DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 4, 2026 has been entered. Claims 8-9 are new in the present application. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-9 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 5, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combination of Morita, Malaescu, and Henderson fail to disclose calculating the initial driving force using both frictional force information and external force information acquired from a sensor that senses posture or slope of the guide rail. However, Morita teaches calculates the predetermined initial driving force ([0049] determination of initial driving speed) based on (i) a maximum stop frictional force of the lens unit (Figure 3A first deviation, [0047]-[0048] first elliptic control unit 220 sets driving speed based on first deviation and has to generate sufficient force to overcome a maximum stop frictional force). Although Morita fails to teach calculating the initial driving force using external force information acquired from a sensor that senses posture or slope of the guide rail, Malaescu teaches calculating the initial driving force based on an external force applied to the lens acquired from a sensor ([0006] accelerometer) that senses a posture or slope of the guide rail ([0036] and [0040] force is determined based on orientation of actuator). Malaescu further teaches calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from slope and gravity adjusts the needed starting force the actuator needs to overcome, either by increasing or decreasing the initial driving force ([0040]). Thus Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 over Morita in view of Malaescu.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “the first control unit further includes an external force information provision module acquiring external force information on the external force which is applied to the lens unit through the sensor that senses the posture or slope of the guide rail, and providing the acquired external force information to the initial driving force calculation module” while amended claim 1 recites “the first control unit includes… (ii) an external force applied to the lens unit acquired form a sensor that senses a posture or slope of the guide rail.” Although claim 4 also recites “an external force information provision module acquiring external force information” these fail to further limit claim 1 as the sensor that senses a posture or slope of the guide rail is “an external force information provision module acquiring external force information.” Essentially, “an external force information provision module acquiring external force information” merely appears to rename parts of claim 1 without providing any further limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0017137) in view of Malaescu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0155896 – hereinafter referred to as “Malaescu”).
Regarding claim 1, Morita teaches a zoom lens actuator control device (Figure 2A control unit 218, [0046]) controlling a zoom lens actuator moving lens units of a zoom lens (Figure 19 lens barrel 12, [0105]) along a guide rail (Figure 1A guide member composed of pressing holding unit 110 and frame 111, [0043]) disposed inside the zoom lens to change a zoom magnification of the zoom lens ([0043] lens attached to vibrating member fixing member 114 via a rack which is guided along a guide member), comprising:
a command sensing unit (Figure 2A command position generating unit 205, [0047]) sensing a location command for allowing a lens unit which stops at one location on the guide rail to move to a target location on the guide rail ([0047] generates command values to drive vibrating member 202 from a relative position to a final target stopping position);
a first control unit (Figure 2A first elliptic shape control unit 220, [0049]; Figure 4 steps S104-S106) Figure 5 acceleration period A, [0057]-[0058]) generating an initial control signal which allows the zoom lens actuator to generate predetermined initial driving force required for starting the lens unit to the target location ([0057]-[0058] command value is set and the ellipse ratio is determined to set the driving speed); wherein the first control unit includes an initial driving-force calculation module configured to calculate the predetermined initial driving force ([0049] determination of initial driving speed) based on (i) a maximum stop frictional force of the lens unit (Figure 3A first deviation, [0047]-[0048] first elliptic control unit 220 sets driving speed based on first deviation and has to generate sufficient force to overcome a maximum stop frictional force) and a control signal generation module configured to generate the initial control signal corresponding to the calculated initial driving force (Figure 2A first elliptic shape control unit 220, [0049]);
a second control unit (Figure 2A pulse duty determining unit 212, [0047]; Figure 5 deceleration period C, [0060]) generating a subsequent control signal for performing a proportional integral derivative (PID) control (Figure 2A PID control unit 207, [0060] driving frequency and phase position are set by position feedback control such as PID) with respect to the zoom lens actuator until the lens unit is placed at the target location (Figure 4 steps S108-S111, [0060]-[0062]); and
a control switching unit (Figure 4 step S107) delivering the initial control signal of the first control unit to the zoom lens actuator before a predetermined control switching time arrives after the location command is sensed by the command sensing unit ([0060] determination of deceleration period is made by detecting time from starting driving), and delivering the subsequent control signal of the second control unit to the zoom lens actuator instead of the initial control signal of the first control unit when the control switching time arrives (Figure 4 steps S108-S110 second deviation is calculated (S108) and pulse duty is set in accordance with second deviation (S109), [0060]-[0061]), wherein the control switching unit (Figure 4 step S107) ensures that a difference between the initial driving force and the subsequent driving force is within a predetermined value when the control switching time arrives by referring to the initial control signal delivered before switching ([0061] second deviations and corresponding pulse duties (and thus a subsequent driving force) are set beforehand in a look-up table).
Morita fails to teach calculating the initial driving force based on an external force applied to the lens unit acquired from a sensor that senses a posture or slope of the guide rail. However, Malaescu is related to Morita with respect to teaching a camera lens actuator (Figure 1). Malaescu teaches calculating the initial driving force based on an external force applied to the lens acquired from a sensor ([0006] accelerometer) that senses a posture or slope of the guide rail ([0036] and [0040] force is determined based on orientation of actuator). Malaescu further teaches calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from slope and gravity adjusts the needed starting force the actuator needs to overcome, either by increasing or decreasing the initial driving force ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator control device taught by Morita by calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from slope and gravity as taught by Malaescu in order to adjust the needed initial driving force to start movement (Malaescu [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Morita and Malaescu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Morita further teaches first control unit includes an initial driving force calculation module calculating the initial driving force ([0049] determination of initial driving speed) of the zoom lens actuator by considering a movement direction of the lens unit according to the location command ([0049] phase difference set according to driving direction), a maximum stop frictional force of the lens unit (Figure 3A first deviation, [0047]-[0048] first elliptic control unit 220 sets driving speed based on first deviation and has to generate sufficient force to overcome a maximum stop frictional force), and a control signal generation module generating an initial control signal corresponding to the calculated initial driving force (Figure 2A first elliptic shape control unit 220, [0049]).
Morita fails to teach calculating the initial driving force based on an external force applied to the lens unit by a slope and a gravity of the guide rail. However, Malaescu teaches a camera lens actuator (Figure 1) where calculating the initial driving force based on an external force applied to the lens unit by a slope and a gravity of the guide rail ([0036] and [0040] force is determined based on orientation of actuator). Malaescu further teaches calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from slope and gravity adjusts the needed starting force the actuator needs to overcome, either by increasing or decreasing the initial driving force ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator control device taught by Morita by calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from slop and gravity as taught by Malaescu in order to adjust the needed initial driving force to start movement (Malaescu [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Morita and Malaescu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Morita fails to teach the first control unit further includes an external force information provision module acquiring external force information on the external force which is applied to the lens unit through the sensor that senses the posture or slope of the guide rail, and providing the acquired external force information to the initial driving force calculation module.
However, Malaescu teaches an external force information provision module acquiring external force information on the external force which is applied to the lens unit through the sensor that senses the posture or slope of the guide rail, and providing the acquired external force information to the initial driving force calculation module ([0036] and [0040] force is determined based on orientation of actuator). Malaescu further teaches calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from the orientation of the actuator adjusts the needed starting force the actuator needs to overcome, either by increasing or decreasing the initial driving force ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator control device taught by Morita by sensing the orientation of the actuator and calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from orientation as taught by Malaescu in order to adjust the needed initial driving force to start movement (Malaescu [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Morita and Malaescu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Morita further teaches the second control unit generates a subsequent control signal for allowing the zoom lens actuator to generate a subsequent driving force of which a difference from the initial driving force is within a predetermined value when the control switching time arrives by referring to the initial control signal of the first control unit delivered to the zoom lens actuator before the control switching time arrives ([0061] second deviations and corresponding pulse duties (and thus a subsequent driving force) are set beforehand in a look-up table).
Regarding claim 6, Morita and Malaescu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Morita further teaches a switching time notification unit measuring an elapsed time after the location command is sensed when the location command is sensed by the command sensing unit, and notify that the control switching time arrives to the control switching unit when the measured time reaches a predetermined reference time ([0060] determination of deceleration period is made by detecting time from starting driving).
Regarding claim 7, Morita and Malaescu teach a zoom camera (Figure 19) using the zoom lens actuator control device of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Morita and Malaescu teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Morita further teaches the initial driving-force calculation module calculates the predetermined initial driving force ([0049] determination of initial driving speed) according to a computation equation where Ff is the maximum stop frictional force provided from a frictional-force information provision module (Figure 3A first deviation, [0047]-[0048] first elliptic control unit 220 sets driving speed based on first deviation and has to generate sufficient force to overcome a maximum stop frictional force).
