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. 18/343,665 filed on June 28, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 26, 2026 has been entered.
The amended claims submitted June 26, 2026 in response to the office action mailed February 27, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 13-17 and 19 are pending. Claims 2, 5, 7-8, 10-12 and 18 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 drawing objections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
The claim objections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
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, 3-4, 6, 9, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H02195526 A (hereafter JP 526) in view of Shirotori US 5,920,437 (hereafter Shirotori).
Regarding claim 1, JP 526 teaches “A voice coil motor (see elements thereof below) comprising:
a magnet (magnet for focal control 20a and 20b);
a yoke (focus control yokes 19a and 19b) accommodating the magnet (see Figs. 1, 2 and 4) and extending in a movement axis direction (19a and 19b extend all movement axis direction A parallel to bearing 3 see e.g. page 3 first paragraph: “movable holder (2) carries out at order in the direction of arrow A shown in Drawing 3, and focus control is attained”); and
a coil member (coils for focus control 18a and 18b or 21a and 21b) formed by winding… in a direction perpendicular to the movement axis direction (the coils are wound in a direction perpendicular to direction A, see Figs. 1 and 4),
wherein the yoke includes a guider (the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b which extend in the A direction and which are positioned inside of the coils 18a and 18b, see Figs. 1 and 4) having an upper guide surface (the “upper” surface of the inner portion closer to the magnet) and a lower guide surface (the “lower” surface of the inner portion further from the magnet), the guider being inserted into and penetrating through the coil member in the movement axis direction (best seen in Fig. 4), and configured to guide straight-line motion of the coil member in the movement axis direction (best seen in Fig. 4, the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b constrain the movement of the coils 18a and 18b to a straight line motion),
wherein, when observed in the movement axis direction (the viewing direction shown in Figs. 2 and 5), the coil member includes:
an upper side positioned closer to the magnet and having a curved arc shape based on a center of a common circle (see curved arc shape of the portion of the coils 18a, 18b, 21a and 21b proximate to the magnets 20a and 20b in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 3 first paragraph: “coil for focus control (18a) … has a bearing part and a concentric arc part” emphasis added), and a lower side positioned farther from the magnet and having a straight-line shape (see straight line shape of the lower side of 18a, 18b, 21a and 21b away from the magnets 20a and 20b in Figs. 1, 2 and 5 and the last paragraph of page 2 “A straight line portion is fixed by (4b)”),
wherein the guider has a curved rectangle shape (see curved rectangular shape of the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b seen in cross-section in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “the yoke for focal control… have a concentric circular arc part” where a concentric circular arc shape is a curved rectangular shape.), the upper guide surface of the guider has a convex curved shape (see curved upper surfaces of the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “Every a plurality of coils for focal control, the yoke for focal control, and the magnet for focal control which have a concentric circular arc part”. See examiner’s markup of Fig. 2 below.), the lower guide surface of the guider has a concave curved shape (see curved lower surfaces of the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “the yoke for focal control… have a concentric circular arc part”. Given that this is shown as concavely curved, “concentric circular arc” applies to both the upper and lower surfaces. See examiner’s markup of Fig. 2 below.), and the guider has a uniform thickness (see generally uniform thickness of the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b in cross-section in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “the yoke for focal control… have a concentric circular arc part”. Two concentric circles are equidistant from one another creating a uniform thickness),
wherein the convex curved shape of the upper guide surface of the guider corresponds to a curved arc shape of an upper side of the coil member (see corresponding curved shapes of the upper surface of the guide part of 19a,19b with the upper surface of the coil 18a and 18b or 21a and 21b in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “Every a plurality of coils for focal control, the yoke for focal control, and the magnet for focal control which have a concentric circular arc part” thus these curved arc shapes correspond to one another), and
wherein the concave curved shape of the lower guide surface of the guider extends along a lower side of the coil member (the concavely curved lower guide surface of 19a,19b extends along the straight lower side of coils 18a,18b,21a,21b), and a distance between the concave curved shape of the lower guide surface of the guider and the lower side of the coil member is greatest at the center of the guider and gradually decreases towards left and right ends of the guider (see Figs. 2 and 5, because the lower guide surface is concavely curved, the distance between the lower guide surface and the lower side of the coil member is greatest at the center of the guider and gradually decreases towards left and right ends of the guider).”
PNG
media_image1.png
622
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, JP 526 fails to explicitly teach “a coil member formed by winding a single continuous coil several times in a direction perpendicular to the movement axis direction.”
Shirotori teaches “A voice coil motor (see elements thereof below) comprising:
a magnet (arcuate magnets 11A and 11B);
a yoke (outer yoke 5 and inner yoke 7A) accommodating the magnet (see Figs. 1 and 2 and col. 4 lines 2-4: “arcuate first and second magnets 11A, 12A are mounted adjacent to each other in the circumference direction on outer yoke wall 5b.”) and extending in a movement axis direction (5 and 7 extend in the focusing direction see Fig. 3 and col. 3 lines 62-63: “moves lens holder 3 in the focusing direction”); and
a coil member (driving coils for focusing 8A and 8B) formed by winding a single continuous coil several times in a direction perpendicular to the movement axis direction (see Fig. 3),
wherein the yoke includes a guider (7A and 7B) having an upper guide surface and a lower guide surface (the surface closer to the magnet and the surface further from the magnet), the guider being inserted into and penetrating through the coil member in the movement axis direction (see Figs. 1-3), and configured to guide straight-line motion of the coil member in the movement axis direction (the movement of 8A and 8B in the focusing direction is constrained to a straight line motion by 7A and 7B, see Fig. 2),
wherein, when observed in the movement axis direction, the coil member includes:
an upper side positioned closer to the magnet and having a curved arc shape based on a center of a common circle (see Fig. 1, the exterior side of the coils 8A and 8B when observed in the focusing direction as in Fig. 1 appear to be in a curved shape matching the interior of the arcuate magnets), and a lower side positioned farther from the magnet and having a straight-line shape (the lower side of coils 8A and 8B positioned farther from the magnet is straight-line shaped see Fig. 1),
wherein the guider has a …rectangle shape (see generally rectangular shape of 7A in Fig. 1)… and the guider has a uniform thickness (see generally uniform thickness of 7A in Fig. 1),
wherein the … shape of the upper guide surface of the guider corresponds to a curved arc shape of an upper side of the coil member (the shape of the upper surface of 7A that is closer to the magnet is in a shape that corresponds to the curved shape of the upper side of the coil in that it fits therewithin, see Fig. 1), and
wherein the… shape of the lower guide surface of the guider extends along a lower side of the coil member (see Fig. 1 the lower guide surface of 7A extends along a lower side of coil 8A).”
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized problem of providing the appropriate driving force in a linear voice coil motor (2) there are a finite number of ways that a single coil can be wound (a) a single winding (b) two windings (c) several windings (d) a large number of windings (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
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 to form the coil from several windings as demonstrated by Shirotori in the voice coil motor of JP 526 because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 3, the JP 526 – Shirotori combination teaches “The voice coil motor of claim 1,” and JP 526 further teaches “wherein the magnet has a shape of a second arc concentric with the center of the common circle when observed in the movement axis direction (see concentrically curved shape of the inner surfaces of magnets 20a and 20 in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 3 first paragraph: “Drawings 1 and 2, The magnet for focal control (20a), ((20b) 7) inner-skin shape A, a bearing part (3), and a concentric circular curved surface are formed (best shown in Drawings 1 and 2)”).”
Regarding claim 4, the JP 526 – Shirotori combination teaches “The voice coil motor of claim 3,” and JP 526 further teaches “wherein the lower side of the coil member has a straight line shape (see straight line shape of the lower side of 18a, 18b, 21a and 21b away from the magnets 20a and 20b in Figs. 1, 2 and 5 and the last paragraph of page 2 “A straight line portion is fixed by (4b)”).”
Regarding claim 6, the JP 526 – Shirotori combination teaches “The voice coil motor of claim 4,” and JP 526 further teaches “wherein a connecting portion connecting the upper side and the lower side of the coil member when observed in the movement axis direction (the connecting portion of 18a and 18b between the straight line portion and the concentric arc part) extends in a direction perpendicular to the movement axis direction and perpendicular to the straight line shape of the lower side of the coil member (see Fig. 2, the connecting portion of 18a/18b extend in a direction perpendicular to the movement direction and perpendicular to the straight line direction of the lower side of the coil member).”
Regarding claim 9, the JP 526 – Shirotori combination teaches “The voice coil motor of claim 3,” and JP 526 further teaches “wherein a connecting portion connecting the upper side and the lower side of the coil member (the connecting portion of 21a and 21b between the straight line portion and the concentric arc part) extends in a direction toward the center of the common circle when observed in the movement axis direction (see Fig. 5, the connecting portion extends approximately in an inward radial direction towards the center of the common circle of the concentric arc arrangement).”
Regarding claim 17, the JP 526 – Shirotori combination teaches “The voice coil motor of claim 1,” and JP 526 further teaches “wherein the magnet has an arc shape concentric with the curved arc shape of the upper side of the coil member about a center of a common circle when observed in the movement axis direction (see concentrically curved shape of the inner surfaces of magnets 20a and 20 in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 3 first paragraph: “Drawings 1 and 2, The magnet for focal control (20a), ((20b) 7) inner-skin shape A, a bearing part (3), and a concentric circular curved surface are formed (best shown in Drawings 1 and 2)”).”
Regarding claim 19, the JP 526 – Shirotori combination teaches “The voice coil motor of claim 1,” and JP 526 further teaches “wherein the coil member includes connecting portions connecting the upper side and the lower side (the connecting portion of 21a and 21b between the straight line portion and the concentric arc part), the connecting portions extending in a radial direction toward the center of the common circle when observed in the movement axis direction (see Fig. 5, the connecting portion extends approximately in an inward radial direction towards the center of the common circle of the concentric arc arrangement).”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H02195526 A (hereafter JP 526) in view of Shirotori US 5,920,437 (hereafter Shirotori) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lau et al. WO 2019/000214 A1 (hereafter Lau).
Regarding claim 13, the JP 526 – Shirotori combination teaches “The voice coil motor of claim 1,” and JP 526 further teaches “wherein the coil member includes a plurality of individual coil members (18a and 18b or 21a and 21b)” however, JP 526 fails to explicitly teach “the plurality of coil members are all electrically connected to each other.”
Lau teaches a voice coil motor (see title and abstract) “wherein the coil member includes a plurality of individual coil members (four focus deflection coils 4), and the plurality of coil members are all electrically connected to each other (page 7 first paragraph: “Each set of deflection focus coils 4 includes two oppositely disposed deflection focus coils 4. The two deflection focus coils 4 of the same group are connected in series or in parallel, or there may be no direct electrical connection between the deflection focus coils 4, respectively.”).”
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized problem of how to connect the coils to properly energize them (2) there are only three possibilities, that they are connected in series, connected in parallel or not connected (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
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 to connect the coils either in series or in parallel as taught by Lau because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H02195526 A (hereafter JP 526) in view of Shirotori US 5,920,437 (hereafter Shirotori) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Böhme et al. US 2021/0141191 A1 (hereafter Böhme).
Regarding claim 14, the JP 526 – Shirotori combination teaches “The voice coil motor of claim 1,” and JP 526 further teaches “wherein the coil member is manufactured… in which a first surface has a shape corresponding to the upper side of the coil member (concentric arc part of 18a, 18b, 21a or 21b) and a second surface opposite to the first surface has a straight line shape (straight line portion of 18a, 18b, 21a or 21b).”
However, JP 526 fails to explicitly teach “wherein the coil member is manufactured by winding the coil member around a jig.”
Böhme teaches a voice coil motor (title and abstract: “voice coil actuator”) “wherein the coil member is manufactured by winding the coil member around a jig (paragraph [0013]: “In one embodiment, the coils are manufactured using a self-bonding wire which is wound around a removable core and ‘baked’ at high temperature. After this ‘baking’ the coil is fixed in shape and the core can be removed.” The removable core around which the self-bonding wire of the coil is wound is a jig.).”
Böhme further teaches (paragraph [0013]): “In one embodiment, the coils are manufactured using a self-bonding wire which is wound around a removable core and ‘baked’ at high temperature. After this ‘baking’ the coil is fixed in shape and the core can be removed. It leaves a coil that allows a smaller gap to the inner magnet because of the missing coil body. In addition, the coil shape is not straight but angled in order follow the curved magnet path better.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the coil of JP 526 by winding the coil member around a jig as taught by Böhme because Böhme teaches that this process allows a smaller gap between elements and is appropriate for a coil that is not entirely straight (paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 15, the JP 526 – Shirotori combination teaches “The voice coil motor of claim 1,” however, JP 526 is silent regarding “wherein the coil member is manufactured in a self-bonding type.”
Böhme teaches a voice coil motor (title and abstract: “voice coil actuator”) “wherein the coil member is manufactured in a self-bonding type (paragraph [0013]: “In one embodiment, the coils are manufactured using a self-bonding wire which is wound around a removable core and ‘baked’ at high temperature. After this ‘baking’ the coil is fixed in shape and the core can be removed.”).”
Böhme further teaches (paragraph [0013]): “In one embodiment, the coils are manufactured using a self-bonding wire which is wound around a removable core and ‘baked’ at high temperature. After this ‘baking’ the coil is fixed in shape and the core can be removed. It leaves a coil that allows a smaller gap to the inner magnet because of the missing coil body. In addition, the coil shape is not straight but angled in order follow the curved magnet path better.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the coil of JP 526 in a self-bonding type as taught by Böhme because Böhme teaches that that this process allows a smaller gap between elements and is appropriate for a coil that is not entirely straight (paragraph [0013]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H02195526 A (hereafter JP 526) in view of Kawanabe US 2019/0103799 A1 (hereafter Kawanabe) and Shirotori US 5,920,437 (hereafter Shirotori).
Regarding claim 16, JP 526 teaches “A … lens assembly (see elements thereof below) comprising:
a lens (objective lens 1);
a lens housing (base yoke 8) accommodating the lens (see Figs. 1, 3 and 4 base yoke 8 accommodates the lens in that it provides a platform for the lens);
a lens holder (mobile holder 2) which holds the lens (see e.g. Fig. 1) and is movable together with the lens in a movement axis direction with respect to the lens housing (e.g. the last paragraph of page 2: “the movable holder (2)… moves with an object lens (1)”);
a yoke (focus control yokes 19a and 19b) accommodated on one side of the lens housing (19a and 19b are accommodated on one side of base yoke 8, i.e. the upper surface of 8 in the orientation of Figs. 3 and 4) and extending in a movement axis direction (19a and 19b extend all movement axis direction A parallel to bearing 3 see e.g. page 3 first paragraph: “movable holder (2) carries out at order in the direction of arrow A shown in Drawing 3, and focus control is attained”);
a magnet (magnet for focal control 20a and 20b) accommodates in the yoke (see Figs. 1, 2 and 4); and
a coil member (coils for focus control 18a and 18b or 21a and 21b) produced by winding… in a direction perpendicular to the movement axis direction (the coils are wound in a direction perpendicular to direction A, see Figs. 1 and 4) and accommodated on one side of the lens holder (the coils 18a and 18b or 21a and 21b are attached to the sides of mobile holder 2 so that 2 moves relative to the magnets 20a and 20b)
wherein the yoke includes a guider (the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b which extend in the A direction and which are positioned inside of the coils 18a and 18b, see Figs. 1 and 4) having an upper guide surface (the “upper” surface of the inner portion closer to the magnet) and a lower guide surface (the “lower” surface of the inner portion further from the magnet), the guider being inserted into and penetrating through the coil member in the movement axis direction (best seen in Fig. 4), and configured to guide a straight-line motion of the coil member and the lens holder in the movement axis direction (best seen in Fig. 4, the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b constrain the movement of the coils 18a and 18b and holder 2 to a straight line motion which moves the lens holder see e.g. the last paragraph of page 2: “the movable holder (2)… moves with an object lens (1)”),
wherein, when observed in the movement axis direction (the viewing direction shown in Figs. 2 and 5), the coil member includes:
an upper side positioned closer to the magnet and having a curved arc shape based on a center of a common circle (see curved arc shape of the portion of the coils 18a, 18b, 21a and 21b proximate to the magnets 20a and 20b in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 3 first paragraph: “coil for focus control (18a) … has a bearing part and a concentric arc part” emphasis added), and a lower side positioned farther from the magnet and having a straight-line shape (see straight line shape of the lower side of 18a, 18b, 21a and 21b away from the magnets 20a and 20b in Figs. 1, 2 and 5 and the last paragraph of page 2 “A straight line portion is fixed by (4b)”),
wherein the guider has a curved rectangle shape (see curved rectangular shape of the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b seen in cross-section in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “the yoke for focal control… have a concentric circular arc part” where a concentric circular arc shape is a curved rectangular shape.), the upper guide surface of the guider has a convex curved shape (see curved upper surfaces of the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “Every a plurality of coils for focal control, the yoke for focal control, and the magnet for focal control which have a concentric circular arc part”), the lower guide surface of the guider has a concave curved shape (see curved lower surfaces of the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “the yoke for focal control… have a concentric circular arc part”. Given that this is shown as concavely curved, “concentric circular arc” applies to both the upper and lower surfaces), and the guider has a uniform thickness (see generally uniform thickness of the vertical inner portions of 19a and 19b in cross-section in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “the yoke for focal control… have a concentric circular arc part”. Two concentric circles are equidistant from one another creating a uniform thickness),
wherein the convex curved shape of the upper guide surface of the guider corresponds to a curved arc shape of an upper side of the coil member (see corresponding curved shapes of the upper surface of the guide part of 19a,19b with the upper surface of the coil 18a and 18b or 21a and 21b in Figs. 2 and 5 and page 2 third paragraph: “Every a plurality of coils for focal control, the yoke for focal control, and the magnet for focal control which have a concentric circular arc part” thus these curved arc shapes correspond to one another. See examiner’s markup of Fig. 2 below), and
wherein the concave curved shape of the lower guide surface of the guider extends along a lower side of the coil member (the concavely curved lower guide surface of 19a,19b extends along the straight lower side of coils 18a,18b,21a,21b. See examiner’s markup of Fig. 2 below), and a distance between the concave curved shape of the lower guide surface of the guider and the lower side of the coil member is greatest at the center of the guider and gradually decreases towards left and right ends of the guider (see Figs. 2 and 5, because the lower guide surface is concavely curved, the distance between the lower guide surface and the lower side of the coil member is greatest at the center of the guider and gradually decreases towards left and right ends of the guider).”
PNG
media_image1.png
622
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, JP 526 fails to teach that the lens assembly is a camera lens assembly. It is worth noting however, that JP 526 does teach that the motion of the lens is for focal control (see e.g. the last paragraph of page 2 “coil for focal control”).
Kawanabe teaches “A camera lens assembly (imaging apparatus 30 see paragraph [0003]: “In an imaging apparatus, such as a digital camera”) comprising:
a lens (first focus lens 42);
a lens housing (focus barrel 50) accommodating the lens (see Fig. 9);
a lens holder (focus lens frame 51) which holds the lens and is movable together with the lens in a movement axis direction with respect to the lens housing (see Fig. 9);
a yoke (inner yoke 24B and outer yoke 24A) accommodated on one side of the lens housing (the side closest to 53, see Fig. 9) and extending in the movement axis direction (24 extends in the focusing direction along the optical axis see Fig. 9);
a magnet (magnet 12) accommodated in the yoke (see 12 within 24A/24B in Fig. 9); and
a coil member (coil 13) … winding … in a direction perpendicular to the movement axis direction (see winding direction of 13 around inner yoke 24B in Fig. 9) and accommodated on one side of the lens holder (see how 13 is accommodated on the forward side of 51 in Fig. 9),
wherein the yoke includes a guider (inner yoke 24B) inserted into and penetrating through the coil member in the movement axis direction (see Fig. 9), and guiding a straight line motion of the coil member and the lens holder in the movement axis direction (see Fig. 9), and
wherein the yoke includes a guider having an upper guide surface and a lower guide surface (the upper and lower guide surfaces of 24B would normally be considered the outer and inner surfaces of 24B in the radial direction from the optical axis), the guider being inserted into and penetrating through the coil member in the movement axis direction (see Fig. 9) and configured to guide straight-line motion of the coil member in the movement axis direction (see Fig. 9),
wherein, when observed in the movement axis direction, the coil member includes:
an upper side positioned closer to the magnet (the radially outer side of 13) … and a lower side positioned farther from the magnet (the radially inner side of 13) and having a straight-line shape (see Fig. 9),
wherein the guider has a… rectangle shape (see shape of 24b in Fig. 3B)… and the guider has a uniform thickness (see uniform thickness in Fig. 3B),
wherein the …shape of the upper guide surface of the guider corresponds to a …shape of an upper side of the coil member (best seen in Figs. 2-3 and 6-7), and
wherein the… shape of the lower guide surface of the guider extends along a lower side of the coil member (best seen in Figs. 2-3 and 6-7).”
Kawanabe further teaches in paragraphs [0003]-[0012] that a lens so configured with only two VCMs, one on either side of the lens provides an imaging apparatus that can increase a thrust while reducing the weight of a coil.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the VCM for a focusing lens as taught in JP 526 as the actuator for a focusing lens in a camera as taught by Kawanabe. One would have been motivated to adopt such a use because Kawanabe teaches that a configuration of a focusing actuator comprising two VCMs on either side of a focusing lens, whose similarities to both the claimed device and JP 526 have been identified above, is an improvement over other camera actuators by providing an increased thrust while reducing the weight of the coil (Kawanabe paragraphs [0003]-[0012]).
However, JP 526 fails to explicitly teach “a coil member formed by winding a single coil several times in a direction perpendicular to the movement axis direction.”
Shirotori teaches “A voice coil motor (see elements thereof below) comprising:
a magnet (arcuate magnets 11A and 11B);
a yoke (outer yoke 5 and inner yoke 7A) accommodating the magnet (see Figs. 1 and 2 and col. 4 lines 2-4: “arcuate first and second magnets 11A, 12A are mounted adjacent to each other in the circumference direction on outer yoke wall 5b.”) and extending in a movement axis direction (5 and 7 extend in the focusing direction see Fig. 3 and col. 3 lines 62-63: “moves lens holder 3 in the focusing direction”); and
a coil member (driving coils for focusing 8A and 8B) formed by winding a single coil several times in a direction perpendicular to the movement axis direction (see Fig. 3),
wherein the yoke includes a guider (7A and 7B) having an upper guide surface and a lower guide surface (the surface closer to the magnet and the surface further from the magnet), the guider being inserted into and penetrating through the coil member in the movement axis direction (see Figs. 1-3), and configured to guide straight-line motion of the coil member in the movement axis direction (the movement of 8A and 8B in the focusing direction is constrained to a straight line motion by 7A and 7B, see Fig. 2),
wherein, when observed in the movement axis direction, the coil member includes:
an upper side positioned closer to the magnet and having a curved arc shape based on a center of a common circle (see Fig. 1, the exterior side of the coils 8A and 8B when observed in the focusing direction as in Fig. 1 appear to be in a curved shape matching the interior of the arcuate magnets), and a lower side positioned farther from the magnet and having a straight-line shape (the lower side of coils 8A and 8B positioned farther from the magnet is straight-line shaped see Fig. 1), and
wherein the guider has a …rectangle shape (see generally rectangular shape of 7A in Fig. 1)… and the guider has a uniform thickness (see generally uniform thickness of 7A in Fig. 1),
wherein the … shape of the upper guide surface of the guider corresponds to a curved arc shape of an upper side of the coil member (the shape of the upper surface of 7A that is closer to the magnet is in a shape that corresponds to the curved shape of the upper side of the coil in that it fits therewithin, see Fig. 1), and
wherein the… shape of the lower guide surface of the guider extends along a lower side of the coil member (see Fig. 1 the lower guide surface of 7A extends along a lower side of coil 8A).”
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized problem of providing the appropriate driving force in a linear voice coil motor (2) there are a finite number of ways that a single coil can be wound (a) a single winding (b) two windings (c) several windings (d) a large number of windings (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
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 to form the coil from several windings as demonstrated by Shirotori in the voice coil motor of JP 526 because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the opening paragraph of page 6 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant lists the disposition of the claims, explains where support for the amendments can be found and introduces that any and all actions within the Office Action are traversed. The examiner agrees that no new matter has been introduced by the amendments to the claims. No specific argument for patentability is made within this paragraph.
Under the heading “Statement of the Substance of the Interview” on page 6 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant summarizes the topics discussed in the interview held May 22, 2026. No argument for patentability is made within this paragraph.
Under the heading “Drawing Objections” on page 6 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the drawing objections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. The examiner agrees. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Under the heading “Claim Objections” on page 7 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the claim objections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. The examiner agrees. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Under the heading “Rejections under 35 USC §112(b)” on page 7 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the rejections under 35 USC §112(b) have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. The examiner agrees. The 35 USC §112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Under the heading “Rejections under 35 USC §103” on page 7 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant lists the prior art rejections of the previous office action. No argument is made on page 7 of 9 with respect to the prior art.
In the first three paragraphs of page 8 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant reproduces the limitations that have been added to independent claim 1.
In the fourth and fifth paragraph of page 8 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant asserts that the cited references fails to disclose “the convex curved shape of the upper guide surface of the guider and the concave curved shape of the lower guide surface of the guider” and notes that these features are shown in Figs. 3A-8 of the instant application. In particular, the applicant alleges that JP 526 only teaches one curved edge of 19a and 19b not two curved edges. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The guider portion of 19a/19b is the portion that is surrounded by the coil 18a/18b, not the exterior portion to which the magnets 20a and 20b are attached. As can be readily seen in either Fig. 2 or Fig. 5, this guider portion has a convexly curved upper guide surface and a concavely curved lower guide surface, consistent with the description in page 2 third paragraph: “Every a plurality of coils for focal control, the yoke for focal control, and the magnet for focal control which have a concentric circular arc part”.
PNG
media_image2.png
716
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
622
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lastly in the fifth paragraph of page 8 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the other cited references are also silent with respect to the two curved structures of the guider. This argument is moot, because only JP 526 is relied upon to teach this newly claimed combination of features.
The request for an interview with the examiner on pages 8-9 of 9 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
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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
Prosecution Insights