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
The instant application having Application No. 18/224,812 filed on July 21, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner. The amended claims submitted January 21, 2026 in response to the office action mailed October 21, 2025 are under consideration. Claims 1-15, 17-19 and 21-22 are pending. Claims 16 and 20 are cancelled.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein an upper surface of the second magnet unit comprises… a third area not overlapped with both the upper elastic member and the housing in the optical axis direction” of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
On pages 9 and 10 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks filed January 21, 2026 the applicant argued that this feature is already shown in Figs. 2 and 10 and provided a markup of Fig. 10 showing where the three claimed areas can be seen. The examiner agrees that one can see the first area where the second magnet unit overlaps with the upper elastic and the second area where the second magnet overlaps with the housing. However, in the cross-section shown in Fig. 10, the upper elastic is present in the third area marked by the applicant, and thus one cannot see “wherein an upper surface of the second magnet unit comprises… a third area not overlapped with both the upper elastic member and the housing in the optical axis direction” in Fig. 10. In Fig. 2 of the instant application, it is impossible to tell where the second magnet unit 1322 is at all, and thus also impossible to see a third area where the second magnet unit is exposed from the upper elastic and the housing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The double-patenting rejections of claim 20 of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
The double-patenting rejections of claims 1, 4, 10-12, 17 and 19 over claims 1-2, 4-9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,531 B2 of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
The double-patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 11,762,168 B2 in view of Konuma US 2019/0204532 A1 (hereafter Konuma) has been overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
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, 4-13, 15, 17, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konuma et al. US 2019/0204532 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Konuma) in view of Nagasaki US 2008/0192124 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Nagasaki).
Regarding claim 1, Konuma teaches (Figs. 1-12, 14A-14B, 15A-15B, 16A-16B and 20A-20C) “A lens driving device (lens driving device 1) comprising:
a base (OIS fixing part 20);
a housing (OIS movable part 10) disposed on the base (see e.g. Fig. 6);
a magnet (magnet part 122) and a first coil (OIS coil part 231) configured to move the housing with respect to the base (e.g. paragraph [0123]: “When OIS coil part 231 is energized, a Lorentz force is generated at OIS coil part 231 by interaction between the magnetic field of magnet part 122 and a current flowing through OIS coil part 231 (Fleming's left hand rule)… With this reactive force serving as the driving force of the OIS voice coil motor, OIS movable part 10 including magnet part 122 sways in the XY plane, so that the shake correction is performed.”),
wherein the magnet comprises a first magnet unit (122B), a second magnet unit (122A), and a third magnet unit (122C),
wherein the first coil comprises a first coil unit (OIS coil part 231B) disposed at a position corresponding to the first magnet unit (see Figs. 14B, 16B, 20B and paragraph [0135]: “OIS coil parts 231A to 231C of OIS fixing part 20 are disposed respectively at positions spaced away in the optical-axis direction from magnets 122A to 122C in the same manner as in Embodiment 1 (hereinafter, the same applies to the other embodiments).”), a second coil unit (OIS coil part 231A) disposed at a position corresponding to the second magnet unit (paragraph [0135]: “OIS coil parts 231A to 231C of OIS fixing part 20 are disposed respectively at positions spaced away in the optical-axis direction from magnets 122A to 122C in the same manner as in Embodiment 1 (hereinafter, the same applies to the other embodiments).”), and a third coil unit (OIS coil part 231C) disposed at a position corresponding to the third magnet unit (paragraph [0135]: “OIS coil parts 231A to 231C of OIS fixing part 20 are disposed respectively at positions spaced away in the optical-axis direction from magnets 122A to 122C in the same manner as in Embodiment 1 (hereinafter, the same applies to the other embodiments).”),
wherein the housing is configured to move in an x-axis direction through an interaction between the first magnet unit and the first coil unit (paragraph [0123]: “When OIS coil part 231 is energized, a Lorentz force is generated at OIS coil part 231 by interaction between the magnetic field of magnet part 122 and a current flowing through OIS coil part 231 (Fleming's left hand rule). The direction of the Lorentz force is a direction (X- or Y-direction) orthogonal both to the direction of the magnetic field (Z-direction) at one of the long side portions of OIS coil part 231 and to the direction of the current (Y- or X-direction).” Looking at Fig. 5, one can see that the current direction of the first coil unit 231B is in the Y-direction and thus that the force therefrom will be in the X-direction.),
wherein the housing is configured to move in a y-axis direction perpendicular to the x- axis direction through interactions between the second magnet unit and the second coil unit and between the third magnet unit and the third coil unit (paragraph [0123]: “When OIS coil part 231 is energized, a Lorentz force is generated at OIS coil part 231 by interaction between the magnetic field of magnet part 122 and a current flowing through OIS coil part 231 (Fleming's left hand rule). The direction of the Lorentz force is a direction (X- or Y-direction) orthogonal both to the direction of the magnetic field (Z-direction) at one of the long side portions of OIS coil part 231 and to the direction of the current (Y- or X-direction).” Looking at Fig. 5, one can see that the current direction of the second and third coil units 231A and 231C are in the X-direction and thus that the force therefrom will be in the Y-direction.).”
