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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/2/2026.
Amendments to the specification and to claims 1, 8, 12-16, 18-20, filed 4/2/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Corrected FIGs. 4, 5, 8A, 9B, 11B, 12C, 16(A-C), and 19, filed 4/2/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments, the previous drawing objections are withdrawn, and most of the previous claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn except for those left unaddressed by the recent amendments. Objections to the specification are maintained due to the persistence of various issues as identified below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pgs. 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Lee1 does not disclose the newly amended limitation of claim 1, stating that
“Lee1's support member ("tilting guide part") 280 is not disposed between the housing 40 and the movable body ("mover") 230 to support dual-axis rotation (see Lee1 at Figure 4)” – Remarks pg. 9
Examiner disagrees and will note that Lee1’s FIG. 4 plainly depicts their tilting guide part (support member 280) positioned behind/adjacent to the mover (movable body 230), before the two are both disposed in and enclosed by housing 40. Evidently, the tilting guide part must be disposed between the housing and mover as claimed. (Please note that FIG. 4 only provides a sectional view of housing 40 – with the majority having been cut away for illustrative purposes, as indicated by housing 40’s wavy boundary towards the left side of FIG. 4. Refer also to FIGs. 2-3, which Lee1 gives with more generalized discourse, and which provide a more complete view of housing 40.)
Examiner notes also that dual-axis rotation is also quite plainly featured/supported. See ¶ 52 cited in the updated rejection below; optionally refer also to FIG. 1 and ¶s 38-39 for more generalized discourse (i.e. with axes C1/P analogous to ¶ 52’s rotation axes C3/C4 cited below.)
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is objected to because the specification is replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
In ¶ 5, lines 2-3, the parenthesized statement is grammatically ambiguous (it is not clear whether the Y- or Z-axis is the optical axis). Furthermore, the word “tiling” that follows is apparently misplaced/incorrect and should likely be struck from the sentence
In ¶ 6, lines 1-4, the first sentence is generally defective to the point of unclarity and imprecision. “camera modules” do not have “needs” – “according to the needs of” should probably be replaced by “due to a need for” or similar, “a large space constraint for arranging […]” is neither idiomatic nor clear, “secure a sufficient space” appears to be improper and should read “secure sufficient space” (space is generally uncountable), and “an OIS […] may be tilted or moved” is broadly unclear due to the overloaded grammar and/or lack of punctuation – a basic remedy may involve offsetting “or the camera module including the lens and the image sensor itself” by commas or parenthesis.
¶ 24 copies ¶ 26 verbatim in an apparent redundancy
In ¶ 104, lines 7-9, the penultimate sentences offer “a mobile terminal” as an example of an electronic device. The final sentence then lists examples where “mobile terminals” is listed twice. This is improperly redundant and unnecessary
In ¶ 184, lines 1-2 recite “the first seating groove 1131Sla and the second seating groove 1131S2a may be disposed to overlap each other in the second direction (Y-axis direction)”. However, this appears to conflict with the disclosed drawings – e.g., FIG. 8A. Apparently, the stated excerpt should read “the first seating groove 1131Sla and the second seating groove 1131S2a may be disposed to overlap each other when viewed along the second direction (Y-axis direction)”.
In ¶ 12.E of the 1/2/2026 Non-Final Rejection, it was similarly noted that such conflicting descriptions apparently persistent throughout the specification. Though the recent amendments addressed some of these issues, Examiner notes that many continue to persist (e.g. ¶s 24, 26, 27, 30, 165, etc.)
In general, the specification is not coherently organized and includes various descriptions appearing to be either out of place or simply unclear, in large part because the written description is not consistently correlated with the relevant drawings. Several passages appear to describe specific structural features including positional/geometric relationships – but the corresponding drawings do not clearly corroborate these descriptions, and/or relevant reference numerals are selectively and sporadically omitted (perhaps due to the fact that these features are not actually being shown in the drawings).
As a result, it is not particularly clear whether such passages describe features/embodiments (1) shown in the corresponding drawings, (2) illustrated/described elsewhere, or (3) not illustrated at all. This makes much of the written description difficult to follow and hinders understanding of the invention’s structure. (In case of (2), such drafting deficiencies may often improperly require readers to cross-compare multiple drawings that Applicant has failed to identify in the relevant passages, thereby placing undue burden on the reader to simply guess which drawings/features actually support the written description and/or rely on their own imagination. This is unnecessarily cumbersome and highly improper.)
See ¶ 198, for example, apparently part of a discussion related to features shown in FIGs. 8(A-E) – yet neither the “tilting guide part”, nor its “first protruding portion” or “base” are identified by reference numerals in this paragraph (despite being identified elsewhere in the specification/drawings), nor are they shown in any of the stated figures to support the written description. Similarly unclear and deficient descriptions appear throughout the specification (e.g. ¶ 150 and 162, apparently parts of discussion related to FIGs. 6(A-C) – but with none of the “first coil”, “second coil”, “third-first coil”, “third-second coil”, “first board unit”, “first magnetic part”, “second magnetic part”, “fastening member”, “member base unit”, etc. identified by reference numerals, nor are they shown in any of these figures.)
See also the accompanying drawing objection raised below to complement the current specification objection.
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one end of the first coil and one end of the second coil that are electrically connected, and the other end of the first coil and the other end of the second coil that are electrically connected (claim 14) must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
In relation to ¶ 6F’s specification objection (see above), the drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show various structural features/ relationships described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 20, line 3, “have a smaller areas” should read “have smaller areas”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, lines 2-3 recite “the optical axis direction” when establishing geometric/structural relationships. However, there are multiple optical axis directions in the current application; see e.g. ¶ 106 and the clarifying limitation in claim 7 (“the optical axis direction corresponds to…”). It is therefore unclear what is exactly meant by “the optical axis direction” the stated instance. For examination purposes, “the optical axis direction” shall be read as “a moving direction of light reflected by the optical member” as in claim 7 and as in the most of the specification (¶s 339, 360, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 20210199918 A1, hereinafter “Lee1”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee1 discloses (see FIG. 4, ¶s 49-65) a camera actuator (optical path conversion module 20) comprising:
a housing (40);
a mover (movable body 230) disposed in the housing (40) and including an optical member (optical path converter 210);
a tilting guide part (support member 280) configured to guide tilting of the mover (movable body 230), wherein the tilting guide part (support member 280) is disposed between the housing (40) and the mover (movable body 230) to support dual-axis rotation (¶ 52: “movable body 230 may be rotatable with respect to the housing 40 […] may rotate about a first rotation axis C3 […] may rotate about a second rotation axis C4); and
a driving unit (first/second driving units 250/260) disposed in the housing (40) and configured to drive the mover (movable body 230),
wherein the driving unit (first/second driving units 250/260) includes a first magnet (first driving magnet 252) and a third-first magnet (second driving magnet 262) disposed on one surface of the mover (movable body 230), and a second magnet (first driving magnet 252) and a third-second magnet (second driving magnet 262) disposed on an other surface opposite to the one surface (note ¶ 57: “both side surfaces of the housing 40 may open to expose the magnet members 252 and 262”), and
wherein the first magnet and the second magnet (first driving magnets 252) are closer to the tilting guide part (support member 280) than the third-first magnet and the third-second magnet (second driving magnets 262) are and have areas (¶ 63: “sizes”) different from areas of the third-first magnet and the third-second magnet (second driving magnets 262).
Regarding claim 2, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 1.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4)
wherein the first magnet (first driving magnet 252) and the second magnet (first driving magnet 252) correspond to each other (i.e. oppose each other), and
wherein the third-first magnet (second driving magnet 262) and the third-second magnet (second driving magnet 262) correspond to each other.
Regarding claim 3, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 1.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4, ¶s 61-63)
wherein the first magnet (first driving magnet 252) includes a first-first magnet area (i.e. a N pole) and a first-second magnet area (i.e. a S pole) having different polarities,
wherein the second magnet (first driving magnet 252) includes a second-first magnet area (i.e. a N pole) and a second-second magnet area (i.e. a S pole) having different polarities,
wherein the third-first magnet (second driving magnet 262) includes a third-first magnet area (i.e. a N pole) and a third-second magnet area (i.e. a S pole) having different polarities, and
wherein the third-second magnet (second driving magnet 262) includes a third-third magnet area (i.e. a N pole) and a third-fourth magnet area (i.e. a S pole) having different polarities.
Regarding claim 4, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4, ¶s 61-63):
wherein a first polarity orientation differs from a second polarity orientation,
wherein the first polarity orientation is an orientation from the third-first magnet area (i.e. second driving magnet 262’s N pole) to the third-second magnet area (i.e. second driving magnet 262’s S pole) or an orientation from the third-third magnet area (i.e. second driving magnet 262’s N pole) to the third-fourth magnet area (i.e. second driving magnet 262’s S pole), and
wherein the second polarity orientation is an orientation from the first-first magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s N pole) to the first-second magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s S pole) or an orientation from the second-first magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s N pole) to the second-second magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s S pole).
(¶ 61: “The first driving magnet 252 may be polarized in a direction of the first optical axis C1.”
¶ 62: “The second driving magnet 262 may be polarized in a direction intersecting the first optical axis C1.”)
Regarding claim 5, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4, ¶s 61-63):
wherein the first-first magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s N pole) has the same polarity as any one of the second-first magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s N pole) and the second-second magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s S pole), and
wherein the first-second magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s S pole) has the same polarity as the other of the second-first magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s N pole) and the second-second magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s S pole).
Regarding claim 6, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 5.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4, ¶s 61-63):
wherein the first-first magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s N pole) and the first-second magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s S pole) are sequentially disposed (¶ 61: “sequentially formed”),
wherein the second-first magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s N pole) is disposed above the second-second magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s S pole) (i.e. in the direction of the first optical axis C1), and
wherein the first-second magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s S pole) has a different polarity from the second-first magnet area (first driving magnet 252’s N pole).
Regarding claim 7, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 3.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4, ¶ 63):
wherein a length (w1) of the first magnet (first driving magnet 252) in an optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction differs from a length (h2) of the third-first magnet or the third-second magnet (second driving magnets 262) in the optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction, and
wherein the optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction corresponds to a moving direction of light reflected by the optical member (optical path converter 210) (see also ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 8, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 1.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4, ¶ 63) wherein a length (w1) of the first magnet (first driving magnet 252) in an optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction corresponding to a moving direction of light reflected by the optical member (optical path converter 210) is the same as a length (w1) of the second magnet (first driving magnet 252) in the optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction.
Regarding claim 9, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 1.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4, ¶s 49-65) wherein the driving unit (first/second driving units 250/260) includes a driving coil including a first coil (first driving coil 254) facing the first magnet (first driving magnet 252), a second coil (first driving coil 254) facing the second magnet (first driving magnet 252), a third-first coil (second driving coil 264) facing the third-first magnet (second driving magnet 262), and a third-second coil (second driving coil 264) facing the third-second magnet (second driving magnet 262).
Regarding claim 10, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 9.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4) wherein a length of the first coil (first driving coil 254) in an optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction differs from a length of the first coil (first driving coil 254) in a vertical (first optical axis C1) direction.
Regarding claim 11, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 9.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4) wherein a length of the third-first coil (second driving coil 264) in an optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction differs from a length of the third-first coil (second driving coil 264) in a vertical (first optical axis C1) direction.
Regarding claim 12, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 9.
Lee1 further discloses wherein a length of the first coil (first driving coil 254) in an optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction corresponding to a moving direction of light reflected by the optical member (optical path converter 210) is smaller than a length of the third-first coil (second driving coil 264) in the optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction. (Shown most clearly in FIG. 8’s side view, with second optical axis C2 spanning the horizontal)
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 9.
Lee1 further discloses wherein the first coil (first driving coil 254) and the third-first coil (second driving coil 264) at least partially overlap when viewed along an optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction corresponding to a moving direction of light reflected by the optical member (optical path converter 210), and the second coil (first driving coil 254) and the third-second coil (second driving coil 264) at least partially overlap when viewed along the optical axis (second optical axis C2) direction. (FIG. 4 shows first and second driving coils, 254 and 264, arranged side-by-side along the second optical axis C2 direction. When viewed along this direction, the pairs of coils will therefore overlap. See also FIG. 15 for a clearer top-down perspective with second optical axis C2 spanning the vertical.)
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee1, as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Kuphaldt (NPL entitled Lessons in Electric Circuits).
Regarding claim 14, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 9.
Lee1 does not disclose:
wherein the first coil and the second coil each has two ends,
wherein one end of the first coil and one end of the second coil are electrically connected, and the other end of the first coil and the other end of the second coil are electrically connected.
Lee1 and Kuphaldt are commonly related to inductive circuit elements.
Kuphaldt discloses (see pgs. 490-491 and the annotated FIG. below):
wherein the first coil (L1) and the second coil (L2) each has two ends,
wherein one end of the first coil (L1) and one end of the second coil (L2) are electrically connected, and the other end of the first coil (L1) and the other end of the second coil (L2) are electrically connected.
PNG
media_image1.png
487
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Circuit diagram from pg. 491 of Kuphaldt is annotated to identify electrically connected ends and of inductors/coils L1 and L2 )]
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee1 and Kuphaldt in order to reduce effective inductance (i.e. to reduce electrical inertia and quicken response) and resistance (i.e. for higher current at a given voltage) according to standard circuit principles (Kuphaldt pg. 491).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee1, as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Lee et al (US 20220100058, hereinafter “Lee2”).
Regarding claim 16, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 9.
Lee1 does not clearly disclose wherein at least a portion of the tilting guide part overlaps the first coil or the second coil when viewed along a horizontal direction.
Lee1 and Lee2 are commonly related to actuators for light folders in camera modules.
Lee2 discloses (see FIGs. 10, ¶s 149-161) wherein at least a portion of the tilting guide part (rotating plate 1140) overlaps the first coil (second coil 1152a) or the second coil (fourth coil 1152b) when viewed along a horizontal (X-axis) direction.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee1 and Lee2 in order to generate a more desirable force/torque profile or to otherwise achieve a better support or fit for the tilting guide part.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee1, as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 17, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 9.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4, ¶ 64) wherein the driving unit (first/second driving units 250/260) includes a Hall sensor unit including a first Hall sensor (first position detecting sensor 256) disposed outside of the first coil (first driving coil 254), a second Hall sensor (first position detecting sensor 256) disposed outside of the second coil (first driving coil 254), a third-first Hall sensor (second position detecting sensor 266) disposed in the third-first coil (second driving coil 264), and a third-second Hall sensor (second position detecting sensor 266) disposed in the third-second coil (second driving coil 264).
Lee1 does not disclose that the first Hall sensor disposed in the first coil or the second Hall sensor disposed in the second coil. However, based on the arrangement of third-first/third-second coil (second driving coil 264) and third-first/third-second Hall sensor (second positioning sensor 266) cited above, it is readily apparent that the claimed sensor-in-coil configuration is already known to practitioners of the art.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee1 in order to optimize Hall sensor positions for desirable performance (sensitivity, signal-to-noise ratio, etc.) or to make more efficient use of space – since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee1, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Lee et al (US 20220100058, hereinafter “Lee2”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 17.
Modified Lee1 does not disclose wherein lengths of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor in an optical axis direction corresponding to a moving direction of light reflected by the optical member differ from lengths of the third-first Hall sensor and the third-second Hall sensor in the optical axis direction.
Lee1 and Lee2 are commonly related to actuators for light folders in camera modules.
Lee2 discloses (see FIGs. 9-11, ¶s 149-171) wherein lengths of the first Hall sensor (second position sensor 1172a) and the second Hall sensor (fourth position sensor 1172b) in an optical axis (Y-axis) direction corresponding to a moving direction of light reflected by the optical member (reflective member 1110) differ from lengths of the third-first Hall sensor (first position sensor 1171a) and the third-second Hall sensor (third position sensor 1171b) in the optical axis (Y axis) direction.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee1 and Lee2 in order to optimize Hall sensor geometries for desired performance (sensitivity, signal-to-noise ratio, etc.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 17.
Modified Lee1 does not clearly disclose wherein the first Hall sensor and the third-first Hall sensor at least partially overlap when viewed along the optical axis direction.
Lee1 and Lee2 are commonly related to actuators for light folders in camera modules.
Lee2 discloses (see FIGs. 11, ¶ 171) wherein the first Hall sensor (second position sensor 1172a) and the third-first Hall sensor (first position sensor 1171a) at least partially overlap when viewed along the optical axis (Y-axis) direction. (FIGs. 10-11 provides top and side perspectives showing first and second position sensors, 1171a and 1172a, arranged side-by-side along the optical axis or Y. When viewed along this direction, the pairs of sensors will therefore overlap.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee1 and Lee2 in order to optimize Hall sensor positions for desirable performance (sensitivity, signal-to-noise ratio, etc.) or to make efficient use of space.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee1, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, Lee1 discloses the camera actuator of claim 1.
Lee1 further discloses (see FIG. 4) wherein the first magnet and the second magnet (first driving magnets 252) are closer to the tilting guide part (support member 280) than the third-first magnet and the third-second magnet (second driving magnets 262).
Lee1 does not directly disclose that the first magnet and the second magnet have a smaller areas than those of the third-first magnet and the third-second magnet. However, such features only distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art by a mere resizing of parts (i.e. the first and second magnets).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee1 in order to achieve desirable magnetic field/force profiles or to make efficient use of space – since it has been held that changes in shape are generally within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights