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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on January 5, 2026 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 1, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 have been amended in the present application. Claims 9-20 have been withdrawn in the present application. Claims 1-8 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and double patenting rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 5, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 14 that Sakamoto fails to teach the conditions “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” of claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Sakamoto fails to teach “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.” However, according to claim language only one of the conditions has to be satisfied to meet the limitation. Examiner acknowledges that Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach any of the aforementioned conditions. However, these conditions are merely design 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). Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Sakamoto.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 14 and 15 that Sakamoto fails to teach the conditions I_c1 =Icom
∙
sin (360°
∙
P
2
w
(
m
)
+θ) and I_c2 =Icom
∙
sin (360°
∙
P
2
w
(
m
)
+(θ + 90°)) in claims 5 and 7, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Sakamoto fails to teach the conditions I_c1 =Icom
∙
sin (360°
∙
P
2
w
(
m
)
+θ) and I_c2 =Icom
∙
sin (360°
∙
P
2
w
(
m
)
+(θ + 90°)), specifically a common current Icom,
P
2
w
(
m
)
, and θ. However, the claims do not define “common current” or that the current must be determined by the same sensor. Under BRI common current be interpreted as a single current or as having the same amperage. Since Sakamoto discusses a single drive current to the coils C1 and C2 (Column 9 lines 51-52, Column 11 lines 55-57) and having the same amperage (Figure 6b amplitudes of a and b sinusoids are the same), Sakamoto is considered to disclose “Icom”.
P
2
w
(
m
)
specifies the period of the sinusoid, in this case that the sinusoid repeats over a period of 2w(m). Figures 6a and 6b show the a and b sinusoids repeating over a period of 2λ and λ is equivalent to the width of the magnets w(m). Thus Sakamoto teaches
P
2
w
(
m
)
. θ is the initial phase offset of the sinusoids, which Sakamoto teaches is 270° for both a and b considering the additional 90° offset of b compared to a. Furthermore these conditions are merely in the form of a standard sinusoidal function which is well-known in the art. Thus Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and Examiner maintains the rejections of claims 5 and 7 as anticipated by Sakamoto.
Regarding Applicant’s additional comments on page 16, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the specific arrangement of the coils ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation “the magnet portion comprises a multi-pole magnet…” However, claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites that “the magnet portion comprises three magnets, the magnets are monopole magnets.” It is unclear how the magnet portion is supposed to be both a monopole magnet and a multi-pole magnet. Since it is unclear how the magnet portion can be arranged simultaneously in a monopole and multi-pole fashion, claim 6 is therefore rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al. (U.S. Patent Number 5,541,777 – hereinafter referred to as “Sakamoto”).
Regarding claim 5, 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 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 7, 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 magnet portion comprises a multi-pole magnet with N-pole and S-pole alternatively arranged in the first direction (Figure 4 magnet 9 as a whole is a multipole magnet, N-poles and S-poles of magnet 9 are arranged alternatively in the axial direction, Column 8 lines 13-20);
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 and sinusoids a and b repeat 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.
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 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),
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).
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 6, Sakamoto teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sakamoto further teaches the coil portion consists of two coils (Figure 1b coils C1 and C2 consists of two coils) arranged in the first direction, the magnet portion comprises a multi-pole magnet with N-pole and S-pole alternatively arranged in the first direction (Figure 4 magnet 9 as a whole is a multipole magnet, N-poles and S-poles of magnet 9 are arranged alternatively in the axial direction, Column 8 lines 13-20).
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
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.
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