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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 09/23/2025.
Status of the Claims:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in this Office Action.
Of the above claim(s) 3 and 16-17 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant arguments on complete citations on form PTO-892. Included in this Office Action is the complete citation as requested.
Regarding Applicant arguments on claim 1 that Park does not teach “However, …the "edge surfaces" of the magnet 422 are not disposed in the magnet 422 as would be necessary for these "edge surfaces" to correspond to "a magnet-side fixing part disposed in the OIS driving magnet and coupled with the holder-side fixing part" as recited in claim 1. Rather, the "edge surfaces" are external surfaces of the magnet 422. There is nothing disposed in the magnet 422 that can be considered to correspond to "a magnet-side fixing part disposed in the OIS driving magnet and coupled with the holder-side fixing part" as recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the "edge surfaces" of the magnet 422 are indeed disposed in the magnet 422 because the edge surfaces of the magnet are part of the magnet itself and are in contact with “a holder-side fixing part protruding from the outer surface of the lens holder" as can be clearly seen on Park’s Figs. 12-13. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant arguments on claim 18, arguments are similar to the arguments presented and address above to claim 1.
Election/Restrictions
Regarding Applicant arguments on claim 3, Applicant argues that it is directed to a product claim. Claim 3. “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the holder-side fixing part of the lens holder is an insert injection molded part inserted into and fixed to the magnet-side fixing part of the OIS driving magnet by insert injection molding.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, As previously stated, claim 3 includes method of manufacturing limitations to describe/define the components of the product. Applicant is clearly relying on the “insert injection molding” description/definition of the limitations to traverse the restriction. It is clear that insert injection molding is a manufacturing technique and using it to describe the component makes the claim a manufacturing claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Included is form paragraph 8.21.04 Notice of Potential Rejoinder of Process Claims
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
Amendment to the title of the invention is hereby acknowledge and accepted. Previous objection to the title of the invention is hereby withdrawn.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2025/0085612 to PARK et al. (hereinafter PARK).
Regarding independent claim 1, PARK teaches a lens driving apparatus comprising:
a lens holder accommodating a lens barrel (lens holder 310, see Figs. 6-7 and 12-13);
an optical image stabilization (OIS) driving magnet coupled to an outer surface of the lens holder (OIS magnet 420 and 422, see Fig. 12);
a holder-side fixing part protruding from the outer surface of the lens holder (see protrusion (not labeled) shaped for magnet 420/422 in lens holder 310, see Fig. 13); and
a magnet-side fixing part disposed in the OIS driving magnet and coupled with the holder-side fixing part (see mounted magnet 420/422 in Fig. 12, where edge surfaces are coupled to the holder-side protrusion of lens holder 310).
Regarding claim 2, PARK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lens holder and the holder-side fixing part are integrally formed with each other (lens holder 310 is integrally formed with protrusion for magnets 420/422, see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 11, PARK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the holder-side fixing part comprises at least one outward protrusion protruding outward from the outer surface of the lens holder (holder-side fixing part comprises at least 3 sides protruding to fit the OIS magnets 420/422, see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 13, PARK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the magnet-side fixing part comprises a cut-out part disposed at one corner of the OIS driving magnet (magnets 420/422 have the corner edge cut out, see Fig. 12).
Regarding independent claim 18, PARK teaches a lens driving apparatus comprising:
a lens holder accommodating a lens barrel (lens holder 310, see Figs. 6-7 and 12-13);
an optical image stabilization (OIS) driving magnet mounted on the lens holder and comprising a magnet-side fixing part (see mounted magnet 420/422 in Fig. 12, where edge surfaces are coupled to the holder-side protrusion of lens holder 310); and
a holder-side fixing part mounted on the lens holder and filling the magnet-side fixing part (see protrusion (not labeled) shaped for magnet 420/422 in lens holder 310, see Fig. 13).
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) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of CN 113189733 to LIN (hereinafter LIN).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to clearly specify “wherein the holder-side fixing part comprises a protruding pillar having a fixed end fixed to the outer surface of the lens holder and a free end protruding outward from the outer surface of the lens holder, and
the magnet-side fixing part comprises a hole into which the protruding pillar is inserted”.
However, LIN teaches a camera module “wherein the holder-side fixing part comprises a protruding pillar having a fixed end fixed to the outer surface of the lens holder and a free end protruding outward from the outer surface of the lens holder (lens bracket 6 (holder part) of Fig. 1b comprise protruding pillars), and
the magnet-side fixing part comprises a hole into which the protruding pillar is inserted (coils 7 comprise a hole into which the protruding pillar is inserted (magnet-side fixing part), see LIN Fig. 1b)”.
References are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and/or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned because they relate to camera modules.
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 above camera module as taught by PARK in view of PARK2, by incorporating the components, as taught by OSAKA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to fix the component to the holder in a specific position as suggested by LIN (see Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim(s) 19, claim(s) has/have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) to claim 4, and are met by the references as discussed above.
Claim(s) 12, 14 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of US 2022/0099992 to PARK et al. (hereinafter PARK2).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to clearly specify “wherein the magnet-side fixing part comprises a cut-out part disposed at one edge of the OIS driving magnet”.
However, PARK2 teaches a camera module “wherein the magnet-side fixing part comprises a cut-out part disposed at one edge of the OIS driving magnet (magnets 265a and 266a with a first cut-out edge, see PARK2 Figs. 2 and 5)”.
References are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and/or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned because they relate to camera modules.
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 above camera module as taught by PARK, by incorporating the components, as taught by PARK2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to fix the magnet to the holder in a specific position as suggested by PARK2 (see Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, PARK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to clearly specify “wherein the magnet-side fixing part comprises a first concave stepped part formed in one edge of the OIS driving magnet facing the outer surface of the lens holder, and
the holder-side fixing part comprises a first convex stepped part coupled with the first concave stepped part of the magnet-side fixing part”.
However, PARK2 teaches a camera module “wherein the magnet-side fixing part comprises a first concave stepped part formed in one edge of the OIS driving magnet facing the outer surface of the lens holder (magnets 265a and 266a with a first concave stepped part, see PARK2 Figs. 2 and 5), and
the holder-side fixing part comprises a first convex stepped part coupled with the first concave stepped part of the magnet-side fixing part (the lens holder side with the corresponding concave stepped part, see PARK2 Figs. 2 and 5)”.
References are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and/or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned because they relate to camera modules.
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 above camera module as taught by PARK, by incorporating the components, as taught by PARK2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to fix the magnet to the holder in a specific position as suggested by PARK2 (see Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim(s) 20-21, claim(s) has/have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) to claims 12 and 14, and are met by the references as discussed above.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of PARK2 as applied to claim14 above, and further in view of US 2022/0206287 to OSAKA et al. (hereinafter OSAKA).
Regarding claim 15, PARK in view of PARK2 teaches the apparatus of claim 14, but fail to clearly specify “wherein the magnet-side fixing part further comprises a second concave stepped part formed in another edge of the OIS driving magnet opposite to the edge in which the first concave stepped part is formed”.
However, OSAKA teaches a camera module “wherein the magnet-side fixing part further comprises a second concave stepped part formed in another edge of the OIS driving magnet opposite to the edge in which the first concave stepped part is formed (magnets 33A-33D with concave stepped parts in opposite edges, see OSAKA Figs. 6-7)”.
References are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and/or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned because they relate to camera modules.
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 above camera module as taught by PARK in view of PARK2, by incorporating the components, as taught by OSAKA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to fix the magnet to the holder in a specific position as suggested by OSAKA (see Figs. 6-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANGEL L GARCES-RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-727-7564. 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.
/ANGEL L GARCES-RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 2637
/SINH TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637