However, Konuma fails to teach “wherein the number of turns of a coil wound in the first coil unit is greater than the number of turns of a coil wound in the second coil unit.”
Note however, that Konuma does teach in paragraph [0139] that “With this configuration, it is possible to increase the magnetic field from magnet 122B acting on OIS coil part 231B, so as to increase the driving force in the X-direction. It is also possible to increase the magnetic field from magnet 122B acting on AF coil part 112, so as to increase the driving force in the optical-axis direction.”
Nagasaki teaches “A lens driving device (lens module 20, see parts thereof below) comprising:
a base (lower case 21);
a housing (magnet yoke 33, which is a housing in that lens holder 29 is inside of it)
a magnet (magnets 31) and a first coil (coil 30) configured to move the housing with respect to the base (e.g. paragraph [0063]: “The force with which the lens holder is moved depends upon the magnetic forces created between the magnet and the coil.”).”
Nagasaki further teaches (paragraph [0063]): “The force with which the lens holder is moved depends upon the magnetic forces created between the magnet and the coil. The more powerful the magnet or the greater the number of turns of the coil, or a greater current flow through the coil leads to a greater force.”
Thus Konuma differs from the instant claim in that a stronger magnet 122B corresponding to first coil unit 231B is used to increase the magnetic force between them, relative to the magnetic force between second magnet 122A and the second coil unit 231A, rather than having a greater number of turns in the first coil unit than the number of turns in the second coil unit as claimed.
Nagasaki teaches that either a more powerful magnet or a greater number of turns of the coil can be used to generate a greater magnetic force (see paragraph [0063]). Thus Nagasaki teaches that a stronger magnet or a coil with a greater number of turns are equivalent structures in the art.
Therefore, because these two magnet/coil configurations were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a coil with a greater number of turns for a stronger magnet, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 4, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 1,” and Konuma further teaches “wherein the number of turns of a coil wound in the third coil unit is as the same as the number of turns of the coil wound in the second coil unit (the second and third coil units are not disclosed as having different number of turns than one another, and there are only two possibilities, (a) they have the same number of turns or (b) they have different numbers of turns. Since this is a genus with only two species, an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage both species, including that they have the same number of turns.1).”
Regarding claim 5, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 1,” and Konuma further teaches “comprising a substrate (coil board 23) disposed on the base (see Figs. 11 and 12) and comprising the first coil (see Figs. 11 and 12),
wherein the housing comprises first and second side parts opposite to each other (Figs. 14, 15, 16 and 20, the first side part is the side with 122B and the second side part is the no-magnet-disposing part R of magnet holder 121), and third and fourth side parts opposite to each other (Figs. 14, 15, 16 and 20 the sides of 121 with 122A and 122C),
wherein the first magnet unit is disposed on the first side part (Figs. 14, 15, 16 and 20, the first side part is the side with magnet 122B),
wherein the second magnet unit is disposed on the third side part (Figs. 14, 15, 16 and 20 the sides of 121 with magnet 122A), wherein the third magnet unit is disposed on the fourth side part (Figs. 14, 15, 16 and 20 the sides of 121 with magnet 122C),
wherein the substrate comprises a hole (circular opening 23a), an inner circumferential surface formed by the hole (the inner circumferential surface of 23a), a first side surface disposed at a position corresponding to the first side part of the housing (the side surface of 23 proximate to 122B in Fig. 14A), and a second side surface disposed at a position corresponding to the second side part of the housing (the side surface of 23 proximate to R in Fig. 14A),
wherein a distance between the inner circumferential surface of the substrate and the first side surface of the substrate is greater than a distance between the inner circumferential surface of the substrate and the second side surface of the substrate (see Fig. 14A, the inner circumferential surface of the opening is further from the first side proximate to 122B than it is to the side surface proximate to R. See also paragraph [0134]: “lens holder 111 is supported at a position shifted toward no-magnet-disposing part R of magnet holder 121”).”
