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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed September 10, 2026. Claims 1-19 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claim 2 was previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues that Lim and Seo when combined fail to disclose or suggest all of the claimed features of claim 1. Applicant specifically asserts that the disclosed references fail to disclose or make obvious the limitations, “wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets faces two or more position sensors” and “wherein a position sensor facing one of the plurality of magnets is disposed closer to the optical axis than a position sensor facing an other of the plurality of magnets.”
Regarding the first limitation, “wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets faces two or more position sensors”, applicant argues that Lim fails to disclose or make obvious applicant’s claimed limitation and further asserts that the magnets of Lim are disclosed in pairs and thus do not satisfy the limitation. However, it is noted that the limitation “faces” does not require the magnet to directly face two sensors or give a direction in which the magnet is facing the sensors, thus a magnet of Lim is considered to face a plurality of sensors in different directions as shown in Figure 1 of the Lim reference. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the second limitation, “wherein a position sensor facing one of the plurality of magnets is disposed closer to the optical axis than a position sensor facing an other of the plurality of magnets”, applicant argues that the combination of Lim and Seo fails to disclose the claimed positional relationship. Applicant further notes that the magnets 1420 and 1720 are movable members while coils 1430 and 1730 are fixed members. It is noted that the claim language does not preclude such a configuration. Applicant further argues that the positional relationship is not an optimizable quantity but rather to a specific geometric arrangement. However, it is noted that the separation distances of the magnets and position sensors is an optimizable quantity that may be optimized for a number of reasons, including fitting the components into a specific area/footprint of the device. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Second, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of independent claim 12. Namely, applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose or make obvious the limitations “two position sensors facing the second OIS magnet, wherein the first OIS magnet comprises at least one of a first polarity region and a second polarity region having different areas on one surface facing the first OIS coil.” It is noted that the examiner uses the Seo reference to disclose two position sensors 1460 (see e.g. paragraph [0110]) facing the second OIS magnet 1420 (see e.g. paragraph [0093]). It was further noted that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first OIS magnet comprises at least one of a first polarity region and a second polarity region having different areas on one surface facing the first OIS coil, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for combining the references is to provide various sized magnets and positioning systems at various locations around the perimeter of the lens allows for preventing unwanted misalignment of the system. Optimizing the size/area of the components allows for a specific size/footprint of the device and would have predictable results. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 17.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085 A1) in view of Seo et al. (US 2021/0173223 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Lim et al. discloses a camera module comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-8):
a lens module 110 (denoted “lens barrel”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and Figure 8);
a carrier 120 (“denoted autofocusing unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and Figure 8) accommodating the lens module 110 (see e.g. Figure 8);
a housing 130 (see e.g. paragraph [0061] and Figure 8) accommodating the carrier 120 (see e.g. Figure 8 and paragraph [0061]); and
a shaking correction driver (see e.g. paragraph [0043] for optical image stabilizer (OIS)) comprising a plurality of magnets 11 (see e.g. paragraph [0043]) disposed on the lens module 110 (i.e. at least via carrier 120, see e.g. Figure 8), a plurality of coils 12 disposed on the housing 130 (i.e. via FPC 131, see e.g. paragraph [0062] and Figure 8), and three or more position sensors 20 (denoted “Hall sensors”, see e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0044]), wherein the shaking correction driver is configured to form driving force to move the lens module on a plane perpendicular to an optical axis (see e.g. paragraphs [0012]], [0044]-[0046]),
wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets 11 faces two or more position sensors 20 (see e.g. Figure 8).
Lim et al. fails to disclose
wherein a position sensor facing one of the plurality of magnets is disposed closer to the optical axis than a position sensor facing an other of the plurality of magnets.
However, Seo et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
wherein a position sensor 1360 (see e.g. paragraph [0080]) facing one of the plurality of magnets 1320 (see e.g. paragraph [0020]) is disposed closer to the optical axis than a position sensor 1460 (see e.g. paragraph [0110]) facing an other of the plurality of magnets 1420 (see e.g. paragraph [0110]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a position sensor facing one of the plurality of magnets is disposed closer to the optical axis than a position sensor facing an other of the plurality of magnets, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Lim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al. with wherein a position sensor facing one of the plurality of magnets is disposed closer to the optical axis than a position sensor facing an other of the plurality of magnets.
Providing magnets and positioning systems at various locations around the perimeter of the lens allows for preventing unwanted misalignment of the system.
In regard to claim 3, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the plurality of magnets 11 include one or more polarity regions N or S on one surface facing the coil 12 (see e.g. paragraph [0054] for N or S poles), and wherein the plurality of coils 12 are disposed to face the polarity regions N or S of the plurality of magnets, respectively 11 (see e.g. Figure 1).
In regard to claim 4, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
wherein the plurality of position sensors 20 are disposed inside at least some of the plurality of coils 12 (see e.g. Figures 4-5).
In regard to claim 5, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, and
wherein the plurality of magnets comprises: a first optical image stabilization (OIS) magnet 11 including at least one of a first polarity region N or S and a second polarity region N or S on one surface facing the coil 12; and
a second OIS magnet 11 including a third polarity region N or S and a fourth polarity region N or S on one surface facing the coil 12 (see e.g. Figure 1).
Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., fails to disclose
wherein the first polarity region and the second polarity region have different areas.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first polarity region and the second polarity region have different areas, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., with wherein the first polarity region and the second polarity region have different areas.
Providing various sized magnets and positioning systems at various locations around the perimeter of the lens allows for preventing unwanted misalignment of the system.
In regard to claim 6, Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, but fails to disclose
wherein among the plurality of position sensors, a position sensor facing the first OIS magnet is disposed to face a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein among the plurality of position sensors, a position sensor facing the first OIS magnet is disposed to face a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., with wherein among the plurality of position sensors, a position sensor facing the first OIS magnet is disposed to face a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region.
Optimized placement of the sensors, coils, and magnets would allow for preventing and mitigating unwanted misalignment of the system.
In regard to claim 7, Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region is disposed closer to the optical axis than other polarity regions.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region is disposed closer to the optical axis than other polarity regions, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device with wherein a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region is disposed closer to the optical axis than other polarity regions, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., with wherein a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region is disposed closer to the optical axis than other polarity regions.
Optimized placement of the sensors, coils, and magnets would allow for preventing and mitigating unwanted misalignment of the system.
In regard to claim 8, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein the first OIS magnet 11 faces one position sensor 20, and the second OIS magnet 11 faces two position sensors 20 (see e.g. Figure 1 and note that all magnets may be considered to face all sensors in some direction).
In regard to claim 9, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein the plurality of coils 12 comprise: a first OIS coil 12 facing the first OIS magnet 11 (see e.g. Figure 1); and a second OIS coil 12 facing the second OIS magnet 11 (see e.g. Figure 1), wherein the first OIS coil 12 comprises one coil 12 or two or more coils of different sizes (see e.g. Figure 1 and note first OIS coli comprises at least one coil).
In regard to claim 10, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a plurality of ball members disposed between the lens module and the carrier, wherein the plurality of ball members are in one-point contact with the lens module and the carrier, respectively.
However, Seo et al. discloses
a plurality of ball members 1370 (denoted “rolling member” see e.g. paragraph [0075] for ball shape and Figure 2) disposed between the lens module 1500 and the carrier 1100,
wherein the plurality of ball members 1370 are in one-point contact with the lens module 1500 and the carrier 1100, respectively.
Given the teachings of Seo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lin et al. with a plurality of ball members disposed between the lens module and the carrier, wherein the plurality of ball members are in one-point contact with the lens module and the carrier, respectively.
Providing ball members reduces friction between elements the elements in the device (see e.g. paragraph [0075] of Seo et al.).
In regard to claim 11, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
a focus adjustment unit (see e.g. paragraph [0056] for auto-focusing unit) including a magnet 11 disposed on the carrier 120 (see e.g. Figures 1 and 8), and a coil 12 and a position sensor 20 disposed in the housing 130 to face the magnet 11 (see e.g. Figure 8).
In regard to claim 12, Lim et al. discloses a camera module comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-8):
a lens module 110 (denoted “lens barrel”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and Figure 8);
a shake correction driver (see e.g. paragraph [0043] for optical image stabilizer (OIS)) configured to move the lens module 110 on a plane perpendicular to the optical axis (see e.g. paragraphs [0012]], [0044]-[0046]), wherein the shaking correction driver comprises:
a first sub-driver comprising a first optical image stabilization (OIS) magnet 11 (see e.g. paragraph [0043]) and a first OIS coil 12 (see e.g. paragraph [0062] and Figure 8) configured to form first axis direction driving force perpendicular to the optical axis (see e.g. paragraphs [0012]], [0044]-[0046]), and a position sensor 20 (denoted “Hall sensors”, see e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0044]) facing the first OIS magnet 11 (see e.g. Figures 1-8); and
a second sub-driver comprising a second OIS magnet 11 (see e.g. paragraph [0043]) and a second OIS coil 12 (see e.g. paragraph [0062] and Figure 8) configured to form second axis direction driving force perpendicular to the optical axis and the first axis (see e.g. paragraphs [0012]], [0044]-[0046]).
Lim et al. fails to disclose
two position sensors facing the second OIS magnet,
wherein the first OIS magnet comprises at least one of a first polarity region and a second polarity region having different areas on one surface facing the first OIS coil.
However, Seo et al. discloses
two position sensors 1460 (see e.g. paragraph [0110]) facing the second OIS magnet 1420 (see e.g. paragraph [0093]).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first OIS magnet comprises at least one of a first polarity region and a second polarity region having different areas on one surface facing the first OIS coil, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Seo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al. with two position sensors facing the second OIS magnet, wherein the first OIS magnet comprises at least one of a first polarity region and a second polarity region having different areas on one surface facing the first OIS coil.
Providing various sized magnets and positioning systems at various locations around the perimeter of the lens allows for preventing unwanted misalignment of the system.
In regard to claim 13, Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a position sensor facing the first OIS magnet faces a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a position sensor facing the first OIS magnet faces a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., with wherein a position sensor facing the first OIS magnet faces a polarity region having a larger area among the first polarity region and the second polarity region.
Providing various sized magnets and positioning systems at various locations around the perimeter of the lens allows for preventing unwanted misalignment of the system.
In regard to claim 14, Lim et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a position sensor facing the first OIS magnet is disposed closer to the optical axis than a position sensor facing the second OIS magnet.
However, Seo et al. discloses
wherein a position sensor 1360 facing the first OIS magnet 1320 is disposed closer to the optical axis than a position sensor 1460 facing the second OIS magnet 1420 (see e.g. Figure 2).
Given the teachings of Seo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al. with wherein a position sensor facing the first OIS magnet is disposed closer to the optical axis than a position sensor facing the second OIS magnet.
Providing magnets and positioning systems at various locations around the perimeter of the lens allows for preventing unwanted misalignment of the system.
In regard to claim 15, Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first OIS coil and the second OIS coil are provided in a number corresponding to each polarity region included in the first OIS magnet and the second OIS magnet.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first OIS coil and the second OIS coil are provided in a number corresponding to each polarity region included in the first OIS magnet and the second OIS magnet, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a configuration wherein the first OIS coil and the second OIS coil are provided in a number corresponding to each polarity region included in the first OIS magnet and the second OIS magnet, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al., in view of Seo et al. with wherein the first OIS coil and the second OIS coil are provided in a number corresponding to each polarity region included in the first OIS magnet and the second OIS magnet.
Providing a corresponding number of coils and magnets would result in finer control of the system.
In regard to claim 16, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
a carrier 120 (“denoted autofocusing unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and Figure 8) for accommodating the lens module 110 (see e.g. Figure 8).
Lim et al. fails to disclose
a plurality of ball members disposed between the lens module and the carrier, wherein the plurality of ball members are in one-point contact with the lens module and the carrier, respectively.
However, Seo et al. discloses
a plurality of ball members 1370 (denoted “rolling member” see e.g. paragraph [0075] for ball shape and Figure 2) disposed between the lens module 1500 and the carrier 1100,
wherein the plurality of ball members 1370 are in one-point contact with the lens module 1500 and the carrier 1100, respectively.
Given the teachings of Seo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lin et al. with a plurality of ball members disposed between the lens module and the carrier, wherein the plurality of ball members are in one-point contact with the lens module and the carrier, respectively.
Providing ball members reduces friction between elements the elements in the device (see e.g. paragraph [0075] of Seo et al.).
In regard to claim 17, Lim et al. discloses a camera module comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-8):
a lens barrel 110 (see e.g. paragraph [0057] and Figure 8) comprising one or more lenses 111 (denoted lens group, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and Figure 8) disposed on an optical axis;
a carrier 120 (“denoted autofocusing unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and Figure 8) accommodating the lens barrel 110, and configured to move in the optical axis direction; (see e.g. paragraphs [0012]], [0044]-[0046])
a shake correction driver (see e.g. paragraph [0043] for optical image stabilizer (OIS)) configured to move the module 110 in the plane (see e.g. paragraphs [0012]], [0044]-[0046]), relative to the carrier 120, and comprising:
a first optical image stabilization (OIS) magnet 11 (see e.g. paragraph [0043]) disposed on the lens barrel 110;
a first OIS coil 12 (see e.g. paragraph [0062] and Figure 8) disposed to face the first OIS magnet 11 in a first direction in the plane;
a second OIS magnet 12 disposed on the lens barrel 110;
a second OIS coil 11 disposed to face the second OIS magnet 12 in a second direction in the plane perpendicular to the first direction (see e.g. Figure 8),
wherein the first OIS magnet 11 comprises a first polarity region N or S extending in the second direction and facing the first OIS coil 12 (see e.g. Figures 1, 8),
wherein the second OIS magnet 11 comprises a second polarity region N or S extending in the first direction and facing the second OIS coil 12 (see e.g. Figures 1, 8).
Lim et al. fails to disclose
a lens holder accommodating the lens barrel, and configured to move in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis;
wherein an area of the first polarity region is greater than an area of the second polarity region.
However, Seo et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
a lens holder 1700 (see e.g. paragraph [0088]) accommodating the lens barrel 1500, and configured to move in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis (see e.g. paragraph [0089]).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein an area of the first polarity region is greater than an area of the second polarity region, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Seo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al. with a lens holder accommodating the lens barrel, and configured to move in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis; wherein an area of the first polarity region is greater than an area of the second polarity region.
Providing a lens holder would allow for additional stability of the lens holder. Further, providing various sized magnets and positioning systems at various locations around the perimeter of the lens allows for preventing unwanted misalignment of the system.
In regard to claim 18, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17, and
wherein the first OIS magnet 11 comprises a third polarity region N or S extending in the second direction and facing the first OIS coil 12 (see e.g. Figures 1 and 8).
Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., fails to disclose
an area of the third polarity region is less than an area of the first polarity region.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using an area of the third polarity region is less than an area of the first polarity region, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al., in view of Seo et al., with an area of the third polarity region is less than an area of the first polarity region.
Providing various sized magnets and positioning systems at various locations around the perimeter of the lens allows for preventing unwanted misalignment of the system.
In regard to claim 19, Lim et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, and
a first OIS position sensor 20 disposed in the first OIS coil 12 configured to detect a position of the first OIS magnet 11 (see e.g. Figure 1).
Lim et al. fails to disclose
two or more second OIS position sensors disposed in the second OIS coil configured to detect a position of the second OIS magnet, wherein the first OIS position sensor is disposed closer to the optical axis than the second OIS position sensor.
However, Seo et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
two or more second OIS position sensors 1460 or 1760 disposed in the second OIS coil 1430 or 1730 configured to detect a position of the second OIS magnet 1420 or 1720 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0110]).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first OIS position sensor is disposed closer to the optical axis than the second OIS position sensor, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Seo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lim et al. with two or more second OIS position sensors disposed in the second OIS coil configured to detect a position of the second OIS magnet, wherein the first OIS position sensor is disposed closer to the optical axis than the second OIS position sensor.
Providing various sized magnets and positioning systems at various locations around the perimeter of the lens allows for preventing unwanted misalignment of the system.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights