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 11/10/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17 as being anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Shikma et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0039158 A1; hereafter Shikma) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17 in view of Shikma have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hong et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0012170 A1; hereafter Hong) in view of Shikma have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hong, Shikma, and Jeong et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0007721 A1; hereafter Jeong).
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 5-8 and 14-16 as being unpatentable in view of Hong, Shikma, and Jeong have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Jeong does not disclose “three polarized poles configured to interact with a corresponding position to form a distinct aperture” as called for in newly amended claim 1. However, Jeong was not relied upon to disclose such a feature, as this feature is already disclosed by Hong in view of Shikma (see Hong Figs. 5A-5C, items 53 a-c, and Shikma Fig. 39(c), which shows 3 poles for adjusting the aperture size). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments that the combination of Hong as modified by Shikma and Jeong does not disclose “three polarized poles configured to interact with a corresponding position to form a distinct aperture” is therefore unpersuasive.
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 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. 6, items 225 and 225b. Item 225b can be construed as having the greatest height because no other height exceeds it. Also see Fig. 8, which shows a central portion with the greatest height.). 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. 6, items 225a-c and paragraph [0131] “the magnet unit 520 is fixed at the three (N) positions by the attractive force between magnet 521a and the three (N) extensions 225a, 225b, and 225c”); [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. 6, items 225a-c which are taller than the connecting portions); [claim 7] wherein the expansion portion is disposed in a middle portion of the movement path of the magnet unit (see Jeong Fig. 6, item 225b); [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 515 b 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 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. 6, items 225 and 225b. Item 225b can be construed as having the greatest height because no other height exceeds it. Also see Fig. 8, which shows a central portion with the greatest height.).
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. 6, items 225a-c and paragraph [0131] “the magnet unit 520 is fixed at the three (N) positions by the attractive force between magnet 521a and the three (N) extensions 225a, 225b, and 225c”); [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. 6, items 225a-c which are taller than the connecting 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 225b 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 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 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. 6, items 225 and 225b. Item 225b can be construed as having the greatest height because no other height exceeds it. Also see Fig. 8, which shows a central portion with the greatest height.).
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.
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 1/16/2026