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 10/22/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-3, 15, and 19 in view of Goldenberg et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0217475) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-3, 15, and 19 in view of Goldenberg have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 15, 16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0103725; hereafter Lee) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-18, and Lee in view of Smirnov (Pub. No. US 2022/0150389 A1; hereafter Smirnov) with respect to claims 3, 19, and 20.
As noted in Applicant’s remarks, Lee discloses “a first sidewall and a second sidewall with the first sidewall being spaced apart from the second sidewall as now recited in claim 1” and “one side of the one magnet 1135 disposed on the first sidewall has at least a first polarity 1135a (N pole) and a second polarity 1135b (S pole)… as now recited in claim 1,” but does not disclose “the polarity of the one first magnet 1132a disposed on the first sidewall” (see Applicant’s remarks pp. 23-24, emphasis yours).
As noted in the previous Office Action dated 7/22/2025 with respect to claim 4, Lee discloses that magnet 1131a has a polarity along the Z-axis direction (the “first axis” direction), while Lee does not specifically disclose that the magnet 1132a is polarized in a perpendicular direction to magnet 1131a. However, Examiner also stated that polarizing the magnet in the claimed direction would have been obvious “in order to effectuate the drive of the prism in the direction desired by Lee” (see Non-Final Rejection dated 7/22/2025 p. 11). Applicant has provided no argument as to why this finding of obviousness is in error, so the 103 rejection in view of Lee as previously applied to claim 4 will now be applied to newly amended claim 1 as reciting substantially the same limitations as previously recited in claim 4.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments rest on the perceived deficiency of Lee, discussed above, and therefore are similarly addressed. Claims 1, 2, and 4-18 will therefore now be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of Lee.
With respect to claim 19, Applicant further notes that Lee discloses a third magnet on the opposite sidewall as the first and second magnet, which does not read on the claim limitation wherein “the second sidewall is free of any driving magnet” as called for in amended claim 19.
Smirnov discloses that it was well known in the art at the time the invention was filed that a prism driving mechanism can have driving units only on one side of the sidewalls of the holder, as called for in claim 19 (see Smirnov Fig. 6, item 151).
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 Lee with drive magnets only on one sidewall of the holder, like that shown in Smirnov, in order to reduce the number of required parts and thereby save on cost.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments rest on the perceived deficiency of Lee, discussed above, and therefore are similarly addressed. Claims 1-18 will therefore now be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of Lee and Smirnov.
With respect to claim 3, Lee in view of Smirnov discloses only having magnets on one side, as discussed with respect to claim 19. If there are only magnets on one side of the holder, then the center of gravity will be shifted towards that end of the holder due to the excess weight of the magnets.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0103725 A1; hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a reflective module, comprising: a reflective member configured to change a path of light (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1110); a holder on which the reflective member is mounted (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1122); a housing in which the holder is disposed (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1010); a first driver comprising one first magnet mounted on the holder (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1132a), a first coil opposing the one first magnet (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1152a), and a first position sensor (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1172a); and a second driver comprising one second magnet mounted on the holder (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1131a), a second coil opposing the one second magnet (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1151a), and a second position sensor (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1171a), wherein the holder comprises a first sidewall and a second sidewall (see Lee Fig. 10, Examiner adopts Applicant’s determination of the “first” and “second” sidewalls of Lee as noted in Applicant’s remarks), one side of the one second magnet has at least a first polarity and a second polarity sequentially arranged in a first axis direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction (see Lee Fig. 11A, items 1131a and paragraph [0184], which discloses that the top of the magnet 1131a has a single pole, meaning that the poles are oriented so that they face in the Z-axis direction), the first sidewall is spaced apart from the second sidewall in a second axis direction perpendicular to both the optical axis direction and the first axis direction (see Lee Fig. 10, the sidewalls are separated in the X-axis direction), and both the one first magnet and the one second magnet are disposed only on one of the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see Lee Fig. 10, items 1131a and 1132a).
Lee does not specifically disclose that one side of the one first magnet has at least a first polarity and a second polarity sequentially arranged in the optical axis direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the polarity along the first axis direction in order to effectuate the drive of the prism in the direction desired by Lee.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, wherein both the one first magnet and the one second magnet are mounted on the first sidewall of the holder (see Lee Fig. 9, items 1131a and 1132a).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 13, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, further comprising a sensing magnet mounted on the holder (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1133a), wherein the first position sensor comprises one or more Hall sensors (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1171a), the optical axis direction and the first axis direction are perpendicular to a direction in which the one first magnet and the first coil oppose each other (see Lee Figs. 9 and 11A, which show the coil and magnet opposed in the X-axis direction).
Lee does not specifically disclose that the second position sensor includes a plurality of hall sensors, and that one side of the one first magnet has a first polarity and a second polarity along an optical axis direction.
While Lee is silent as to the second position sensor comprising a plurality of position sensors, Lee discloses with respect to the focusing coil 1251, shown in Fig. 8, that “To accurately measure the position of the lens module 1200… two or more position sensors 1270 may be disposed in an internal portion P1 of the first coil 1251” (see Lee paragraph [0149]). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the second position sensor could comprise a plurality of position sensors, as suggested by Lee, in order to increase the accuracy of the sensed position.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 4, wherein a size of a portion of the one second magnet having the first polarity is different from a size of a portion of the one second magnet having the second polarity (see Lee Fig. 11B, items 1135a and 1135b), the first position sensor opposes a portion having a larger size among the portion of the one second magnet having the first polarity and the portion of the one second magnet having the second polarity, and the second position sensor opposes the sensing magnet and the one first magnet (see Lee Fig. 11B, item 1171a and Fig. 8, item 1270. As discussed with respect to claim 4, above, it would have been obvious to have two Hall sensors side-by-side as shown in Fig. 8 in the moving direction of the drive system, as suggested by Lee, which would provide one Hall opposed to the larger are of the second magnet, and the other opposed to the sensing magnet.).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 4, wherein the first position sensor opposes the one first magnet (see Lee Fig. 11A, item 1172a), and the second position sensor opposes the sensing magnet and the one second magnet (see Lee Fig. 11A, items 1171a, which position sensor is construed as the “first” and “second” position sensor is merely a matter of nomenclature.).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 4, but does not specifically disclose that the first position sensor comprises a plurality of Hall sensors, and the plurality of Hall sensors of the first position sensor are spaced apart from each other in the optical axis direction.
As discussed with respect to claim 4, above, Lee discloses that “to accurately measure the position of the lens module 1200… two or more position sensors 1270 may be disposed” in the stroke direction (see Lee paragraph [0149]). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the first position sensor could comprise a plurality of position sensors spaced apart in the optical axis direction, as suggested by Lee, in order to increase the accuracy of the sensed position.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 4, wherein the plurality of Hall sensors of the second position sensor are spaced apart from each other in the first axis direction (as discussed with respect to claims 4 and 5, above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the sensors spaced apart in the stroke direction in order to increase accuracy, as suggested by Lee).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 4, wherein a length of the one first magnet in the first axis direction is different from a length of the one second magnet in the first axis direction (see Lee Fig. 11A, items 1131a and 1132a).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 10, but does not disclose that wherein a size of the first portion of the one first magnet having the first polarity is different from a size of a second portion of the one first magnet having the first polarity, the first position sensor opposes a portion of the one first magnet having the second polarity and a portion of the first magnet having a smaller size among the first portion of the one first magnet having the first polarity and the second portion of the one first magnet having the first polarity, and the second position sensor opposes the sensing magnet and the one second magnet; [claim 12] wherein the first position sensor comprises a plurality of Hall sensors, and the plurality of Hall sensors of the first position sensor are spaced apart from each other in the optical axis direction, and the plurality of Hall sensors of the second position sensor are spaced apart from each other in the first axis direction.
Lee discloses having the second magnet have polarities of different sizes, and having a plurality of sensors spaced in the stroke direction to increase accuracy, as discussed above, but does not apply these features to the first magnet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the first magnet could be configured to have similar shape and configuration as the second magnet, except oriented in the optical axis direction, as a simple substitution of the second magnet configuration for the first magnet configuration to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 13, wherein a size of the first portion of the one second magnet having the first polarity is different from a size of a second portion of the one second magnet having the first polarity, the second position sensor opposes a portion of the one second magnet having the second polarity and a portion of the one second magnet having a smaller size among the first portion of the one second magnet having the first polarity and the second portion of the one second magnet having the first polarity, and the first position sensor opposes the sensing magnet (see Lee Fig. 11B, items 1153a-c, pole 1135c is smaller than 1135b, the second position sensor, in the combination where there are two position sensors in the stroke direction as modified with respect to claim 13, above, is positioned in front of the larger second polarity section, and the first position sensor would be placed opposed to the sensing magnet 1135a).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a portable electronic device comprising the reflective module of claim 1 (see Lee Fig. 16, item 1).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses a camera module comprising: a lens module comprising a plurality of lenses disposed along an optical axis (see Lee Fig. 4C, item 1200); a housing in which the lens module is disposed (see Lee Fig. 5, item 1010); a reflective module disposed on a front side of the lens module along the optical axis and comprising a reflective member configured to change a path of light, and a holder on which the reflective member is mounted (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1110); a first driver comprising one first magnet mounted on the holder (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1132a), a first coil opposing the one first magnet (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1152a), and a first position sensor (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1172a); and a second driver comprising one second magnet mounted on the holder (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1131a), a second coil opposing the one second magnet (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1151a), and a second position sensor (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1171a), wherein the reflective module is configured to rotate about a first axis and a second axis both perpendicular to the optical axis and perpendicular to each other as rotational axes (see Lee paragraph [0153] “the folded module 1100 may rotate in a Z-axis and/or an X-axis direction.”), the holder comprises a first sidewall and a second sidewall (see Lee Fig. 10, Examiner adopts Applicant’s determination of the “first” and “second” sidewalls of Lee as noted in Applicant’s remarks), one side of the one second magnet has at least a first polarity and a second polarity sequentially arranged in a first axis direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction (see Lee Fig. 11A, items 1131a and paragraph [0184], which discloses that the top of the magnet 1131a has a single pole, meaning that the poles are oriented so that they face in the Z-axis direction), the first sidewall is spaced apart from the second sidewall in a second axis direction perpendicular to both the optical axis direction and the first axis direction (see Lee Fig. 10, the sidewalls are separated in the X-axis direction), and both the one first magnet and the one second magnet are disposed only on one of the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see Lee Fig. 10, items 1131a and 1132a).
Lee does not specifically disclose that one side of the one first magnet has at least a first polarity and a second polarity sequentially arranged in the optical axis direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the polarity along the first axis direction in order to effectuate the drive of the prism in the direction desired by Lee.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the camera module of claim 16, further comprising a sensing magnet mounted on the holder (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1133a), wherein the first position sensor is configured to sense a change in a position of the reflective module rotating about the first axis as a rotational axis, and comprises one or more Hall sensors (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1172a), the second position sensor is configured to sense a change in a position of the reflective module rotating about the second axis as a rotational axis (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1171a).
Lee does not specifically disclose that the second position sensor includes a plurality of hall sensors, and wherein the plurality of hall sensors of the second position sensor are spaced apart from each other along the first axis.
Lee discloses with respect to the focusing coil 1251, shown in Fig. 8, that “To accurately measure the position of the lens module 1200… two or more position sensors 1270 may be disposed in an internal portion Goldenberg of the first coil 1251” (see Lee paragraph [0149]). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the second position sensor could comprise a plurality of position sensors spaced apart in the stroke direction, as suggested by Lee, in order to increase the accuracy of the sensed position.
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses a portable electronic device comprising the camera module of claim 16 (see Lee Fig. 15, item 1).
Claim(s) 3, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Smirnov (Pub. No. US 2022/0150389 A1; hereafter Smirnov).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses a reflective module comprising: a reflective member configured to change a path of light (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1110); and a holder on which the reflective member is mounted, the holder comprising a first sidewall and a second sidewall parallel to the first sidewall and spaced apart from the first sidewall in a direction perpendicular to the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see Lee Fig. 10, Examiner adopts Applicant’s determination of the “first” and “second” sidewalls of Lee as noted in Applicant’s remarks), wherein a first driving magnet configured to drive the holder in an optical axis direction is disposed on the first sidewall, (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1132a), a second driving magnet configured to drive the holder in a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction is disposed on the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1131a), and a first driving coil is disposed opposing the first driving magnet in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction and the first direction (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1151a), and a second driving coil is disposed opposing the second driving magnet in the second direction (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1152a)
Lee does not disclose that and the second sidewall is free of any driving magnet configured to drive the holder in the first or optical axis directions.
Smirnov discloses that it was well known in the art at the time the invention was filed that a prism driving mechanism can have driving units only on one side of the sidewalls of the holder, as called for in claim 19 (see Smirnov Fig. 6, item 151).
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 Lee with drive magnets only on one sidewall of the holder, like that shown in Smirnov, in order to reduce the number of required parts and thereby save on cost.
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a portable electronic device comprising: a camera module, comprising: a lens module including a plurality of lenses disposed along an optical axis (see Lee Fig. $c, item 1200), a housing configured to accommodate the lens module (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1010), and the reflective module of claim 19 disposed on a front side of the lens module (see Lee Fig. 9, item 1100).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that in a state in which the one first magnet and the one second magnet are mounted on the holder, a center of gravity of the holder is closer to the first sidewall of the holder than to the second sidewall of the holder.
Lee as modified by Smirnov, as discussed with respect to claim 19 above, discloses only having magnets on one side. If there are only magnets on one side of the holder, then the center of gravity will be shifted towards that end of the holder due to the excess weight of the magnets.
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 1/14/2026