Regarding claim 6, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 5,”and Konuma further teaches “wherein the substrate comprises a third side surface disposed at a position corresponding to the third side part of the housing (the side of 23 corresponding to 122A), and a fourth side surface disposed at a position corresponding to the fourth side part of the housing (the side of 23 corresponding to 122C).”
However, Konuma Figs. 14A-14B fail to teach “wherein a distance between the third side surface and the fourth side surface is greater than a distance between the first side surface and the second side surface.”
However, Konuma also teaches (paragraph [0106]): “Coil board 23, like base 21, is a board having a square shape in plan view.”
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
The instant claims and the prior art differ by the recitation of a relative dimension, the distance between the third and fourth sides relative to the distance between the first and second sides. The prior art and the instant claim do not perform differently from one another, given that a square shape is infinitesimally close to one where a distance between the third side surface and the fourth side surface is greater than a distance between the first side surface and the second side surface.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the relative dimension of the distance between the third and fourth sides to be greater than the distance between the first and second sides, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Konuma teaches square shapes for the coil board 23 that are infinitesimally close to meeting the claimed relative dimensions.
Regarding claim 7, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 6,” and Konuma further teaches “wherein the substrate comprises a body portion (base 21 and sensor board 22) comprising the first to fourth side surfaces (the four side surfaces of the mostly rectangular 21 and 22), and a terminal portion (terminals 22c and depressed portions 21c) comprising a plurality of terminals (terminals 22c), and
wherein the terminal portion extends from each of the second and third side surfaces of the body portion (see Fig. 12 22c/21c extend from two side surfaces of 21/22 which can be designated as the second and third side surfaces because no relationship to the first to fourth side parts of the housing has been claimed).”
Regarding claim 8, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 1,” and Konuma further teaches “wherein a lengthwise direction length of the first coil unit is greater than a lengthwise direction length of each of the second and third coil units (Fig. 15A depicts the lengthwise direction length of the first coil unit 122B is greater than the lengthwise direction lengths of the second and third coil units 122A and 122C as seen in the annotated version of Fig. 15A below, and paragraph [0146] discusses 122A and 122C being shifted. Furthermore, given that 122A and 122C are symmetrical there are only 3 possibilities for the relative lengths (a) 122B is longer than 122A and 122C, (b) 122B is the same length as 122A and 122C or (c) 122B is shorter than 122A and 122C. Thus an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage all three possibilities including option (a) as claimed and shown in Fig. 15A).”
PNG
media_image1.png
408
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 1,” and Konuma further teaches “wherein a widthwise direction length of the first coil unit is greater than a widthwise direction length of each of the second and third coil units (see Fig. 14A and paragraph [0134]: “magnet 122B has a size greater than those of magnets 122A and 122C”).”
Regarding claim 10, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 1,” and Konuma further teaches “wherein the first magnet unit is a 2-pole magnet (see Fig. 20B 122B is a 2-pole magnet), and wherein each of the second magnet unit and the third magnet unit is a 4-pole magnet (see Fig. 20C 122A and 122C are each 4-pole magnets).”
Regarding claim 11, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 1,” and Konuma further teaches (Figs. 20A-20C) “comprising:
a bobbin (lens holder 111) disposed in the housing (see e.g. Figs. 7-9);
a second coil (AF coil part 112) disposed on the bobbin (see e.g. Fig. 7);
wherein the second coil comprises a fourth coil unit (AF coil part 112A) disposed between the bobbin and the second magnet unit (see Fig. 20A 112A is between the bobbin and 122A), and a fifth coil unit (AF coil part 112B) disposed between the bobbin and the third magnet unit (see Fig. 20A, 112B is between the bobbin and 122C), and wherein the second coil is not disposed between the bobbin and the first magnet unit (see Figs. 20A and 20B there is no first coil between the bobbin and 122B).”
Regarding claim 12, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 1,” and Konuma further teaches (Figs. 16A-16B) “comprising a dummy member (balance weight 123)
wherein the housing comprises first and second side parts opposite to each other (Fig. 16, the first side part is the side with 122B and the second side part is the no-magnet-disposing part R of magnet holder 121), and third and fourth side parts opposite to each other (Fig. 16 the sides of 121 with 122A and 122C),
wherein the first magnet unit is disposed on the first side part (Fig. 16, the first side part is the side with magnet 122B),
wherein the second magnet unit is disposed on the third side part (Fig.16 the sides of 121 with magnet 122A), wherein the third magnet unit is disposed on the fourth side part (Fig. 16 the sides of 121 with magnet 122C),
wherein the dummy member is disposed on the second side part of the housing (Fig. 16 balance weight 123 is on the second side part), and
wherein the dummy member comprises a non-magnetic material (paragraph [0152]: “balance weight 123 of a non-magnetic material”), or an intensity of a magnetism of the dummy member is weaker than an intensity of a magnetism of the first magnet unit (paragraph [0152]: “balance weight 123 of a non-magnetic material” If it is non-magnetic than the intensity of the magnetism of the balance weight is weaker than that of the first magnet unit).”
Regarding claim 13, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 12,” and Konuma Figs. 16A-16B further teach “a bobbin (lens holder 111) disposed in the housing (see e.g. Figs. 7-9); and a second coil (AF coil part 112) disposed on the bobbin (see e.g. Fig. 7);…
wherein the first coil is not disposed between the dummy member and the base in the optical axis direction (see Fig. 16B, 231 is not disposed between the base and balance weight 123).”
However, Konuma Figs. 16A-16B fails to teach “wherein the second coil is not disposed between the bobbin and the dummy member in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis direction.”
Konuma Figs. 20A-20C teaches “wherein the second coil is not disposed between the bobbin and the dummy member in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis direction (in Figs. 20A-20C the AF coil 112 is composed of two coil parts 112A and 112B which are not disposed between the bobbin and 122B, see Fig. 20A and paragraphs [0179]-[0180]).”
Konuma further teaches (paragraph [0182]): “With this configuration, the effect of the magnetic field from magnet 122B acting on AF coil parts 112A and 112B is reduced, and a driving force is generated in AF coil parts 112A and 112B during automatic focusing mainly by the effect of the magnetic fields generated by magnets 122A and 122C. Accordingly, the AF tilt can be prevented since the vector of the resultant force of the driving forces acting on AF movable part 11 (lens holder 111) coincides with the optical axis.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the AF coil of Figs. 16A-16B in two parts facing magnets 122A and 122C, but not positioned between the bobbin and 122B as taught by Konuma Figs. 20A-20C because Konuma teaches that with this configuration the AF tilt can be prevented since the vector of the resultant force of the driving forces acting on AF movable part 11 (lens holder 111) coincides with the optical axis (Konuma paragraph [0182]).
Regarding claim 15, Konuma teaches (Figs. 1-12 and 14A-14B) “A lens driving device (lens driving device 1) comprising:
a base (OIS fixing part 20);
a housing (OIS movable part 10) disposed on the base (see e.g. Fig. 6);
a magnet (magnet part 122) and a first coil (OIS coil part 231) configured to move the housing with respect to the base (e.g. paragraph [0123]: “When OIS coil part 231 is energized, a Lorentz force is generated at OIS coil part 231 by interaction between the magnetic field of magnet part 122 and a current flowing through OIS coil part 231 (Fleming's left hand rule)… With this reactive force serving as the driving force of the OIS voice coil motor, OIS movable part 10 including magnet part 122 sways in the XY plane, so that the shake correction is performed.”), and
a wire (suspension wires 30) configured to movably support the housing (paragraph [0044]: “OIS movable part 10 is supported to be able to sway in the XY plane by suspension wires 30”),
wherein the magnet comprises a first magnet unit (122B), a second magnet unit (122A), and a third magnet unit (122C),
wherein the first coil comprises a first coil unit (OIS coil part 231B) facing the first magnet unit (see Figs. 14B, 16B, 20B and paragraph [0135]: “OIS coil parts 231A to 231C of OIS fixing part 20 are disposed respectively at positions spaced away in the optical-axis direction from magnets 122A to 122C in the same manner as in Embodiment 1 (hereinafter, the same applies to the other embodiments).”), a second coil unit (OIS coil part 231A) facing the second magnet unit (paragraph [0135]: “OIS coil parts 231A to 231C of OIS fixing part 20 are disposed respectively at positions spaced away in the optical-axis direction from magnets 122A to 122C in the same manner as in Embodiment 1 (hereinafter, the same applies to the other embodiments).”), and a third coil unit (OIS coil part 231C) facing the third magnet unit (paragraph [0135]: “OIS coil parts 231A to 231C of OIS fixing part 20 are disposed respectively at positions spaced away in the optical-axis direction from magnets 122A to 122C in the same manner as in Embodiment 1 (hereinafter, the same applies to the other embodiments).”),
wherein the housing is configured to move in a first direction through an interaction between the first magnet unit and the first coil unit (paragraph [0123]: “When OIS coil part 231 is energized, a Lorentz force is generated at OIS coil part 231 by interaction between the magnetic field of magnet part 122 and a current flowing through OIS coil part 231 (Fleming's left hand rule). The direction of the Lorentz force is a direction (X- or Y-direction) orthogonal both to the direction of the magnetic field (Z-direction) at one of the long side portions of OIS coil part 231 and to the direction of the current (Y- or X-direction).” Looking at Fig. 5, one can see that the current direction of the first coil unit 231B is in the Y-direction and thus that the force therefrom will be in the X-direction.),
wherein the housing is configured to move in a second direction different from the first direction through interactions between the second magnet unit and the second coil unit and between the third magnet unit and the third coil unit (paragraph [0123]: “When OIS coil part 231 is energized, a Lorentz force is generated at OIS coil part 231 by interaction between the magnetic field of magnet part 122 and a current flowing through OIS coil part 231 (Fleming's left hand rule). The direction of the Lorentz force is a direction (X- or Y-direction) orthogonal both to the direction of the magnetic field (Z-direction) at one of the long side portions of OIS coil part 231 and to the direction of the current (Y- or X-direction).” Looking at Fig. 5, one can see that the current direction of the second and third coil units 231A and 231C are in the X-direction and thus that the force therefrom will be in the Y-direction.).”
