,’ the terms containing’ and mixture’ are open-ended.”), Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (MPEP §2111.02.). Moreover, the claim language does not exclude any specific element or component of the optical actuator device.
Additionally, it is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123.
With respect to issue (2) and teachings of Kawanabe, it is noted that Kawanabe specifically teaches that movable part includes a front-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided in front of one place, and a rear-side stopper portion, which is a protruding portion, provided behind the one place (i.e. as the front and the rear restricting protrusions 61 of 44,50 in front and behind the one place where of 51,49A contacts 67,54, or also as protrusions 60A, 62, or 62-60A in front and behind the one place with contact of 52,49B and 53,43 or 52,49C and 53,43, as depicted in Figs. 2-6,8, paragraphs [54-59,76-82], and that these structures are restricting the rolling of the first rolling body 49A beyond a predetermined range on the first rail 51, providing that respective rolling bodies 49A to 49C can be reliably returned to the reference positions by the initialization, and allowing focusing to be accurately performed), and that the front-side stopper portion or the rear-side stopper portion is provided to suppress inclination of the movable part beyond a predetermined angle in the optical axis direction (i.e. as due to the structures of the restricting protrusions e.g. front 61 and rear 61 (or front and rear 60A, 62) restricting rolling bodies on rails as depicted in Figs. 2-6,8, paragraphs [54-59,76-82], as structures of protrusions noted above would prevent the lens frame 44,50 to incline i.e. as movable part lens frame 44 is moved smoothly without rattling, see e.g. abstract, paragraphs [06-09,20,78], where during any rattling the movable frame 44 is inclined with respect to the optical axis Ax, and therefore such restricting protrusions do prevent such inclination of the movable lens frame 44. Moreover the “one place” is the place of the contact of 49A, or 49B, and the restricting protrusions are in fact disposed both in front and behind such contact position. Moreover, the claim language does not recite any shaft-specific arrangement, not requirement that the direct contact is specifically between the movable part and the shaft(s). Therefore the cited prior art of Kawanabe discloses the required missing structural element and their placements in Kim, as explained above. Moreover, due to such structural similarity, geometry and teachings of Kawanabe, the restricting protrusions would prevent inclination of movable part with respect to the optical axis. Specifically, the prior art device of Kawanabe meets all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus parts and therefore also meets the limitation regarding limiting inclination of movable part. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). See MPEP § 2114.2111.04).
Moreover, the recitation that “the front or rear stopper portion is provided to suppress inclination of the movable part (70) beyond a predetermined angle in the optical axis direction” is a functional recitation. Such functional limitation is met due to structure and arrangement of restricting protrusions. It is unclear how or why would the structures and arrangements of restricting protrusions of Kawanabe somehow not be able to provide for suppression of inclination of movable lens holder member 44, and despite the explicit teachings of Kawanabe where the restricting protrusions provide that respective rolling body(ies) be reliably returned to the reference positions by the initialization, and provide focusing to be accurately performed, and limiting the lens frame not rattle or incline in case of fall or impact, (see Kawanabe, paragraphs [6-9,20,56-59,78-80]).
Regarding Applicant’s suggestion that there is lack of motivation or reasons for modification, it is noted that Examiner provided reason to combine, i.e. that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the movable lens housing of Kim to include front and rear restricting protrusions provided in front of and behind the position where the second shaft comes into contact according to teachings of Kawanabe, in order to provide for restricting the rolling of the rolling body beyond predetermined range on the rail, and provide that respective rolling body(ies) be reliably returned to the reference positions by the initialization, and allowing focusing to be accurately performed, and limiting the lens frame not rattle or incline in case of fall or impact, (see Kawanabe, paragraphs [6-9,20,56-59,78-80]). The technical necessity is show, given that Kim does not disclose restricting protrusions in the actuator device. Applicant has merely alleged that no reason was provided or no reason exists, and has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified reason in the first action fails to meet the legal requirements of a reason to combine as set forth by KSR. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Moreover, it is unclear how and why would the addition of restricting protrusions somehow as presented in the combination somehow require non-trivial redesign? The addition of small restricting protrusions with clear benefits and motivations does not amount to non-trivial redesign of the camera actuator of Kim. Therefore the modification was explained and supported by teachings of the reference. It is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Therefore Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above issues (1) and (2) are not persuasive The cited prior art of Kim and Kawanabe teach and render obvious all limitations of claim 1 including the limitations under issues (1) and (2) noted above.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 13 in the Remarks dated 08/19/2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Thomas K Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872