Morita fails to teach an equation in which, for a zoom-in direction, the initial driving force fc is calculated as fc=Ff -fe+fm, and for a zoom-out direction, it is calculated as fc=Ff +fe+fm, where fe is the external force provided from an external-force information provision module, and fm is a margin value. However, Malaescu teaches fe is the external force provided from an external-force information provision module ([0036] and [0040] force is determined based on orientation of actuator). Malaescu further teaches calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from slope and gravity adjusts the needed starting force the actuator needs to overcome, either by increasing or decreasing the initial driving force ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator control device taught by Morita by calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from slop and gravity as taught by Malaescu in order to adjust the needed initial driving force to start movement (Malaescu [0040]).
Although Morita and Malaescu fail to explicitly teach an equation in which, for a zoom-in direction, the initial driving force fc is calculated as fc=Ff -fe+fm, and for a zoom-out direction, it is calculated as fc=Ff +fe+fm, where fe is the external force provided from an external-force information provision module, and fm is a margin value. The force equations are simply a sum of forces calculation that one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily able to implement in order to calculate the desired initial driving force. Furthermore adding a margin value (such as a safety margin) is common in engineering applications to ensure the device is able to meet performance expectations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator control device taught by Morita and Malaescu by calculating the initial driving forces according to the equations fc=Ff -fe+fm and fc=Ff +fe+fm as these are sum of forces calculations that would be readily known by one of ordinary skill in the art and adding a margin value in order ensure the device meets performance expectation and including a margin value is common and well-known in the art.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0017137) in view of Malaescu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0155896) as applied to claims 2 and 8 above, and in further view of Henderson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0141584 – hereinafter referred to as “Henderson”).
Regarding claim 3, Morita and Malaescu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Morita and Malaescu fail to teach the first control unit further includes a frictional force information provision module providing, to the initial driving force calculation module, the maximum stop frictional force information corresponding to the current location of the lens unit and a movement direction of the lens unit according to the location command by referring to a frictional force information table in which the maximum stop frictional force value of the lens unit is written for each of the movement direction and the location on the guide rail.
However, Henderson teaches a lens actuator (Figure 1A) where the first control unit further includes a frictional force information provision module providing, to the initial driving force calculation module, the maximum stop frictional force information corresponding to the current location of the lens unit and a movement direction of the lens unit according to the location command by referring to a frictional force information table in which the maximum stop frictional force value of the lens unit is written for each of the movement direction and the location on the guide rail (Claim 12 drive force is determined by multiplying the preload force by the coefficient of friction between the surface of the lens actuator and surface of the lens carriage which would include all positions along the lens carriage). Henderson further teaches using the preload force to calculate the drive force maximizes the force efficiency and safety ratio of the module while reducing the speed ratio ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens actuator taught by Morita and Malaescu by including includes a frictional force information provision module taught by Henderson in order to maximize the force efficiency and safety ratio of the module while reducing the speed ratio (Henderson [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Morita and Malaescu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Morita fails to teach the external-force information provision module acquires external force information from an acceleration sensor or optical image-stabilization sensor that senses a posture or slope of the guide rail.
However, Malaescu teaches an external force information provision module acquires external force information from an acceleration sensor ([0006] accelerometer) or optical image-stabilization sensor that senses a posture of slope of the guide rail ([0036] and [0040] force is determined based on orientation of actuator). Malaescu further teaches calculating the initial driving force based on the external force from the orientation of the actuator adjusts the needed starting force the actuator needs to overcome, either by increasing or decreasing the initial driving force ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator control device taught by Morita and Malaescu by having the external-force information provision module acquire external force information from an acceleration sensor or optical image-stabilization sensor that senses a posture or slope of the guide rail as taught by Malaescu in order to adjust the needed initial driving force to start movement (Malaescu [0040]).
Morita and Malaescu fail to teach the frictional-force information provision module comprises a memory storing a frictional-force information table in which the maximum stop frictional force value is written for each location on the guide rail and for each movement direction, and
However, Henderson teaches a lens actuator (Figure 1A) where the frictional force information provision module comprises a memory storing a frictional-force information table in which the maximum stop frictional force value of the lens unit is written for each of the movement direction and the location on the guide rail (Claim 12 drive force is determined by multiplying the preload force by the coefficient of friction between the surface of the lens actuator and surface of the lens carriage which would include all positions along the lens carriage). Henderson further teaches using the preload force to calculate the drive force maximizes the force efficiency and safety ratio of the module while reducing the speed ratio ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens actuator taught by Morita and Malaescu by including includes a frictional force information provision module taught by Henderson in order to maximize the force efficiency and safety ratio of the module while reducing the speed ratio (Henderson [0057]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sumioka (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0019601) teaches lens actuator using a two-step adjustment of driving force similar to the instant application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights