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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Hong et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0012170 A1; hereafter Hong) in view of Shikma et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0039158 A1; hereafter Shikma) and Jeong et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0007724 A1; hereafter Jeong) because the combination does not teach or reasonably render obvious the claim limitation “wherein among heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest” in combination with the remaining claim features recited in claim 1.
Without acceding to Applicant’s contention that Examiner’s interpretation of item 225b of Jeong Fig. 6 as having “greatest” height because it is unsurpassed is in error, and solely to advance prosecution, Examiner will focus on the alternative argument with respect to Fig. 8, which explicitly shows that the center portion has the greatest height in the optical axis direction.
Applicant contends that the teaching of the yoke in Jeong Fig. 8 cannot reasonably be combined with the device of Hong as modified by Shikma because “simply transplanting Jeong’s yoke into the modified Hong device provides no assurance that the resulting yoke height configuration would specifically correspond to the central pole of a three-pole magnet” (see Applicant’s remarks p. 8).
It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). The combination is not “simply transplanting Jeong’s yoke into the modified Hong device” but what one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the references at the time the invention was filed.
As can be clearly seen from Jeong, it was well-known in the prior art at the time the invention was filed that a yoke could have a height which was greatest in the center (as shown in Jeong Fig. 8) or not (as shown in Fig. 11), or could have multiple thick segments (as shown in Fig. 6), or only one (as shown in Fig. 8), and all were well understood and within the purview of the ordinary workman of the art at the time the invention was filed to implement without undue experimentation, and which would yield predictable results. As such, Jeong clearly renders the claim limitation of “wherein among heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest” an obvious modification of the yoke of the device of Hong as modified by Shikma which was well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art at to implement the time the invention was filed in order to achieve predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(C). In this case, the device of Hong is improved by the yoke of Jeong so as to be able to maintain position without power, as taught by Jeong.).
Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections made in view of Hong, Shikma, and Jeong are maintained and will be reproduced below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0012170 A1; hereafter Hong) in view of Shikma et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0039158 A1; hereafter Shikma) and Jeong et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0007721 A1; hereafter Jeong).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-8, Hong discloses an iris module comprising: a base (see Hong Fig. 4, item 510); a plurality of blades disposed on the base (see Hong Fig. 4, items 530 and 540), configured to form an odd number of different aperture sizes (see Hong Figs. 5A-5C, items 53 a-c); and an iris driving unit comprising a magnet unit configured to linearly reciprocate on the base and drive the plurality of blades (see Hong Fig. 4, item 521a), wherein the magnet unit comprises a driving magnet with an odd number of polarized poles along a movement path of the magnet unit (see Hong Figs. 4 and 6A, item 521a which shows one coil-facing pole).
Hong does not disclose that the driving magnet has three poles, wherein each of the three polarized poles is configured to interact with a corresponding blade position to form a distinct aperture size of the different aperture sizes, wherein a yoke disposed on the base is configured to face the driving magnet along the movement path of the magnet unit having heights in an optical axis direction, and wherein among the heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest.
Shikma discloses a driving magnet that has three poles wherein each of the three polarized poles is configured to interact with a corresponding blade position to form a distinct aperture size of the different aperture sizes (see Shikma Fig. 39(c), items 5U, however the blade is driven, each distinct position of the blades is due to interaction between the driving coils and the magnetic poles) and that “the number N of the unit magnetized portions 5U in the magnet 5, an appropriate number thereof may be arranged depending on the amount of movement of the driving member 4 along the driving direction Xa, and depending on the driving force that is to be set” (see Shikma paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the driving unit of Hong as a driving unit with a 3-pole magnet like that in Shikma as a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results (see MPEP 2143(B)), and further in view of Shikama’s teaching that the number of poles and coils are freely selectable based on the desired drive amount of the device.
Hong in view of Shikma does not disclose a yoke disposed on the base is configured to face the driving magnet along the movement path of the magnet unit having heights in an optical axis direction, and wherein among heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest.
Jeong discloses a yoke disposed on the base is configured to face the driving magnet along the movement path of the magnet unit having heights in an optical axis direction, and wherein among the heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest (see Jeong Fig. 8, item 227, which shows a central portion with the greatest height. See also Response to Arguments, above.). Jeong further discloses [claim 5] a magnet unit that is fixable to three different positions on the movement path by attractive force between the driving magnet and the yoke (see Jeong Fig. 8, item 227 and paragraph [0129] “ the magnet unit 520 is fixed to one of the three (N) positions by the attractive force between the magnet 521a and the yoke 225 (or one of the holding yokes 519a and 519b)”); [claim 6] wherein the yoke has one expansion portion in which a height of a portion opposite to the driving magnet, in an optical axis direction, is greater than heights of other portions (see Jeong Fig. 8, item 227 which shows the center portion is taller than the other portions); [claim 7] wherein the expansion portion is disposed in a middle portion of the movement path of the magnet unit (see Jeong Fig. 8, item 227); [claim 8] wherein the yoke has holding portions facing sides of the driving magnet or having a height in the optical axis direction, greater than other portions, on both ends, respectively (see Jeong Fig. 10, items 515b and 515c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Hong with a yoke like that taught in Jeong in order to enable the iris to be maintained in the selected position even when the power to the coils is turned off, thereby saving power.
Regarding claim 3, Hong as modified discloses the iris module of claim 1, wherein the plurality of blades is configured to form three different aperture sizes when combined (see Hong Figs. 5A-5C, items 53 a-c).
Regarding claim 9, Hong as modified discloses a camera module comprising a housing having a lens module (see Hong Fig. 2, items 1000 and 210), and the iris module of claim 1 coupled to the lens module (see Hong Fig. 2, item 500).
Regarding claim 10, Hong discloses a camera module comprising: a housing having a lens module (see Hong Fig. 2, items 1000 and 210); and an iris module, coupled to an upper portion of the lens module (see Hong Fig. 2, item 500), comprising a base (see Hong Fig. 4, item 510), a plurality of blades disposed on the base (see Hong Fig. 4, items 530 and 540), and an iris driving unit comprising a magnet unit configured to linearly reciprocate on the base and drive the plurality of blades (see Hong Fig. 41, item 521a), wherein the plurality of blades are configured to form an odd number of different aperture sizes when combined (see Hong Figs. 5A-5C, items 53 a-c), wherein the magnet unit comprises a driving magnet with an odd number of polarized poles along a movement path of the magnet unit (see Hong Figs. 4 and 6A, item 521a which shows one coil-facing pole), and driving coils are disposed along the movement path of the magnet unit to face the driving magnet (see Hong Fig. 2, items 521b).
Hong does not disclose that the driving magnet has three poles, wherein each of the three polarized poles is configured to interact with a corresponding blade position to form a distinct aperture size of the different aperture sizes, wherein a yoke disposed on the base is configured to face the driving magnet along the movement path of the magnet unit having heights in an optical axis direction, and wherein among the heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest.
Shikma discloses a driving magnet that has three poles wherein each of the three polarized poles is configured to interact with a corresponding blade position to form a distinct aperture size of the different aperture sizes (see Shikma Fig. 39(c), items 5U, however the blade is driven, each distinct position of the blades is due to interaction between the driving coils and the magnetic poles) and that “the number N of the unit magnetized portions 5U in the magnet 5, an appropriate number thereof may be arranged depending on the amount of movement of the driving member 4 along the driving direction Xa, and depending on the driving force that is to be set” (see Shikma paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the driving unit of Hong as a driving unit with a 3-pole magnet like that in Shikma as a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results (see MPEP 2143(B)), and further in view of Shikama’s teaching that the number of poles and coils are freely selectable based on the desired drive amount of the device.
Hong in view of Shikma does not disclose a yoke disposed on the base is configured to face the driving magnet along the movement path of the magnet unit having heights in an optical axis direction, and wherein among heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest.
Jeong discloses a yoke disposed on the base is configured to face the driving magnet along the movement path of the magnet unit having heights in an optical axis direction, and wherein among the heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest (see Jeong Fig. 8, item 227, which shows a central portion with the greatest height. See also Response to Arguments, above.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Hong with a yoke like that taught in Jeong in order to enable the iris to be maintained in the selected position even when the power to the coils is turned off, thereby saving power.
Regarding claim 12, Hong as modified discloses the camera module of claim 10, wherein the driving coils are two driving coils disposed opposite to two poles of the driving magnet, simultaneously and respectively (see Shikma Fig. 39(c), items 6U. In the combination of Hong in view of Shikma made with respect to claim 10, above, the driving member of Hong was replaced with that of Shikma, it would therefore have further been obvious to utilize the two coils of the driving member to achieve the desired driving result.).
Regarding claims 14-16, Hong as modified discloses the camera module of claim 12, but does not disclose that the magnet unit is fixable to three different positions on the movement path by attractive force between the driving magnet and the yoke; [claim 15] wherein the yoke has one expansion portion in which a height of a portion opposite to the driving magnet in an optical axis direction is greater than heights of other portions; [claim 16] wherein the expansion portion is disposed between the two driving coils.
