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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/22/2025, with respect to the 112(a) rejections of claims 1 and 6-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) rejections of claims 1 and 6-8 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Arakawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,339,125; hereafter Arakawa).
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 11 and 16 in view of Rieger (Pub. No. US 2007/0096723; hereafter Rieger) in view of May et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0036467; hereafter May1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Rieger discloses “combining output signals 610, 620, 630, of magnetic sensors 510, 511, 512 in different regions as a magnet 520 moved in a single direction” and that “combining output signals… to generate a single composite signal” is different than the claimed invention of “the plurality of position sensors include a first position sensor and a second position sensor being disposed to be spaced apart in a first movement direction and in a second movement direction… wherein the first position sensor is located in the first movement direction from the first position, and the control unit uses the first position sensor when the magnet moves from the first position in the first movement direction, wherein the second position sensor is located in the second movement direction from the first position, and the control unit uses the second position sensor when the magnet moves from the first position in the second movement direction” as called for in claim 1 (see Applicant’s remarks p. 13). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, with respect to Applicant’s characterization that Rieger only discloses that the magnet is only “moved in a single direction,” Fig. 5 of Rieger clearly shows that the “path of travel 525” of the magnet is a double-headed arrow, indicating travel in both directions. Furthermore, it would make sense that the magnet can move in both directions, or else when the magnet reached the end of travel in one direction the device would have to be discarded because it could only read the position as being at the far end of travel and no longer accurately measure linear position.
With respect to Applicant’s contention that “combining output signals… to generate a single composite signal” is different than the way the claimed invention functions, Examiner notes that Rieger does not disclose forming a “composite” signal. As seen in Fig. 7, Rieger discloses connecting the sensors to a multiplexer 710. A multiplexer does not combine signals into a composite, a multiplexer selects a single signal from a plurality of signals, as Rieger states “microcontroller may include service logic that, when executed, controls the multiplexer so as to select one of the signals 610, 620, 630” (see Rieger paragraph [0048] emphasis added. So in contrast to Applicant’s assertion, Rieger does not combine the output signals, and merely selects the appropriate sensor signal based on the magnet position, the same as Applicant’s invention, and as called for in claim 1.
As to the teaching of May, the May reference was only relied upon to teach that it was well-known in the art at the position which should be construed as the zero or “first” position is the position which is the center position between two sensors. It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the device to switch between two adjacent sensors based on the center position to have the closest sensor give the position reading, as it will have the strongest signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Arakawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,339,125; hereafter Arakawa).
Regarding claim 1, Arakawa discloses an actuator comprising: a magnet (see Arakawa Fig. 2, item 4); a plurality of position sensors being disposed facing the magnet (see Arakawa Fig. 2, items 11 and 12); and a control unit being connected to the plurality of position sensors and receiving signals to detect the position of the magnet (see Arakawa Fig. 1, which is the circuitry for determining the position of the magnet), wherein the plurality of position sensors includes a first position sensor and a second position sensor being disposed to be spaced apart in a movement direction of the magnet (see Arakawa Fig. 2, items 11 and 12, and distance L), wherein the control unit detects the position of the magnet by using a linear function being derived from the relationship between a signal of the first position sensor and a signal of the second position sensor (see Arakawa col. 5, equation 5) wherein the linear function is a linear function being derived from a trigonometric relationship between a signal of the first position sensor and a signal of the second position sensor and the phase difference (α) between a signal of the first position sensor and a signal of the second position sensor (see Arakawa col. 5, equation 5), and wherein the signal for the first position sensor is defined as: sensor1 = sin(θ+α), wherein the signal for the second position sensor is defined as: sensor2 = cos(θ) and wherein the linear function is defined as θ = arctan(sensor1/sensor2 - sin(α)/cos(α)).
Arakawa discloses performing the exact same calculation of finding the arctangent of the angle theta by using first sensor signal “a” the second sensor signal “b” and the phase difference “φ”. The only distinction is that while Applicant calculates the value by applying the phase difference to the first sensor signal, Arakawa discloses calculating the value by applying the phase difference to the second sensor signal; but these functions are mathematically equivalent. Since they are equivalent, Examiner contends that the disclosure of Arakawa anticipates the claimed equations. However, since they are not identical, it would alternatively have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the calculations called for in Arakawa can be rewritten in the form of claim 1 as a mathematically equivalent form of the calculation in Arakawa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieger (Pub. No. US 2007/0096723; hereafter Rieger) in view of Mat et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0036467 A1; hereafter May).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Rieger discloses an actuator comprising: a magnet (see Rieger Fig. 5, item 520); a plurality of position sensors being disposed facing the magnet (see Rieger Fig. 6, items 510-512); and a control unit being connected to the plurality of position sensors and receiving signals to detect the position of the magnet (see Rieger Fig. 7, item 720), wherein the plurality of position sensors have different sections in which signals have linearity depending on the position of each of the position sensors (see Rieger Fig. 6, items 640-660), wherein the plurality of position sensors includes a first position sensor and a second position sensor being disposed to be spaced apart in a first movement direction and in a second movement direction of the magnet, the first movement direction being opposite to the second movement direction (see Rieger Fig. 5, items 510, 512, and 525. See Response to Arguments, above), wherein a signal of the first position sensor comprises a linear section and a non-linear section (see Rieger Fig. 6, item 610), wherein a signal of the second position sensor comprises a linear section and a non-linear section (see Rieger Fig. 6, item 630), wherein the linear section of the first position sensor and the linear section of the second position sensor do not coincide (see Rieger Fig. 6, note the linear sections of 610 and 630 are not overlapping), wherein the control unit changes the position sensor being used to detect the position of the magnet with respect to a center point of a point where the non-linear section of the first position sensor starts and a point where the non-linear section of the second position sensor starts (see Rieger Fig. 6, note ranges 640-660. The term with respect to a “center point” between the points, as applied to Rieger, could refer to any of four such center points (if we call the end points of the linear portions A, B, A’, and B’ then there is the center of A-A’, A-B’, B-A’, and B-B’), and the switching point disclosed in Rieger can be construed as having some relationship with respect to the chosen point (e.g. before the center point, after the center point, etc.)); wherein the control unit changes a position sensor being used to detect the position of the magnet with respect to a first position (see Rieger Fig. 7, item 720 and paragraph [0048] “The microcontroller may include service logic that, when executed, controls the multiplexer so as to select one of the signals 610, 620, 630.”), wherein the first position sensor is located in the first movement direction from the first position, and the control unit uses the first position sensor when the magnet moves from the first position in the first movement direction, and wherein the second position sensor is located in the second movement direction from the first position, and the control unit uses the second position sensor when the magnet moves from the first position in the second movement direction (we can construe the “first position” as the point where Rieger switches from using sensor 1 to sensor 2, then as the magnet moves from the switching point towards the first sensor, sensor 1 will be used, and where the magnet moves from the switching point towards the second sensor, sensor 2 will be used).
Rieger does not disclose that the first position is a position where a center of the magnet coincides with the center point.
However, prior art May discloses detecting the position of a magnet with respect to a first position “wherein the first position is a position where a center of the magnet coincides with a middle of the first position sensor and the second position sensor” (see May Figs. 8a and 8b, and paragraph [0151] “The zero position is where the centre of the magnet aligns with the centre of the sensor assembly 50, i.e. mid-way between sensors 51 and 52.”); [claim 16] wherein the first position corresponds to a center point of an inflection point of a slope of a signal magnitude of the first position sensor and an inflection point of a signal magnitude of the second position sensor (see May Fig. 8b, which shows that the center point corresponds to the inflection points of the sensor signals shown as 51a and 51b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the device of Rieger could be re-calibrated such that the zero point is the center point (as disclosed in May) in order to easily determine whether the magnet is closer to one end of the movable range or the other by simply determining if the position signal is positive or negative.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa.
Regarding claim 6, Arakawa discloses the actuator according to claim 1, wherein the first position sensor and the second position sensor are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance (see Arakawa Fig. 2, items 11 and 12 and distance L) but does not disclose that the distance is in the movement direction of the magnet.
Arakawa discloses moving the sensors while the magnet is stationary, while the instant application discloses moving the magnet while the sensors are stationary.
Mere reversal of parts is deemed to be well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In this case it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to move the magnet of Arakawa while keeping the sensors stationary, instead of vice versa, as either configuration results in the same relative motion of the magnet and sensors for determining the displacement of the moved portion.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0196139 A1; hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 21, Arakawa discloses the actuator of claim 1, but does not disclose that the actuator is in a camera module which comprises a lens barrel coupled to the magnet; and a coil, wherein the control unit applies a control signal to the coil to move the magnet based on the position of the magnet.
Lee discloses a camera module which comprises a lens barrel coupled to the magnet (see Lee Figs. 1A and 2, items 140 and 170/180); and a coil (see Lee Figs. 1A and 2, item 150), wherein the control unit applies a control signal to the coil to move the magnet based on the position of the magnet (see Lee Fig. 2, items 220 and 210. See also paragraph [0063] “The controller 220 may provide a driving control signal Sc to the driving coil 150 of the actuator 100 based on a reference signal Sref corresponding to a target position and a position signal input from the position estimator 210.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the actuator of Arakawa as the actuator in a camera module like that of Lee in order to provide accurate position detection for the lens controller of Lee to accurately position the camera lens.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieger in view of May as applied to claim 11, above and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 21, Rieger in view of May discloses the actuator of claim 11, but does not disclose that the actuator is in a camera module which comprises a lens barrel coupled to the magnet; and a coil, wherein the control unit applies a control signal to the coil to move the magnet based on the position of the magnet.
Lee discloses a camera module which comprises a lens barrel coupled to the magnet (see Lee Figs. 1A and 2, items 140 and 170/180); and a coil (see Lee Figs. 1A and 2, item 150), wherein the control unit applies a control signal to the coil to move the magnet based on the position of the magnet (see Lee Fig. 2, items 220 and 210. See also paragraph [0063] “The controller 220 may provide a driving control signal Sc to the driving coil 150 of the actuator 100 based on a reference signal Sref corresponding to a target position and a position signal input from the position estimator 210.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the actuator of Rieger in view of May as the actuator in a camera module like that of Lee in order to provide accurate position detection for the lens controller of Lee to accurately position the camera lens.
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 10/22/2025
1 Examiner apologizes for the typographical error identifying the first named inventor as “Mat” in heading of rejections 11 and 16 in the Non-Final Rejection dated 5/28/2025, the correct name is “May.”
Prosecution Insights