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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 1/31/2024 and 9/30/2025 have been considered.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 1/31/2024 is acknowledged. In the preliminary amendment, Applicant amended the specification, amended claims 6-10 and cancelled claim 20.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the magnetic field sensing region is a region having a slope of 0.5 to 1 time (50% to 100%) of a maximum slope of a detected magnetic field value” in lines 4-5. It is suggested that the above quoted feature is changed to “the magnetic field sensing region is a region having a slope of 0.5 to 1 times (50% to 100%) a maximum slope of a detected magnetic field value”, for better clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ushida et al. (US 2018/0274945, hereinafter, “Ushida”).
Regarding claim 1, Ushida discloses a lens driving device 3 (Fig. 3, [0035]) comprising:
a first lens group including at least one lens 5 (Fig. 2, [0035]);
a first magnet 31A coupled to the first lens group (Fig. 3, [0042]);
a first coil 41 disposed at a location corresponding to the first magnet (Fig. 3, [0044]-[0045]);
N sensors (corresponding to 20) that detect a magnetic field of the first magnet 31A ([0048], [0051]-[0052], [0060]-[0061], Fig. 3, 5, 7, here, sensor 20 includes four magneto-resistive elements R1-R4); and
a driving part 22 that receives outputs E1, E2 of the N sensors and controls a current applied to the first coil (Fig. 7, [0051], [0061], [0069]),
wherein N is a natural number of three or more,
when N is an odd number, the N sensors are connected to have (N−1)/2 serial connections, and
when N is an even number (here N=4), the N sensors are connected to have N/2 serial connections (here 4/2=2 connections, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Ushida discloses the lens driving device of claim 1, wherein
the N sensors include a first sensor R1, a second sensor R2, and a third sensor R3 that detect the magnetic field of the first magnet 31A (Fig. 7),
the driving part receives outputs of the first sensor R1, the second sensor R2, and the third sensor R3 and controls the current applied to the first coil 41 (Fig. 7, [0051], [0061], [0069]),
the driving part includes a first input channel E1 and a second input channel E2 (Fig. 7),
the first sensor R1 and the second sensor R2 are connected to the first input channel E1, and the third sensor R3 is connected to the second input channel E2 (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Ushida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2, wherein
the N sensors further include a fourth sensor R4, wherein the fourth sensor R4 is connected to the second input channel E2 (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Ushida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2, wherein
the first sensor R1 and the second sensor R2 are connected in series (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Ushida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2, wherein
the N sensors (of 20) are sequentially arranged side by side in an optical axis direction Z (Fig. 3, 7, [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Ushida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2, comprising
a second coil 45 that is disposed parallel to the first coil 41 in an optical axis direction, is disposed at a location corresponding to the first magnet 31A, and receives a current from the driving part, wherein the first coil and the second coil are connected in parallel (Fig. 3, 4, [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Ushida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2,
respective resistance values of the N sensors are equal to each other ([0062]. Each of the four sensors is a magneto-resistive element with identical resistance response to the direction of the magnetic field).
Regarding claim 14, Uchida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2, wherein
a first input signal of the first input channel is input to and amplified by a first amplifier 22, and
a second input signal of the second input channel is input to and amplified by a second amplifier 22 (Fig. 7).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cai et al. (US 2021/0255000, hereinafter, “Cai”).
Regarding claim 18, Cai discloses a lens driving device 3 (Fig. 3, [0050]) comprising:
a first lens group including at least one lens 5 (Fig. 2, [0050]);
a first magnet 31A coupled to the first lens group (Fig. 3, [0057]);
a first coil 41 disposed at a location corresponding to the first magnet (Fig. 3, [0057], [0059]-[0060]);
a first sensor R1, a second sensor Ro1, and a third sensor R2 (corresponding to 20) that detect a magnetic field of the first magnet 31A ([0063], [0076]-[0079], Fig. 3, 5, 7, here the sensor 20 includes four magneto-resistive elements R1-R4); and
a driving part (not shown) that receives outputs of the first, second, third sensors and controls a current applied to the first coil ([0084]),
wherein the driving part includes a first input channel E1 (Fig. 7),
the first sensor R1 and the second sensor Ro1 are connected in series (Fig. 7), and
the first sensor R1 and the second sensor Ro1 connected in series and the third sensor R2 are connected in parallel and connected to the first input channel E1 (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, Cai discloses a lens driving device 3 (Fig. 3, [0050]) comprising:
a first lens group including at least one lens 5 (Fig. 2, [0050]);
a first magnet 31A coupled to the first lens group (Fig. 3, [0057]);
a first coil 41 disposed at a location corresponding to the first magnet (Fig. 3, [0057], [0059]-[0060]);
a first sensor R1, a second sensor Ro1, a third sensor R2, and a fourth sensor (not shown but disclosed as part of R2, [0077]) that detect a magnetic field of the first magnet ([0063], [0076]-[0079], Fig. 3, 5, 7, here the sensor 20 includes four magneto-resistive elements R1-R4); and
a driving part (not shown) that receives outputs of the first sensor, the second sensor, the third sensor, and the fourth sensor, and controls a current applied to the first coil ([0084]),
wherein the driving part includes a first input channel E1 (Fig. 7),
the first sensor and the second sensor are connected in series (Fig. 7),
the third sensor and the fourth sensor are connected in series (Fig. 7), and
the first sensor R1 and the second sensor Ro1 connected in series and the third sensor R2 and the fourth sensor (not shown) connected in series are connected in parallel and connected to the first input channel (Fig. 7).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Osaka et al. (US 2023/0022577, hereinafter, “Osaka”).
Regarding claim 6, Uchida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2.
Uchida dos not disclose wherein the first lens group moves 5 mm or more in an optical axis direction.
Osaka discloses a lens drive device (Abstract). In one embodiment, Osaka discloses that a moving part 32 (e.g., holding a lens 31) in the lens module may move 8 mm (Fig. 5, [0077], [0140]).
Both Uchida and Osaka disclose camera modules with moving parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Uchida, so that the driving device 3 moves the lens 5 by 5mm or more, as taught by Osaka, for better operation, i.e., longer zooming range of the camera.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Kwon et al. (US 2024/0319471, hereinafter, “Kwon”).
Regarding claim 7, Uchida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2.
Uchida dos not disclose wherein the first lens group moves two times or more a magnetic field sensing region of at least one of the first sensor, the second sensor, and the third sensor, and
the magnetic field sensing region is a region having a slope of 0.5 to 1 time (50% to 100%) of a maximum slope of a detected magnetic field value with respect to a location of the first magnet by at least one sensor among the first sensor, the second sensor, and the third sensor.
Kwon discloses a camera module (Abstract). In one embodiment, Kwon discloses the relation between the Hall sensor signal vs the position of the magnet, wherein the slope is between 0.5 and 1.0 times of the maximum slope of the respective sensor/magnet position lines (Fig. 18, [0252], see lines corresponding to the Hall signal and the Hall2 signal).
Both Uchida and Kwon disclose camera modules with Hall sensors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Uchida, so that the Hall signal/lens position slope has the claimed range, as taught by Kwon, for better operation, i.e., more accurate detection of the moved lens.
Uchida/Kwon does not disclose wherein the first lens group moves two times or more a magnetic field sensing region of at least one of the first sensor, the second sensor, and the third sensor.
Uchida/Kwon discloses that the lens is moved at a considerable distance (compared to the sensors), [0160] in Kwon.
The parameter of the movement distance of the movable lens is a result-effective variable, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the lens zooming, optical image stabilization and/or the auto-focus operation.
Uchida/Kwon discloses the claimed invention except for the range of the lens movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Uchida/Kwon so that movement distance of the lens lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the lens movement distance is an art recognized result-effective variable in that they help realize image correction operation.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the lens movement distance because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0146039, hereinafter, “Park”).
Regarding claim 8, Uchida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2.
Uchida dos not disclose a length of the first magnet in an optical axis direction is greater than a distance between a center of the first sensor and a center of the third sensor.
Park discloses a camera module including a magnet and a sensor to detect the position of the magnet (Abstract, Fig. 4). In one embodiment, four sensors are positioned to face the two poles of the magnet (Fig. 17A, [0216], [0218]). In Park, the length of the magnet in an optical direction is greater than the distance between the centers of the first sensor and the third sensor (Fig. 17A).
Both Uchida and Park disclose camera modules with moving parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Uchida, so that the first magnet has the claimed spatial relationship with the sensors, as taught by Park, for more accurately sensing the position ([0220] in Park).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida.
Regarding claim 11, Uchida discloses the lens driving device of claim 2.
Uchida does not disclose a second lens group including at least one lens;
a second magnet coupled to the second lens group;
a second coil disposed at a location corresponding to the second magnet; and
a fifth sensor, a sixth sensor, and a seventh sensor that detect a magnetic field of the second magnet,
wherein the driving part receives output of the fifth sensor, the sixth sensor, and the seventh sensor and controls a current applied to the second coil,
the driving part includes a third input channel and a fourth input channel,
the fifth sensor and the sixth sensor are connected to the third input channel, and
the seventh sensor is connected to the fourth input channel.
The claimed structure of the lens driving device of claim 11 represents a duplication of parts constituting the lens driving device of Uchida.
In particular, the second lens group including at least one lens is a duplicate of the first group lens including the lens 5; the second magnet/second coil/fifth sensor-sixth sensor-seventh sensor are duplicates of the first magnet/first coil/first sensor-second sensor-third sensor; the third input/fourth input channel is a duplicate of the first/second input channel. As seen in Fig. 7, the first/fifth sensor and the sixth/second sensor are connected to the third/first input channel and the seventh/third sensor are connected to the fourth/second input channel.
According to the MPEP §2144, legal precedent has been established that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (“In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. ... Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Here, a second movable lens provides greater zooming range.
Regarding claim 12, Uchida discloses the lens driving device of claim 11.
Uchida does not disclose wherein the first sensor, the second sensor, and the third sensor are arranged inside the first coil.
Uchida discloses that the sensor 30 is arranged inside the first coil 41 (Fig. 5, [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Uchida, so that the magneto-restrictive elements R1-R4 of the sensor 20 are arranged inside the first coil, for more accurately sensing the position of the magnet 31A ([0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Uchida discloses the lens driving device of claim 11.
Uchida does not disclose wherein the fifth sensor, the sixth sensor, and the seventh sensor are arranged inside the second coil.
Uchida discloses that the sensor 30 is arranged inside the first coil 41 (Fig. 5, [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Uchida, so that the magneto-restrictive elements of the sensor 20 are arranged inside the first coil, for more accurately sensing the position of the magnet 31A ([0055]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Byun et al. (US 2020/0195849, hereinafter, “Byun”).
Regarding claim 15, Uchida discloses the lens driving device of claim 14.
Uchida does not disclose wherein the first input signal amplified by the first amplifier and the second input signal amplified by the second amplifier are provided to a selection unit.
Byun discloses a camera module including position sensors, e.g., Hall sensors, for shake correction (Abstract). In one embodiment, Byun discloses that the output signal of a Hall sensor 102, after amplified by amplifier 104, is inputted to multiplexer 108 (to be mixed with other relevant input, such as, output of temperature sensor 116 (Fig. 5, [0042], [0045], [0048]).
Both Uchida and Byun disclose camera modules with position sensors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Uchida, so that the output signals from the sensors are mixed by a multiplexer (aka a selection unit, as disclosed in the specification, [0257]), as taught by Byun, for more accurately sensing the position by combining all the relevant input sense information.
Regarding claim 16, Uchida/Byun discloses the lens driving device of claim 15, wherein
the first input signal or the second input signal selected by the selection unit is provided to a converter ([0048], 110 in Fig. 5 of Byun).
Regarding claim 17, Uchida/Byun discloses the lens driving device of claim 16, wherein
the driving part adjusts the current applied to the first coil according to the first input signal or the second input signal converted by the converter ([0069] in Uchida).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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 on 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872