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 statement submitted on 10/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 11/12/2025.
Cancellation of claim 2, filed 11/12/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Amendment to claim 1, filed 11/12/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claim 13, filed 11/12/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 5-7 of the Remarks, filed 11/12/2025, Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 11/12/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection, filed 8/28/2025. Newly amended claims are argued below, with some more specific issues raised in the Remarks to be addressed as follows.
On pgs. 6-7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “Neither Wada's yoke 2 nor its inner cylinder 7 is disclosed as holding that reference's coil 11” – concluding that these structures ‘do not correspond to a “third yoke”’ and that ‘key groove 9 [is] to be of little relevance to the recited “groove.”’. However, Examiner finds such arguments unpersuasive as they essentially amount to improper piecemeal analyses of references, rather than more appropriate consideration of the combined teachings as a whole.
As stated in the prior action, and as Applicant is reminded of in claim 1’s rejection below, Examiner relied on Komori – not Wada – for teaching the coil windings around the (third) yoke. The fact that Wada does not also have the coil windings around their yoke does not somehow prevent one of ordinary skill from considering other features (e.g. grooves) that may be imported from one (e.g. Wada’s) yoke structure to another (e.g. Komori’s). Insisting otherwise would be grossly underestimating one of ordinary skill in the art and their ability to consider, distill, and implement the teachings of a given combination of references.
Examiner thus finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive, and reminds Applicant that 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori et al (JP 2006146133 A, hereinafter “Komori”) in view of Wada et al (JP H5034562 A, hereinafter “Wada”) and Jun (KR 20190096133 A).
Regarding claim 1, Komori discloses (see FIGs. 2a, 4, and ¶s 12-22) a lens barrel comprising:
a first yoke (wall portion 61) and a second yoke (wall portion 62) each having a length in an optical axis direction (optical axis A, or Z direction per ¶ 14);
a third yoke (guide shaft 4) that has a length in the optical axis direction (Z direction) and is disposed between the first yoke (wall portion 61) and the second yoke (wall portion 62);
a first magnet (of magnets 7) disposed on the first yoke (wall portion 61);
a second magnet (of magnets 7) disposed on the second yoke (wall portion 62);
(note, regarding items C and D above, ¶ 18: “magnets 7 are attached to the inner surfaces of the wall portions 61 and 62”; magnets 7 thus encompasses both first and second magnets)
a coil (5) that is penetrated by the third yoke (guide shaft 4) and is movable in the optical axis direction (Z direction) by magnetic forces of the first magnet and the second magnet (magnets 7); and
a lens holding frame (lens frame 3) that holds a lens (lenses 2a and 2b) and is movable together with the coil (5) in the optical axis direction (Z direction),
(note: regarding items E and F above, that coil 5 is “wound around coil holding portion 34” of lens frame 3 per ¶ 20, and that lens frame 3 is “movable in the Z direction” per ¶ 17. See also FIG. 5 and ¶s 23 regarding magnetic circuit and driving mechanism.)
wherein the third yoke (guide shaft 4) has a groove (4b).
Komori does not disclose wherein the third yoke has a groove along the optical axis direction, the groove being on a side of the third yoke facing the lens so that the groove opens toward the lens.
Komori and Wada are commonly related to magnetic lens-driving apparatuses/methods.
Wada discloses (see FIGs. 1-3, ¶s 9-12) wherein the third yoke (yoke 2) has a groove (key groove 9) along the optical axis direction (i.e. out of the page in FIGs. 2 and 3), the groove (key groove 9) being on a side of the third yoke (yoke 2).
Komori and Jun are commonly related to magnetic lens-driving apparatuses/methods.
Jun discloses (see FIG 3, ¶s 20-23) the groove (guide groove 252) being on a side of the third yoke (guide member 250) facing the lens (lens 214) so that the groove (guide groove 252) opens toward the lens (lens 214).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Komori with teachings of Wada, in order to provide key/groove-engagement means for maintaining the relative positions between the lens frame and yoke, and to drive lenses more efficiently (reducing power consumption) (Wada ¶ 20).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Komori with a groove that opens towards the lens, as taught by Jun, in order to provide the guiding/groove interface closer to the lens and have a shorter moment arm for stable guidance.
Regarding claim 3, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1.
Komori further discloses (see FIGs. 1-2a, also annotated below; ¶s 15, 20) wherein the lens holding frame (lens frame 3) includes a first portion (coil holding portion 34) located inside the coil (5) and a second portion (frame portion 31) that is located outside the coil (5) and sandwiches the coil (5) between the first portion (coil holding portion 34) and the second portion (frame portion 31).
Wada further discloses (see FIGs. 2-3, ¶ 12) wherein the first portion (key 10) is disposed in the groove (key groove 9) and is movable along the groove (key groove 9) in the optical axis direction (i.e. out of the page in FIGs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 3.
Komori further discloses (see FIG. 2a, also annotated below) wherein the first portion (coil holding portion 34) is in contact with an inner peripheral surface of the coil (5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 3.
Komori further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1-2a below):
wherein the lens holding frame (lens frame 3) includes a connection portion that connects the first portion (coil holding portion 34) and the second portion (frame portion 31), and
wherein the connection portion is located at one end side of the lens holding frame (lens frame 3) in the optical axis direction (Z direction).
Regarding claim 6, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 5.
Komori further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1-2a below) wherein another end side of the lens holding frame (lens frame 3) in the optical axis direction (Z direction) does not have the connection portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
562
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
491
992
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIGs. 1 and 2a of Komori (i.e. top view and side view) are annotated to highlight various features)]
Regarding claim 12, modified Komori discloses (see FIGs. 11-12, ¶ 48) an imaging device (40) comprising: the lens barrel (housing 11 and its contents) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1.
Jun further discloses wherein the groove (guide groove 252) is longer than the lens holding frame (lens holder 224) in the optical axis direction. (See FIG. 6)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori in view of Wada and Jun, as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 3.
Komori further discloses wherein a length of the first portion (coil holding portion 34) in the optical axis direction (Z direction) is equal to a length of the coil (5) in the optical axis direction (Z direction). (See annotated FIG. 2a above.)
Komori thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, differing only slightly in the first portion length (i.e. it is equal to, instead of shorter than, the length of the coil). However, Examiner finds this difference amounts only to a slight difference in size.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Komori by resizing the length of the coil relative to the length of the first portion, for example, to accommodate a larger coil and more forceful magnetic fields – since it has been held that changes in size or shape are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori in view of Wada and Jun, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Akaha (JP 2008281820 A).
Regarding claim 8, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1.
Modified Komori does not disclose wherein a starting point of winding of the coil faces the groove.
Komori and Akaha are commonly related to magnetic lens-driving apparatuses/methods.
Akaha discloses wherein a starting point of winding of the coil (drive coils 141, 142) faces the groove (grooved guide portion 154). (¶ 37: “the winding start of the drive coil 141 and the winding start of the drive coil 142 is also stored in the grooved guide portion 154”; see also FIGs. 2(A-B), 3A, 5B)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Komori with teachings of Akaha, in order to connect/align coil windings (Akaha ¶ 37) and accommodate other common design features – e.g. a second coil, as in Akaha’s two-coil design, or perhaps other orientation-affected components included in the lens barrel.
Regarding claim 9, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1.
Modified Komori does not disclose wherein a conductive wire led out from the coil is connected to a substrate attached to the lens holding frame.
Komori and Akaha are commonly related to magnetic lens-driving apparatuses/methods.
Akaha discloses wherein a conductive wire (“winding end wire”) led out from the coil (drive coils 141, 142) is connected to a substrate (coil connection portion 317a, 317b) attached to the lens holding frame (“moving body 3 that holds three lenses” – ¶ 16). (See ¶s 36- 37:
“a first spring member 31… connected to… sleeve 15 (moving body 3)
“the first spring member 31 is made up of two electrically separated spring pieces 31a and 31b… formed with terminals 318a and 318b”
“winding end wire drawn out from… drive coil [141, 142] may be soldered to coil connection portion [317a, 317b] formed on the spring piece [31a, 31b]”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Komori with teachings of Akaha, in order to connect or align coil windings (Akaha ¶ 37) and accommodate other common design features – e.g. to a second coil, as in Akaha’s two-coil design, or perhaps other orientation-affected components included in the lens barrel.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori in view of Wada and Jun, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shirakata (US 20070091475 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1.
Modified Komori does not disclose wherein the third yoke does not have the groove at any of both end portions thereof in the optical axis direction.
Komori and Shirakata are related as being directed towards lens-driving apparatuses and methods.
Shirakata discloses wherein the third yoke (fixed ring 16) does not have the groove (cam groove 37A) at one of both end portions thereof in the optical axis direction. (See FIGs. 5-6, ¶s 63-67; cam groove 37A is limited on one end of the optical axis by front surface portion 16a at front horizontal position 37b (note reference numeral capitalization).)
Modified Komori, in further view of Shirakata, thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for where the yoke does not have the groove at another end portion. Examiner finds, however, that this difference only amounts to a mere reversal of parts (note: opposite to Shirakata’s front surface portion 16a in FIG. 5 is rear surface portion 16b, which flares radially outwards instead of inwards and does not limit inner cam groove 37A on the other end. Mere reversal of the rear surface portion 16b to point radially inwards, however, would result in inner cam groove 37A being limited on the other end, thus satisfying the claim.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Komori with teachings of Shirakata, in order to incorporate (front, rear) surface portions to enable the joining of other components (e.g. Shirakata’s rear barrel 18 joins fixed ring 16 at rear surface 16b, see ¶ 63).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to additionally modify Komori by reversing the (rear) surface portions to accommodate components with different geometries or joining positions – since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori in view of Wada and Jun, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujinaka (JP 2020064284 A).
Regarding claim 11, modified Komori discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1.
Komori further discloses the further comprising a fourth yoke (bottom portion 63) connecting first ends of the first yoke (wall portion 61), the second yoke (wall portion 62), and the third yoke (guide shaft 4) in the optical axis direction (Z direction); and
Modified Komori does not disclose:
a fifth yoke connecting second ends of the first yoke, the second yoke, and the third yoke in the optical axis direction,
wherein at least one of the fourth yoke or the fifth yoke includes a recess portion continuous with the groove.
Komori and Fujinaka are commonly related to magnetic lens-driving apparatuses/ methods.
Fujinaka discloses (see FIG. 14A, annotated below, and ¶ 49):
a fifth yoke connecting second ends of the first yoke, the second yoke, and the third yoke in the optical axis direction,
wherein at least one of the fourth yoke or the fifth yoke includes a recess portion continuous with the groove.
(For item B above, recall also the previous claim 1 rejection, regarding modified Komori’s third yoke’s groove which extends along the optical axis direction. When implementing Fujinaka’s fourth/fifth yokes as shown in annotated FIG. 14A below, their labeled recesses will be continuous with this third yoke groove.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Komori with teachings of Fujinaka, in order to implement yoke/actuator designs that are well-suited for high lens-thrusting capacity (Fujinaka ¶ 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
570
738
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 14A of Fujinaka is annotated to highlight various features)]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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872