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. 18/354,169 filed on July 18, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
Priority
As required by the M.P.E.P. 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on August 9, 2022 (KR 10-2022-009526) and March 30, 2023 (KR 10-2023-0042091)
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on July 18, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 7/18/2023 and 6/4/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups II, III and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 21, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 traversing the restriction have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant elects Group I, claims 1-12 with traverse. No argument is made in this paragraph.
In the second paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant reiterates the rules underlying a finding of independent and distinct related products. This recitation is the same as was provided in the restriction mailed November 21, 2025 and does not appear to make any specific argument with respect to any aspect of this process having not been proper.
In the third paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant introduces that they will be arguing that the Office has not established that there would be a serious burden if restriction were not required. No specific argument is made in this paragraph.
Under heading A on page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges that all four groups relate to a lens driving apparatus that shares the following structural elements (I) a lens holder, (II) a carrier, (III) Movement in an optical axis direction (IV) movement in a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis, and (V) movement in a second direction perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first direction. This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, it should be noted that although the most comprehensive claim in each group contains these four elements, only the lens holder and the carrier are shared by the independent claims of each group. Given that a complete search includes identifying prior art which anticipates the independent claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the shared feature of a lens holder and carrier are not nearly sufficient to narrow the number of pertinent prior art documents to a number that is possible to appropriately review within the time allotted to examine an application. For example, a PE2E Search query of CPC classes G02B27/646 or G02B7/04 or G03B2205/0069,15 retrieves 25,278 patent families.
From the last two lines of page 8 through the first two lines of page 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “The distinctions identified by the Office (opposing OIS drivers in Group I, elastic member in Group II, single driver for AF and OIS in Group Ill, and rolling member in Group IV) are merely additional refinements to this common base structure, not fundamentally different inventions.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. If these distinctions are “merely additional refinements” why did the applicant present them as independent claims to which the applicant believes they are entitled? The presence of independent claims which only share the lens holder and carrier, and set out one of the “additional refinements” as purportedly patentable is substantial evidence that the full scope of each independent claim would need to be separately searched and determined.
Under heading B on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant introduces that they will be arguing that the claims have substantial overlap in scope. This analysis is misguided. The existence of dependent claims within some of the groups that are similar is scope does not negate the search burden of completing a proper search for the independent claims of every group.
In point 1 on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that restriction between groups I and IV is improper because prior art that teaches claim 31 would also necessarily teach claim 1. Given that the examiner’s complete search of Group I did not identify any art that renders claims 3 or 4 obvious, both of which are significantly broader than claim 31, the hypothesis that there could exist potential art that would render both claims 31 and 1 obvious is not a persuasive argument for a lack of search burden.
In point 2 on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that restriction between groups II and IV is improper because both claims 13 and 27 recite “an elastic member configured to connect the lens holder to the carrier, and provide the lens holder with a restoring force in the optical axis direction or the first direction”. The existence of a common feature does not preclude restriction between groups. The distinctness between these groups was duly explained on pages 3-4 of the restriction requirement and need not be repeated here.
In point 3 on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that restriction between groups I and III is improper because allegedly “Both require driving the lens holder in an optical axis direction and a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis, and driving the carrier in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis and the first direction. The structural distinction (two separate OIS drivers vs. first and second driving units) describes the same functional arrangement.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, claim 1 does not require driving the lens holder in an optical axis direction. Secondly, the first driving unit of claim 21 and the first OIS driver are not the same thing. The first OIS driver of claim 1 only moves the lens holder in the first direction, it does not move the lens holder for focusing in the optical axis direction. Lastly, claim 21 does not require the uncommon feature of the first and second OIS drivers that drive the lens to move in orthogonal directions opposing one another with the lens holder therebetween, rendering claim 21 significantly more commonplace than claim 1 and thus requiring a different search strategy thereof.
Under heading C on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant introduces that they will be arguing that the specific reasons provided by the Office explained why there would be a serious search burden if restriction were not required were not persuasive to applicant.
In point 1 on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that all four groups fall within the same general technology area of camera module lens driving apparatus with OIS and AF capabilities and that the cited classification (G02B27/646, G02B7/04, G03B2205/0069, G03B2205/0015) are all within the same general class and subclass families for optical devices. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. As noted above a PE2E Search query of CPC classes G02B27/646 or G02B7/04 or G03B2205/0069,15 retrieves 25,278 patent families. It is not possible to appropriately consider 25,000 documents while keeping the full breadth of four distinct independent claims in mind at the same time, even in a time that greatly exceeds the time allotted for examination in the field of lens drivers.
In point 2 on page 10 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that a “search for "lens driving apparatus" with "optical image stabilization" and "autofocus" would capture prior art relevant to all four groups. The additional features (elastic members, rolling members, driver arrangements) are commonly disclosed together in the same prior art references teaching camera module actuators.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. First, finding art similar to all four groups is not the purpose of the search. Rather the search is (1) an attempt to identify any art that anticipates or renders the claims obvious and (2) to find the art closest to the disclosed invention. The applicant elected Group I for a reason. The least common feature in the art that is part of the disclosed invention is the feature of having two opposing OIS drivers that move the lens in orthogonal directions. If the examiner included all art which disclosed a lens driving apparatus with OIS and AF functionality, the search would fail to include art that didn’t also teach the AF functionality, such as binoculars, and would contain far too many documents to reasonably and properly consider. Even the examiner’s targeted search for claim 1:
((((G02B27/646).cpc. AND ((lens ADJ holder) OR barrel) AND ((carrier OR frame OR housing) near5 (driv$3 OR mov$3 OR translat$3 OR shift$3 OR perpendicular OR OIS OR stabiliz$5 OR blur$4))) AND ((shak$3 OR hand-shak$3 OR anti-shak$3 OR vibrat$4 OR stabiliz$5 OR OIS OR jitter$3 OR blur$4 OR driv$3 OR magnet OR OIS-driv$3 OR OIS-magnet) near6 (oppos$3 OR across OR (other adj2 (side OR surface)) OR symmetric$4 OR interpos$3))) AND ((second OR two OR 2nd OR "2.sup.nd") adj5 (shak$3 OR hand-shak$3 OR anti-shak$3 OR vibrat$4 OR stabiliz$5 OR OIS OR jitter$3 OR blur$4 OR driv$3 OR OIS-driv$3))) AND (@ad<="20230718" OR @pd<="20230718" OR @fd<="20230718")
contained 1014 patent families and took over 5 hours to complete. This is in addition to considering the IDS references, the inventor and assignee searches, NPL searches, forward and backward citation searching of the closest references, multiple avenues of AI-assisted searches, and searches for any dependent claims that would not have been highlighted in the above search for independent claim 1. Notably, that the examiner eventually concluded that the prior art reference, Seo et al. US 2021/0173223 A1, provided in an IDS was in fact the closest art, did not obviate the need to perform a complete search of the invention.
In point 3 on page 10 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “Prior art in the field of voice coil motor (VCM) camera actuators routinely discloses all of the features distinguishing the four groups. A single reference teaching a VCM camera module would likely address lens holders, carriers, OIS drivers, elastic members, and rolling members together.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, it is assumed that the applicant did not actually mean to admit on the record that the “distinguishing features” are all well-known and routine, involve no inventiveness and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Given that the applicant’s argument is not an unambiguous admission that the claims presented are only routine skill, the examiner cannot withdraw the restriction on the bases that the applicant has admitted that any art which discloses one invention renders all other claims obvious which would have rendered all additional searching unnecessary. Secondly, the applicant’s assertion that a single reference teaching a VCM camera module would likely “address” lens holders, carriers, OIS drivers, elastic members, and rolling members together might be true of recent Samsung lens drivers, but is not true of all art by other assignees, and is certainly not true of all vibration-compensation devices including those adapted for binoculars and/or prior to the year 2000 all of which must be considered in a complete search. One never knows when it will be a case of everything old is new again. Thirdly, the question of a “serious burden” is not just of a search burden, but also an examination burden. The search performed identified a plethora of diverse prior art references that anticipate or render claim 1 obvious, each in different ways. Thus, the applicant’s allegation that also fully considering all of the art applicable to each of the other three groups, providing rejections thereof and considering all of applicant’s amendments and arguments related thereto would not be a serious search and examination burden appears to be predicated on an unrealistic understanding of the examination process.
After point 3 on page 10 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant concludes “Accordingly, the Office's conclusory statements regarding search burden are insufficient to establish the "serious burden" required under MPEP § 808.02. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests that claims 1-35 be examined together and withdraw or modify the election/restriction requirement.” The arguments underlying this conclusion have been addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo et al. US 2021/0173223 A1 (hereafter Seo, cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Seo teaches “A lens driving apparatus (camera module 1000) comprising:
a lens holder (lens holder 1700) configured to accommodate a lens (paragraph [0088]: “a lens holder 1700 to which the lens barrel 1510 is coupled.”);
a carrier (frame 1400 which is a carrier in that supports the lens holder see paragraph [0090]: “the lens holder 1700 is supported on the frame 1400”) configured to accommodate the lens holder (paragraph [0090]: “the lens holder 1700 is supported on the frame 1400”);
a first optical image stabilization (OIS) driver (second magnet 1720 and second coil 1730), disposed outside of the lens holder (1720 is provided on the outside of 1700 and 1730 is provided on substrate 1130 outside of 1720), configured to drive the lens holder (paragraph [0096]: “When power is applied to the second coil 1730, force is generated to move the lens holder 1700”) in a first direction perpendicular to an optical axis (paragraph [0096]: “move the lens holder 1700 in the first direction (the X-axis direction) by force to push or pull the second magnet 1720 and the second coil 1730” See Fig. 2 the X-axis direction is perpendicular to the Z-axis direction which is parallel to the optical axis of the lens); and
a second OIS driver (first magnet 1420 and first coil 1430), disposed outside of the carrier (see Fig. 2 1420 is positioned on the outside of 1400 and 1430 is on substrate 1130 which is outside of 1400) to oppose the first OIS driver (see how 1720 and 1420 oppose one another and 1730 and 1430 oppose one another in Fig. 2) and having the lens holder interposed therebetween (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 3), configured to drive the carrier (paragraph [0094]: “when power is applied to the first coil 1430, force is generated to move the frame 1400”) in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis and the first direction (paragraph [0094]: “force is generated to move the frame 1400 in the second direction (the Y-axis direction) depending on electromagnetic interaction of the first magnet 1420 and the first coil 1430.” see Fig. 2 the Y-axis direction is perpendicular to the Z-axis and X-axis directions).”
Regarding claim 2, Seo teaches “The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an autofocus (AF) driver (1320 and 1330 see paragraph [0070]: “A driving portion of the focusing unit includes a magnet 1320 and a coil 1330.”), disposed outside of the lens holder (see Figs. 2 and 3 1320 is positioned on 1300 which is outside of 1700), configured to drive the lens holder in an optical axis direction (e.g. paragraph [0073]: “When power is applied to the coil 1330, the carrier 1300 may be moved in the optical axis direction (the Z-axis direction) by electromagnetic interaction between the magnet 1320 and the coil 1330.”).”
Regarding claim 10, Seo teaches “The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a base (carrier 1300 which is a base in that it is underneath and supports 1400 and/or housing 1100 which is underneath and supports both of 1300 and 1400) on which the carrier is seated (see Fig. 2),
wherein a rolling member (first rolling member 1470 and/or rolling member 1370) is interposed between the carrier and the base (paragraph [0104]: “frame 1400 may include a first rolling member 1470 between and internal wall surface of the carrier 1300 (a surface disposed to be parallel to the optical axis direction) and the frame 1400 to be easily moved on the internal wall of the carrier 1300 in a sliding or rolling motion.” Because 1300 is between 1400 and 1100, rolling member 1470 is also interposed between 1400 and 1100. Similarly, paragraph [0075] teaches “a rolling member 1370 is disposed between the carrier 1300 and the housing 1100” This is also between 1400 and 1100 because 1400 is inside of 1300).”
Regarding claim 11, Seo teaches “The apparatus of claim 10, further comprising a holding magnet (first magnet 1420 is a holding magnet see paragraph [0102]: “The first yoke 1450… may allow the frame 1400 to be closely supported… by the attractive force with the first magnet 1420.” Note that the claim does not specifically state that the holding magnet is distinct from the first and second OIS drivers. Also magnet 1320 is a holding magnet see attractive force with yoke 1350 in paragraph [0077]) and a holding yoke (first yoke 1450 or yoke 1350) disposed on the carrier and the base, respectively, (see Fig. 2 1420 is on 1400, 1320 is on 1400 in that it is on 1300 which holds 1400. Furthermore, 1450 is disposed on 1100 in that it is disposed on 1130 which is fixed to the housing and 1350 is disposed on housing 1100) to generate an attractive force between the carrier and the base (paragraph [0102]: “The first yoke 1450… may allow the frame 1400 to be closely supported… by the attractive force with the first magnet 1420.” or paragraph [0077]: “Attractive force acts between the yoke 1350 and the magnet 1320 in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction (the Z-axis direction). Accordingly, the rolling member 1370 may be maintained in a state of contact with the carrier 1300 and the housing 1100 by the attractive force between the yoke 1350 and the magnet 1320.”).”
Regarding claim 12, Seo teaches “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a camera module (camera module 1000).”
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. US 2021/0173223 A1 (hereafter Seo, cited in an IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. US 2022/0082848 A1 (hereafter Han) and applicant’s admitted prior art of January 21, 2026.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Seo teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” however, Seo fails to teach (claim 8) “further comprising an elastic member, connecting the lens holder and the carrier with each other,
configured to provide the lens holder with a restoring force in an optical axis direction or the first direction.”
(claim 9) “wherein the elastic member includes an elastic wire extending in the second direction to connect the lens holder with the carrier.”
Han teaches (claim 1) A lens driving apparatus (camera module 100) comprising:
a lens holder (OIS body 140) configured to accommodate a lens (140 accommodates lens carrier 130);
a carrier (base 120) configured to accommodate the lens holder (see e.g. Fig. 2);
a first optical image stabilization (OIS) driver (a first of the two OIS drivers 170 see Fig. 5), disposed outside of the lens holder (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0046] the magnets 171 are on the outside of 170 and the coils 172 are on the cover 110), configured to drive the lens holder in a first direction perpendicular to an optical axis (paragraph [0047]: “The first coil 172 may move the OIS body 140 in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (z axis) of the lens carrier 130, that is, in a horizontal direction of x and y axes in response to the first magnet 171”); and
a second OIS driver (a second of the two OIS drivers see Fig. 5), disposed outside of the carrier (see Fig. 5 the coils 172 are on the cover 110 which is outside of the base in that is it above it) to oppose the first OIS driver (they are on opposing corners).”
(claim 8) further comprising an elastic member (wire springs 190-1 to 190-4), connecting the lens holder and the carrier with each other (e.g. paragraph [0058]: “a plurality of wire springs 190-1 to 190-4 may be … provided between the OIS body 140 and the base 120”),
configured to provide the lens holder with a restoring force in an optical axis direction or the first direction (paragraph [0058]: “In order to provide a horizontal restoring force of the OIS body 140”).”
(claim 9) “wherein the elastic member includes an elastic wire (190-1 to 190-4 are wire springs and thus elastic wires) extending in the second direction (see Fig. 7 190-1 to 190-4 include portions extending in both the X and Y directions) to connect the lens holder with the carrier (e.g. paragraph [0060]: “the wire spring 190-1 may include a first fixing piece 191-1 fixed to a bottom surface of the OIS body 140… a second fixing piece 194-1 fixed to the base 120”).”
Han further teaches (paragraph [0019]): “The camera module may further include a plurality of wire springs provided between the OIS body and the base to provide a horizontal restoring force of the OIS body, wherein these wire springs are physically separated, but act on one OIS body, so that the OIS body may move to its original position or provide a predetermined restoring force”.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate elastic wires that connect the lens holder that moves for OIS correction to the carrier within which it moves as taught by Han in the camera module of Seo for the purpose of restoring the OIS to its original position or providing a predetermined restoring force as taught by Han (paragraph [0019]). Furthermore, such a modification is within ordinary skill in light of applicant’s remarks filed January 21, 2026 which admits on page 10 of 10 that elastic members are commonly disclosed in the prior art and that the feature of an elastic member as claimed is routine in the field of voice coil motor actuators.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: (claim 1) “a second OIS driver, disposed outside of the carrier to oppose the first OIS driver and having the lens holder interposed therebetween, configured to drive the carrier in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis and the first direction” and (claim 3) “wherein the AF driver and the first OIS driver are disposed on a same outer surface of the lens holder.”
Regarding claim 4, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: (claim 1) “a second OIS driver, disposed outside of the carrier to oppose the first OIS driver and having the lens holder interposed therebetween, configured to drive the carrier in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis and the first direction” and (claim 4) “wherein the AF driver includes an AF driving magnet disposed on a first outer surface of the lens holder to face an AF driving coil with a gap therebetween.”
Claims 5-7 depend from claim 4 and are allowable for at least the reason stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Although many of the references below could form the basis of a prior art rejection, such rejections were deemed both duplicative and burdensome to applicant at this time.
Hirunuma et al. DE 19855693 A1 “Viewer with Objective Lens, and Image Inversion System” pertinent to at least claim 1.
Masuda JP 2007233214 A “Image Blur Correcting Device, Lens Barrel and Optical Apparatus” pertinent to at least claims 1 and 12.
Omi US 2010/0033820 A1 “Vibration Reduction Apparatus and Optical Apparatus” pertinent to at least claims 1, 10 and 12.
Kakuta KR 10-2012-0046878 A “Apparatus for Correcting Image Shake” pertinent to at least claims 1 and 12.
Park et al. US 2013/0027790 A1 “Position Sensor Assembly and Optical Device Including the Same” pertinent to at least claims 1, 10 and 12.
Kim et al. US 2016/0252746 A1 “Camera Lens Module” pertinent to at least claims 1, 2, 10 and 12.
Kiyamura US 2017/0046818 A1 “Image Blur Correction Device Capable of Preventing Occurrence of Image Blur, Lens Barrel, and Image Pickup Apparatus” pertinent to at least claims 1 and 12.
Kim US 2024/0134249 A1 “Camera Module” pertinent to at least claims 1, 2 and 12.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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