However, Konuma fails to teach “wherein the number of turns of a coil wound in the first coil unit is greater than the number of turns of a coil wound in the second coil unit.”
Note however, that Konuma does teach in paragraph [0139] that “With this configuration, it is possible to increase the magnetic field from magnet 122B acting on OIS coil part 231B, so as to increase the driving force in the X-direction. It is also possible to increase the magnetic field from magnet 122B acting on AF coil part 112, so as to increase the driving force in the optical-axis direction.”
Nagasaki teaches “A lens driving device (lens module 20, see parts thereof below) comprising:
a base (lower case 21);
a housing (magnet yoke 33, which is a housing in that lens holder 29 is inside of it)
a magnet (magnets 31) and a first coil (coil 30) configured to move the housing with respect to the base (e.g. paragraph [0063]: “The force with which the lens holder is moved depends upon the magnetic forces created between the magnet and the coil.”).”
Nagasaki further teaches (paragraph [0063]): “The force with which the lens holder is moved depends upon the magnetic forces created between the magnet and the coil. The more powerful the magnet or the greater the number of turns of the coil, or a greater current flow through the coil leads to a greater force.”
Thus Konuma differs from the instant claim in that a stronger magnet 122B corresponding to first coil unit 231B is used to increase the magnetic force between them, relative to the magnetic force between second magnet 122A and the second coil unit 231A, rather than having a greater number of turns in the first coil unit than the number of turns in the second coil unit as claimed.
Nagasaki teaches that either a more powerful magnet or a greater number of turns of the coil can be used to generate a greater magnetic force (see paragraph [0063]). Thus Nagasaki teaches that a stronger magnet or a coil with a greater number of turns are equivalent structures in the art.
Therefore, because these two magnet/coil configurations were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a coil with a greater number of turns for a stronger magnet, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 17, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “the lens driving device of claim 1” and Konuma teaches “A camera module (camera module A) comprising the lens driving device of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).”
Regarding claim 19, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “the camera module of claim 17” and Konuma further teaches “An optical apparatus (smartphone M) comprising: a main body (the body of the smartphone M); the camera module of claim 17 (see claim 17) disposed on the main body (see Fig. 1B and paragraph [0033]: “Camera module A according to the present embodiment is applied to at least one back side camera OC 1 of the two back side cameras”); and a display disposed on the main body (the smartphone display, see Fig. 1A) and outputting an image photographed by the camera module (One of the purposes of displays in smartphones that have camera modules is to output the images photographed by the camera module. Thus an ordinary skilled artisan would have at once envisaged this function being performed.).”
Regarding claim 21, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 1,” and Konuma further teaches “comprising a wire (suspension wires 30) configured to movably support the housing (paragraph [0044]: “OIS movable part 10 is supported to be able to sway in the XY plane by suspension wires 30”),
Regarding claim 22, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 15” and Konuma further teaches “wherein a widthwise direction length of the first coil unit is greater than a widthwise direction length of each of the second and third coil units (see Fig. 14A and paragraph [0134]: “magnet 122B has a size greater than those of magnets 122A and 122C”).”
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konuma et al. US 2019/0204532 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Konuma) in view of Nagasaki US 2008/0192124 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Nagasaki) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yoshioka et al. US 2009/0225424 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Yoshioka).
Regarding claim 14, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 11,” and Konuma further teaches “further comprising:
an upper elastic member (upper elastic supporting member 13) coupled with the bobbin and the housing (paragraph [0049]: “AF supporting member 13 is an upper elastic supporting member which supports AF movable part 11 with respect to AF fixing part 12 at their upper side (AF supporting member 13 may also hereinafter be referred to as “upper elastic supporting member 13”),”); and
a support member (four suspension wires 30, which are suspension wires 31A, 31B, 32A and 32B) coupled with the upper elastic member (paragraph [0074]: “AF power-supply lines 171 and 172 are connected to power-supplying suspension wires 32B and 32A, and supply electricity to AF control part 16 (control IC 161). Signal lines 173 and 174 are connected to signal suspension wires 31B and 31A, and provide the control signals to AF control part 16 (control IC 161).”), …
wherein the upper elastic member comprises first and second upper elastic units (132 and 131) spaced apart from each other (see gap between 132 and 131 in the lower right-hand-side of Fig. 10A), and
wherein one side end portion of the fourth coil unit of the second coil is coupled with the first upper elastic unit (paragraph [0074]: “Upper plate springs 131 and 132 function as coil power-supply lines for supplying electricity to AF coil part 112.”) and one side end portion of the fifth coil unit of the second coil is coupled with the second upper elastic unit (paragraph [0074]: “Upper plate springs 131 and 132 function as coil power-supply lines for supplying electricity to AF coil part 112.”).”
However, Konuma fails to explicitly teach “wherein the fourth coil unit and the fifth coil unit of the second coil unit are electrically connected.”
Yoshioka (Fig. 19) teaches “wherein the fourth coil unit and the fifth coil unit of the second coil unit are electrically connected (paragraph [0075] “The winding wire that forms the first coil 58 and the winding wire that forms the second coil 60 are electrically connected via a relay line 62”).”
Yoshioka further teaches (paragraph 75) that relay line 62 electrically connects coils 58 and 60 to form a serial connection.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a connecting portion between the two AF coils as taught by Yoshioka in the lens driving device of the Konuma-Nagasaki combination in order to electrically connect the AF coils in a serial connection as taught by Yoshioka (paragraph 75).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konuma et al. US 2019/0204532 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Konuma) in view of Nagasaki US 2008/0192124 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Nagasaki) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Li et al. WO 2018/107725 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Li, where reference will be made to the machine translation provided in parent application 16/498,358).
Regarding claim 18, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The camera module of claim 17,” and Konuma further teaches “comprising a second lens driving device (OC2) adjacent to the lens driving device (see Figs. 14A, 15A, 16A and 20A),
wherein the second lens driving device comprises (paragraph [0034]: “Note that, the same configuration as in camera module A according to the present embodiment may be applied in the other back side camera OC2 like in back side camera OC1):
a housing (OIS movable part 10);
a bobbin (lens holder 111) disposed in the housing of the second lens driving device (see e.g. Fig. 7);
a third coil (AF coil 112) disposed on an outer circumferential surface of the bobbin of the second lens driving device (see Fig. 7);
a magnet (magnet 122) disposed on the housing of the second lens driving device (122 are disposed on 10, see Figs. 5-6) and facing the third coil (see Figs. 14-20); and
a fourth coil (OIS coil part 231) disposed at a position corresponding to the magnet of the second lens driving device (see Figs. 14B, 15B, 16B and 20B).”
However, Konuma fails to teach “wherein the magnet of the second lens driving device comprises four magnet units disposed at four corners of the housing of the second lens driving device.”
However, it should be noted that Konuma teaches (paragraph [0034]): “Note that, the same configuration as in camera module A according to the present embodiment may be applied in the other back side camera OC2 like in back side camera OC1, or a different configuration including a voice coil motor may also be applied in back camera OC2.”
Li teaches (Figs. 8 and 9) “A camera module (camera module 30) comprising
the lens driving device (lens driving device of the first optical package 100) further comprising
a second lens driving device (lens driving device of the second optical package 400) disposed adjacent to the lens driving device (see Figs. 8 and 9),
wherein the second lens driving device comprises:
a housing (see housing in Fig. 10);
a bobbin (second optical package body 400) disposed in the housing of the second lens driving device (see Figs. 8-10);
a third coil (third coil 520) disposed on an outer circumferential surface of the bobbin of the second lens driving device (paragraph [0056] “the third coil 520 is radially wound on the surface of the second optical package 400”);
a magnet (fourth magnetic member 600) disposed on the housing of the second lens driving device (see Figs. 8-10) and facing the third coil (see Fig. 8-10); and
a fourth coil (fourth coil 540) facing the magnet of the second lens driving device (paragraph [0057]: “one fourth coil 540 is disposed on one side of each fourth magnetic member 600”),
wherein the magnet of the second lens driving device comprises four magnet units (paragraph [0060]: “the number of the fourth magnetic members 600 is four”) disposed at the corners of the housing of the second lens driving device (paragraph [0060]: “The fourth magnetic members 600 are respectively located at positions corresponding to the four corners of the second optical package 400”).”
Li further teaches (paragraph [0061]) “In the camera module 30 provided by the embodiment of the present application, the minimum distance between the counterweight 260 and the fourth magnetic member 600 is not greater than 1 mm. Since the magnetic interference between the two camera units 10 is relatively small, the distance between the camera units 10 is not greater than 1 mm, which reduces the difficulty of assembling the camera module 30, saves the space of the whole machine environment, and is beneficial to the camera module 30 minimal design.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the configuration of the second lens driver of Konuma the configuration of the second lens driver of Li because Li teaches that these two lens drivers in combination saves the space of the whole machine environment by minimizing a required distance between the two lens drivers while minimizing magnetic interference between the two camera units (Li paragraph [0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the Konuma – Nagasaki combination teaches “The lens driving device of claim 1,” and Konuma further teaches “further comprising an upper elastic member (upper elastic supporting member 13) coupled with the housing and an upper surface of the bobbin (paragraph [0049]: “AF supporting member 13 is an upper elastic supporting member which supports AF movable part 11 with respect to AF fixing part 12 at their upper side (AF supporting member 13 may also hereinafter be referred to as “upper elastic supporting member 13”)”),
wherein an upper surface of the second magnet unit comprises a first area overlapped with the upper elastic member in an optical axis direction (portion of 122A which overlaps 13), a second area overlapped with the housing in the optical axis direction (portion of 122A which overlaps 12).”
However, Konuma fails to teach “and a third area not overlapped with both the upper elastic member and the housing in the optical axis direction.”
It is noted that a newly identified reference, Min et al. US 2016/0109721 teaches in paragraphs [0099]-[0100]: “The magnet mounting seat portions 141a may be embodied as recesses having a size corresponding to that of the magnets 130,… Alternatively, the magnet mounting portions 141a may be embodied as magnet mounting holes into which the magnets 130 are partially fitted or through which the magnets 130 are partially exposed, unlike the recessed structure shown in FIG. 7.” This disclosure teaches that the magnet and the corresponding recess in the housing need not be the same size and the magnet could be partially exposed. However, Min does not specify in which direction the exposure should occur, or that such an exposed portion would also not overlap with the upper elastic in the optical axis direction. Thus, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “a third area not overlapped with both the upper elastic member and the housing in the optical axis direction” without improper hindsight.
Claim 3 depend from claim 2 and is allowable for at least the reason stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9 and 10 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant addresses the objections to the drawings. These arguments have been addressed above in the Drawing Objection section.
On pages 10 and 11 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the double-patenting rejections have been overcome by the amendments to the claims and the submission of a terminal disclaimer. The examiner agrees, these rejections have been withdrawn.
On page 11 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the 35 USC §112 rejection of claim 11 has been overcome by the amendments to the claims. The examiner agrees, this rejection has been withdrawn.
In the paragraph spanning the end of page 11 of 16 and the beginning of page 12 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant lists the prior art rejections that they will be traversing. No argument is made in this paragraph.
In lines 7 to 10 of page 12 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that the rejections of claims 16 and 20 are moot since those claims have been cancelled.
From line 11 of page 12 through line 6 of page 13 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant reproduces amended claim 1 emphasizing the limitation that they will be arguing is not disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record, that is present in both claims 1 and 15, specifically: “wherein the number of turns of a coil wound in the first coil unit is greater than the number of turns of a coil wound in the second coil unit.”
In lines 7-13 of page 13 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant presents Fig. 7 of the instant application which illustrates the first, second and third coil units of the claim, explains the interactions thereof with the first second and third magnet units and notes that it is the first coil unit 1422a which is disclosed as having a greater number of turns than the second coil unit 1422b. No argument is made in this paragraph; however, it should be noted that the number of turns of the coil units is not specifically illustrated in Fig. 7 or any other drawings in the instant application.
In the paragraph that spans pages 13 to 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that the feature of a differing number of windings in the coils is not anticipated by Konuma and that Konuma already addresses the desired relative strength of the VCM units by adjusting the magnet sizes. From these observations the applicant concludes that Konuma itself does not provide a motivation for changing the number of windings. These observations are not under dispute. The rejection relies upon Nagasaki for both the teaching of a differing number of windings and the motivation to do so. In this paragraph the applicant further alleges that “A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that, since Konuma already achieves a sufficient effect through adjustment of magnet sizes, there would be no motivation to further modify the structure by designing different winding numbers for coils corresponding to different axes.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references within the primary reference of Konuma, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the previous rejection, maintained above, explained:
Thus Konuma differs from the instant claim in that a stronger magnet 122B corresponding to first coil unit 231B is used to increase the magnetic force between them, relative to the magnetic force between second magnet 122A and the second coil unit 231A, rather than having a greater number of turns in the first coil unit than the number of turns in the second coil unit as claimed.
Nagasaki teaches that either a more powerful magnet or a greater number of turns of the coil can be used to generate a greater magnetic force (see paragraph [0063]). Thus Nagasaki teaches that a stronger magnet or a coil with a greater number of turns are equivalent structures in the art.
Therefore, because these two magnet/coil configurations were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a coil with a greater number of turns for a stronger magnet, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
In lines 5-8 of page 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Nagasaki fails to overcome the deficiency in Konuma because Nagasaki “merely relates to a general principle of increasing magnetic force of a single coil, and does not provide any teaching or suggestion to structurally introduce differences in winding numbers between multiple coils.” This argument is not persuasive. There is no need for Nagasaki to teach which magnet-coil pair should have a stronger force because Konuma already discloses that the magnet-coil pair that is not duplicated is the one that needs to be made stronger.
In lines 9-13 of page 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that a larger magnet and a greater number of coils are not equivalent because a larger magnet would increase the mass of the movable part, while increasing the number of turns of the coil increases the mass of the base, and therefor that these choices are not interchangeable equivalents. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that increasing the turns of the coil would advantageously not increase the mass of the movable part, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Secondly, there is no requirement that the art recognized equivalents be identical in performance or attributes. If one were to analyze this modification under KSR rationale 2 of Simple Substitution (see MPEP §2143), the requirements on the substituted components are only that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Nagasaki explicitly states (paragraph [0063]): “The force with which the lens holder is moved depends upon the magnetic forces created between the magnet and the coil. The more powerful the magnet or the greater the number of turns of the coil, or a greater current flow through the coil leads to a greater force.” Thus, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The applicant’s observation that increasing the size of the magnet or increasing the number of turns of the coil make the magnet or coil heavier respectively is not unpredictable. There is no evidence of record to support an allegation that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have predicted that enhancing the strength of the coil rather than the magnet would enable reducing the mass of the magnet.
In lines 14-15 of page 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “If Konuma was modified as suggested by the Offcie [sic] Action, the movable part would become heavier, resulting in a slower response speed.” This argument directly contradicts the immediately preceding argument. In the previous paragraph the applicant just pointed out that substituting a coil with a larger number of turns for a larger magnet reduces the weight of the movable part. Thus, the applicant cannot then argue that the modification suggested in the rejection would further increase the mass of the movable part.
In lines 15-18 of page 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues: “In contrast, the combination of features of Applicant's claim 1 resolves the force imbalance inherent in a three-coil structure through coil design without any weight penalty. This constitutes a unique technical effect that is neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art.” In response to applicant's argument that the claimed device resolves the force imbalance inherent in a three-coil structure through coil design without any weight penalty, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In lines 19-29 of page 14 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant concludes that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the number of turns of a coil wound in the first coil unit is greater than the number of turns of a coil wound in the second coil unit and thus that the rejections of claims 1, 4-15 and 17-19 should be withdrawn. The arguments underlying this conclusion have been addressed above.
Under the heading “Allowable Subject Matter” on page 15 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant thanks the Examiner for the early indication of allowable subject matter. The allowability of claims 2 and 3 is maintained above with an additional citation to newly identified art that is pertinent to the claim but which does not render claim 2 obvious.
Under the heading “New Claims” on page 15 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that claims 21 and 22 have been added and argues that they are also allowable at least for their dependence from claims 1 or 15. The arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been addressed above.
No further arguments are presented after this section.
The request for an interview with the examiner in the Conclusion on page 15 of 16 of the applicant’s remarks is denied. The nature and number of the outstanding issues of patentability are such that it does not appear that an interview would result in expediting allowance of the application at this time. See MPEP §713.01 (IV) “An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application. … Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.”
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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 Pham can be reached at 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).