Jeong discloses a magnet unit that is fixable to three different positions on the movement path by attractive force between the driving magnet and the yoke (see Jeong Fig. 8, item 227 and paragraph [0129] “ the magnet unit 520 is fixed to one of the three (N) positions by the attractive force between the magnet 521a and the yoke 225 (or one of the holding yokes 519a and 519b)”); [claim 15] wherein the yoke has one expansion portion in which a height of a portion opposite to the driving magnet in an optical axis direction is greater than heights of other portions (see Jeong Fig. 8, item 227 which shows the center portion is taller than the other portions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Hong with a yoke like that taught in Jeong in order to enable the iris to be maintained in the selected position even when the power to the coils is turned off, thereby saving power.
Regarding claim 16, Hong as modified discloses the camera module of claim 14, and also that the expansion portion is disposed between the two driving coils (in the proposed combination of Hong and Jeong made with respect to claim 14, above, the expansion portion 227 of Jeong would be placed in the center, while the left and right coils of 521b in Hong, which can be construed as “the two driving coils,” would be on either side of the center.).
Regarding claim 17, Hong as modified discloses the camera module of claim 10, wherein a position sensor configured to sense a position of the magnet unit is disposed in the housing (see Hong paragraph [0109] “a position sensor (not illustrated) may be provided for a closed control. A position sensor (not illustrated) may be installed adjacent to a center or a side surface of the coil 521b to be opposite to a magnetic member 521a.”).
Regarding claim 18, Hong discloses a camera module comprising: a housing (see Hong Fig. 1, item 1000); a lens module accommodated in the housing (see Hong Fig. 2, item 210); and an iris module comprising a base (see Hong Fig. 4, item 510), a plurality of blades disposed on the base (see Hong Fig. 4, items 530 and 540), and an iris driving unit comprising a magnet unit configured to linearly reciprocate on the base and drive the plurality of blades (see Hong Fig. 4, item 521a), wherein the magnet unit is configured to form three differently sized apertures with the plurality of blades (see Hong Figs. 4 and 5A-5C, items 500, 530, and 540), wherein on surfaces of the housing parallel to an optical axis direction, a first OIS driving coil is disposed to drive the lens module in a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction, a second OIS driving coil is disposed to drive the lens module in the optical axis direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, an AF driving coil is disposed to drive the lens module in the optical axis direction (see Hong Fig. 2, items 730, 810b, and 830b), and two iris driving coils are disposed to drive the plurality of blades, respectively (see Hong Fig. 2, item 521b, while there is a third coil, as well, the device comprises two coils).
Hong does not disclose that the driving magnet has three poles, wherein each of the three polarized poles is configured to interact with a corresponding blade position to form a distinct aperture size of the different aperture sizes, wherein a yoke disposed on the base is configured to face the driving magnet along the movement path of the magnet unit having heights in an optical axis direction, and wherein among heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest.
Shikma discloses a driving magnet that has three poles wherein each of the three polarized poles is configured to interact with a corresponding blade position to form a distinct aperture size of the different aperture sizes (see Shikma Fig. 39(c), items 5U, however the blade is driven, each distinct position of the blades is due to interaction between the driving coils and the magnetic poles) and that “the number N of the unit magnetized portions 5U in the magnet 5, an appropriate number thereof may be arranged depending on the amount of movement of the driving member 4 along the driving direction Xa, and depending on the driving force that is to be set” (see Shikma paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the driving unit of Hong as a driving unit with a 3-pole magnet like that in Shikma as a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results (see MPEP 2143(B)), and further in view of Shikama’s teaching that the number of poles and coils are freely selectable based on the desired drive amount of the device.
Hong in view of Shikma does not disclose a yoke disposed on the base is configured to face the driving magnet along the movement path of the magnet unit having heights in an optical axis direction, and wherein among the heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest.
Jeong discloses a yoke disposed on the base is configured to face the driving magnet along the movement path of the magnet unit having heights in an optical axis direction, and wherein among the heights of the yoke in the optical axis direction, a height of the yoke facing a central pole of the driving magnet is the greatest (see Jeong Fig. 8, item 227, which shows a central portion with the greatest height. See also Response to Arguments, above.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Hong with a yoke like that taught in Jeong in order to enable the iris to be maintained in the selected position even when the power to the coils is turned off, thereby saving power.
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights