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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 4, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly added claim 21 is a combination of elements from the unelected subcombination (Group II consisting of claims 9-20) of the restriction requirement dated May 21, 2025. Specifically claim 21 combines claims 9, 11, 15-16, and 18-20. Claim 21 is thus withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 7 has been amended to be dependent upon claim 21 and covers a generic sinusoid equation for current that is not critical to the combination. Claim 7 is thus withdrawn since it is dependent upon claim 21.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 4, 2026 has been entered. Claim 6 has been canceled in the present application. Claims 1, 5, and 7 have been amended in the present application. Claim 21 is newly added in the present application. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending in the present application. Claims 7 and 9-21 are withdrawn in the present application. Claims 1-5 and 8 are under consideration in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed February 6, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 12-13 that Sakamoto fails to teach “the two coils are arranged on a plane parallel to the optical axis” of claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Sakamoto fails to teach “two coils are arranged on a plane parallel to the optical axis” and that the coils taught by Sakamoto are “wound to be coaxial with the optical axis, in other words, the coils are configured on a plane perpendicular to the optical axis. However, as shown in Figure 1(b) of Sakamoto, coils C1 and C2 are arranged next to each other at the base of the camera module in the direction of the optical axis. Thus the coils are arranged in a plane parallel to the optical axis (see labeled Figure 1(b) below). Furthermore, Sakamoto discusses that the coils are wound in a winding groove of bobbin 12 respectively in the axial direction (Figure 4, Col. 8 lines 61-67). Therefore Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and Examiner
PNG
media_image1.png
410
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (axis)]maintains the 103 rejection of claim 1 over Sakamoto.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (U.S. Patent Number 5,541,777).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches a lens module (Figure 1b), comprising:
a base (Figure 1b outer housing 1, Column 7 lines 54-62);
a movable lens group (Figure 1b movable member 3 with focus lens 10, Column 8 lines 26-29) which is movable in a first direction and has an optical axis in parallel to the first direction (Column 5 lines 25-33 movable member moves in axial direction);
a magnet portion (Figure 1b magnet 9, Column 8 lines 13-15) disposed on one of the base and the movable lens group (Figure 1b magnet 9 is disposed on yoke 6 which is disposed in outer housing 1);
a coil portion (Figure 1b coils C1 and C2) disposed on the other of the base and the movable lens group and corresponding to the magnet portion (Column 9 lines 38-50 coils C1 and C2 are disposed on movable member 3 and correspond to magnet 9).
wherein the coil portion (Figure 1b coils C1 and C2) consists of two coils (Figure 1b coils C1 and C2 consists of two coils), the two coils are arranged on a plane parallel to the optical axis (Figure 1b coils C1 and C2 are arranged next to each other in the direction of the optical axis on a plane parallel to the optical axis, see labeled Figure below, Col. 8 lines 61-67), the magnet portion (Figure 1b magnet 9) comprises three magnets (Figure 4 magnet 9 has three magnets), and the magnets are monopole magnets (Figure 4 magnets of magnet 9 have a single pole facing coils C1 and C2),
Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach the magnets satisfy at least one of following conditions:
w(c)=(1.5+n)w(p), n=0,1,2...,
w(ec-ec)=w(p),
1.0 mm ≤ w(m) ≤ 1.35 mm,
where w(p) is a magnet pitch of each of the magnets, w(m) is a width of each of the monopole magnets, w(c) is a distance between centers of the coils, and w(ec-ec) is a distance between centers of winding width of each of the coils.
However, these conditions are merely designs matters controlling the sizes of the magnets and coils that could be readily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the size of the magnets and coils in order to improve the controllability of the voice coil motor (Column 17 lines 31-35) as well as appropriately size the magnets to satisfy 1.0 mm ≤ w(m) ≤ 1.35 mm to allow for miniaturization of the device (Column 17 line 35). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). 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 lens module taught by Sakamoto to satisfy at least one of the following conditional expressions: w(c)=(1.5+n)w(p), n=0,1,2..., w(ec-ec)=w(p), or 1.0 mm ≤ w(m) ≤ 1.35 mm in order to adjust the size of the magnets and coils in order to improve the controllability of the voice coil motor (Column 17 lines 31-35) as well as appropriately size the magnets to allow for miniaturization of the device (Column 17 line 35).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (axis)]
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sakamoto further teaches, the three magnets (Figure 4 magnet 9 has three magnets) arranged in the first direction (Figure 4 magnets of magnet 9 is arranged in the axial direction, Column 8 lines 13-20), the monopole magnets have N-pole and S-pole alternatively arranged in the first direction (Figure 4 magnets of magnet 9 is are alternatively arranged N-pole and S-pole).
Regarding claim 4, Sakamoto teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Sakamoto further teaches the magnets further satisfy the following conditions: w(p)≥w(m) (Figure 4 width of each of the magnets is λ and thus the pitch (distance between centers of two magnets) is λ and w(p)=w(m), Column 10 lines 5-14),
Regarding claim 5, Sakamoto teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Sakamoto further teaches the coil portion (Figure 1b coils C1 and C2) consists of two coils (Figure 1b coils C1 and C2 consists of two coils), the magnet portion (Figure 1b magnet 9) comprises three magnets (Figure 4 magnet 9 has three magnets), the magnets are monopole magnets (Figure 4 magnets of magnet 9 have a single pole facing coils C1 and C2) with N-pole and S-pole alternatively arranged in the first direction (Figure 4 magnets of magnet 9 is are alternatively arranged N-pole and S-pole);
wherein the coils comprise a first coil and a second coil (Figure 1b coils C1 and C2), and electric currents applied to the first coil and the second coil satisfy:
I_c1 =Icom
∙
sin (360°
∙
P
2
w
(
m
)
+θ)
I_c2 =Icom
∙
sin (360°
∙
P
2
w
(
m
)
+(θ + 90°)) (Figure 6b currents for A-phase coil C1 and B-phase coil C2 have common drive current (Column 11 line 55-57), 360°
∙
P
2
w
(
m
)
is the period of the sinusoid repeats over 2λ = 2w(m), θ is the initial phase of sinusoids (for a and b θ = 270°), phase of current a and b are offset by 90° thus I_c1 =Icom
∙
sin (360°
∙
P
2
w
(
m
)
+θ) and I_c2 =Icom
∙
sin (360°
∙
P
2
w
(
m
)
+(θ + 90°)), Column 4 lines 37-43)
where I_c1 is the electric current applied to the first coil, I_c2 is the electric current applied to the second coil, Icom is a common current of the first coil and the second coil, P is a position of the coil portion, and θ is a phase shift amount when P=0.
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sakamoto further teaches a position magnet (Figure 4 magnet 20, Column 9 lines 58-67 magnet 20 for detecting position);
a sensor (Figure 4 Hall element 26, Column 9 lines 58-67 Hall element 26 for detecting position) to sense a position or a moving distance of the position magnet; and
a driving unit (Figure 5 drive circuits 31a and 31b, Column 10 lines 51-58) receiving a signal of the position or the moving distance of the position magnet from the sensor and correspondingly adjusting an electric current applied to the coil portion (Column 13 line 39 – Column 14 line 41 describes relationship between signal from Hall element 26 and current supplied to coils C1 and C2).
Sakamoto fails to teach the position magnet is disposed on the base and the sensor is disposed on the movable lens group. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In the case at hand, moving Hall element 26 and magnet 20 taught by Sakamoto such they are disposed on the movable lens group and base respectively would only require a rearrangement of parts and one would be motivated to do so in order to reduce the weight of the movable lens group for example. 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 lens module taught by Sakamoto such that Hall element 26 is disposed on the movable lens group and magnet 20 is disposed on the base as doing so would only require a rearrangement of parts.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (U.S. Patent Number 5,541,777) as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0154198 – hereinafter referred to as “Oh”).
Regarding claim 3, Sakamoto teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Sakamoto further teaches a metallic substance (Figure 1b yoke 6, Column 7 lines 64-66) with the magnets adhered thereto (Figure 1b magnets 9 are adhered to yoke 6, Column 8 lines 13-20). Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach that yoke 6 is made of a magnetic substance. However, Oh teaches a camera lens module (Figure 6) with a yoke comprised of a magnetic substance (Figure 6 yoke 701, [0150] yoke 701 is magnetic). Oh further teaches using a magnetic yoke to increase the efficiency of the magnetic field generated by the magnet ([0140]). 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 lens module taught by Sakamoto by making the yoke 6 of a magnetic substance as taught by Oh in order to increase the efficiency of the magnetic field generated by the magnet (Oh [0140]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights