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 7/6/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 1-8, 12-16, 24, and 27 in view of You et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0061317 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 1-8, 12-16, 24, and 27 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-3, 14, and 24 in view of Oh (Pub. No. US 2005/0238348 A1; hereafter Oh) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the magnet 73 of Oh is an integral part of the rotor, and therefore does not reasonably read on the claim limitation wherein “the mover is connected to an outer peripheral side surface of the rotating support” as called for in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, Examiner would note that the magnets 67a-b in Applicant’s invention are also integrally formed with the rotating support (i.e. the rotor). See, for example, paragraph [00129] of Applicant’s specification which states that “the first magnet 67a may be embedded in the rotating support 63 by using an injection molding processing technology.” Therefore, the fact that the magnet of Oh is integral to the rotor does not distinguish it from the instant application. Furthermore, the claim limitation wherein the mover is “connected” to the rotating support would read on either integral or separate components, as when assembled, either configuration is “connected.”
Applicant then alleges that “[t]here is no separate ‘rotating support’ in Oh to which the magnet is fixedly connected on an outer peripheral side surface” (see Applicant’s remarks p. 10, emphasis original). Applicant is in error. As can be seen in Oh Fig. 3 (an annotated and expanded view of which is provided below), item 75 (which is construed as the “rotating support” as called for in claim 1) has an “outer and peripheral side surface” to which the magnet (mover) 73 is fixedly connected. Oh explicitly states that the sleeve tube 75 (corresponding to the rotating support) and the magnet 73 (corresponding to the mover) are separate components, and that the magnet is fixedly mounted on an outer peripheral side surface of the rotating support, as called for in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 Expanded view of Fig. 3
Applicant then argues that the configuration of the coils in the stator of Oh are distinct from those in the instant application. However, the claims do not recite the coils, or have any limitations regarding the disposition of the coils on the stator. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As to Applicant’s assertion that the configuration of the coils of Oh do not qualify as “facing” the mover, Examiner would first note that the claim limitation is that the “stator” is connected so as to be “facing” the mover, not that any coil or coils are facing the mover. Even were the claim interpreted as called for by Applicant, Applicant has not provided any definition of the term “facing” which would render the stator (or coils) as not reasonably construed as “facing” the mover. The term “to face,” in the broadest reasonable interpretation, means “to be situated opposite to” (Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Face, v., III.10.b. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved September 10, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1758199603), and the stator of Oh under the broadest reasonable definition is clearly facing the mover, as called for in the claims.
Applicant subsequently argues that the blades of Oh are not “slidably connected to the rotating support” as called for in the claims because they are instead driven by pins 71 on the plate 77 of the rotor 70 (of which the rotating support 75 is a part). Initially, the claims do not require that the rotating member is directly slidably connected to the blades, so the presence of intervening members does not preclude Oh from reading on the limitation that the rotating member is slidably connected to the blades. Secondly, Applicant’s blades also have intervening members like the drive pins 631 and the gasket 66 (as shown in Fig. 18 of Applicant’s specification). Applicant’s arguments that Oh does not read on claim 1 as currently presented are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections made in view of Oh are maintained.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments rest on the perceived deficiency of Oh, addressed above, and therefore are similarly unpersuasive. The rejections of 2-3, 14, 24, and 27 made in view of Oh, and the 103 rejections in view of Oh and various other references are similarly maintained and are reproduced below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 14, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (Pub. No. US 2005/0238348 A1; hereafter Oh).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses a variable aperture (see Oh Fig. 7, item 50), comprising a fixing base (see Oh Fig. 2, item 51); a rotating support (see Oh Fig. 2, items 75 and 77);a mover (see Oh Fig. 2, item 73);a stator (see Oh Fig. 2, item 52a); and a plurality of blades (see Oh Fig. 2, item 40), wherein: the rotating support is positioned on an inner side of the fixing base (see Oh Fig. 2, item 70, which is inside base 51) and rotatably connected to the fixing base (see Oh paragraph [0073] “rotor 70 is rotatably installed inside the stator assembly 51), the rotating support enclosing a space (see Oh Fig. 2, space enclosed by 70); the plurality of blades jointly enclose a light transmission hole (see Oh Fig. 8B), the light transmission hole being in communication with the space (see Oh Fig. 2, optical axis L which goes through the blades and the hole in rotor 70), each blade being rotatably connected to the fixing base and slidably connected to the rotating support (see Oh Fig. 2, blades are rotatable about pins 65c and slide with respect to pins 71); and the mover is connected to an outer peripheral side surface of the rotating support and faces the stator (see Oh Fig. 2, items 73 and 75, they are connected one on top of the other, including their outer peripheral sides), the stator being connected to the fixing base (see Oh Fig. 2, items 51 and 52a); and facing the mover (they are concentric and can therefore be construed as facing each other), the mover being configured to drive, in cooperation with the stator, the rotating support to rotate relative to the fixing base (see Oh paragraph [0072] “When an electrical signal is input to the coil 52a in a designated pattern, the fixed sectors 53a, 54a are magnetized according to the input pattern of the electrical signal. A magnetic force is generated between the magnetic fixed sectors 53a, 54a and the rotor 70, and by the magnetic force the rotor 70 rotates at a designated degree at a time.”), each blade being configured to slide relative to the rotating support and to rotate relative to the fixing base (see Oh Fig. 2, blades are rotatable about pins 65c and slide with respect to pins 71), size of an aperture of the light transmission hole of the plurality of blades being variable (see Oh Figs. 8A, 8B, and 9, item 65a).
Regarding claim 2, Oh discloses the variable aperture according to claim 1, wherein the mover is a first magnet, and the stator is a first coil (see Oh Fig. 2, items 73 and 52a).
Regarding claim 3, Oh discloses the variable aperture according to claim 2, wherein a polarization direction of the first magnet is parallel to a circumferential direction of the rotating support (see Oh paragraph [0074] “the N-pole and the S-pole of the magnet 73 are spaced apart in the rotational direction.”).
Regarding claim 14, Oh discloses the variable aperture according to claim 2, wherein the fixing base includes a plurality of rotation columns disposed at intervals (see Oh Fig. 2, item 65c), and the rotating support includes a plurality of guide columns disposed at intervals (see Oh Fig. 2, item 71); and each blade is provided with a rotation hole and a guide hole that are disposed at intervals, the plurality of rotation columns extending through the rotation holes of the plurality of blades in a one-to-one correspondence, and the plurality of guide columns are slidably connected to the guide holes of the plurality of blades in a one-to-one correspondence (see Oh Fig. 4, items 41a-43a, 41b-43b, 65c, and 71).
Regarding claim 24, Oh discloses a camera module (see Oh Fig. 1, item 10), comprising a lens assembly (see Oh Fig. 1, item 30); and a variable aperture (see Oh Fig. 1, item 40) connected to the lens assembly and positioned on a light inlet side of the lens assembly (see Oh Fig. 1, items 40 and 30), the variable aperture (60) comprising a fixing base (see Oh Fig. 2, item 51); a rotating support (see Oh Fig. 2, items 75 and 77);a mover (see Oh Fig. 2, item 73);a stator (see Oh Fig. 2, item 52a); and a plurality of blades (see Oh Fig. 2, item 40), wherein: the rotating support is positioned on an inner side of the fixing base (see Oh Fig. 2, item 70, which is inside base 51) and rotatably connected to the fixing base (see Oh paragraph [0073] “rotor 70 is rotatably installed inside the stator assembly 51), the rotating support enclosing a space (see Oh Fig. 2, space enclosed by 70); the plurality of blades jointly enclose a light transmission hole (see Oh Fig. 8B), the light transmission hole being in communication with the space (see Oh Fig. 2, optical axis L which goes through the blades and the hole in rotor 70), each blade being rotatably connected to the fixing base and slidably connected to the rotating support (see Oh Fig. 2, blades are rotatable about pins 65c and slide with respect to pins 71); and the mover is connected to an outer peripheral side surface of the rotating support and faces the stator (see Oh Fig. 2, items 73 and 75, they are connected one on top of the other, including their outer peripheral sides), the stator being connected to the fixing base (see Oh Fig. 2, items 51 and 52a); and facing the mover (they are concentric and can therefore be construed as facing each other), the mover being configured to drive, in cooperation with the stator, the rotating support to rotate relative to the fixing base (see Oh paragraph [0072] “When an electrical signal is input to the coil 52a in a designated pattern, the fixed sectors 53a, 54a are magnetized according to the input pattern of the electrical signal. A magnetic force is generated between the magnetic fixed sectors 53a, 54a and the rotor 70, and by the magnetic force the rotor 70 rotates at a designated degree at a time.”), each blade being configured to slide relative to the rotating support and to rotate relative to the fixing base (see Oh Fig. 2, blades are rotatable about pins 65c and slide with respect to pins 71), size of an aperture of the light transmission hole of the plurality of blades being variable in accordance with the position of the plurality of blades (see Oh Figs. 8A, 8B, and 9, item 65a).
Regarding claim 27, Oh discloses the camera module according to claim 24, wherein the mover is a first magnet (see Oh Fig. 2, item 73) and the stator is a first coil (see Oh Fig. 2, item 52a) and a polarization direction of the first magnet is parallel to a circumferential direction of the rotating support (see Oh paragraph [0074] “the N-pole and the S-pole of the magnet 73 are spaced apart in the rotational direction.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Iwasaki et al. (US Patent No. 5,140,212; hereafter Iwasaki).
Regarding claims 4-6, Oh discloses the variable aperture according to claim 2, but does not specifically disclose that the outer peripheral side surface of the rotating support recesses toward a center of the rotating support to form a first mounting groove, and at least a part of the first magnet is connected to the first mounting groove; [claim 5] wherein: the variable aperture further comprises a second magnet and a second coil; the second magnet is connected to the outer peripheral side surface of the rotating support; the second coil is fixedly connected to the fixing base, and faces the second magnet; and the second magnet is configured to: when the second coil is powered on, the second magnet is subject to an acting force, that drives the rotating support to rotate relative to the fixing base, wherein a direction in which the second magnet drives the rotating support to rotate relative to the fixing base is the same as a direction in which the first magnet drives the rotating support to rotate relative to the fixing base; [claim 6] wherein the second magnet and the first magnet are center-symmetric with respect to the center of the rotating support.
Iwasaki discloses a variable aperture device wherein the outer peripheral side surface of the rotating support recesses toward a center of the rotating support to form a first mounting groove, and at least a part of the first magnet is connected to the first mounting groove (see Iwasaki Figs. 1 and 3, items 21 and 24); [claim 5] wherein: the variable aperture further comprises a second magnet and a second coil; the second magnet is connected to the outer peripheral side surface of the rotating support (see Iwasaki Figs. 1 and 3, items 24 and 21); the second coil is fixedly connected to the fixing base, and faces the second magnet (see Iwasaki Figs. 1, item 34. While Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose that the coil 34 comprises a plurality of coils that face the plurality of magnets, in order to generate the driving force called for in the Iwasaki reference the coils must face the magnets, as opposed to being wrapped around the circumference of the base. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide coils for each of the magnets in order to increase the drive control of the system); and the second magnet is configured to: when the second coil is powered on, the second magnet is subject to an acting force, that drives the rotating support to rotate relative to the fixing base, wherein a direction in which the second magnet drives the rotating support to rotate relative to the fixing base is the same as a direction in which the first magnet drives the rotating support to rotate relative to the fixing base (while not specifically stated, it would be obvious to have the magnets drive the device in the same direction so that the forces do not work at cross-purposes to one another); [claim 6] wherein the second magnet and the first magnet are center-symmetric with respect to the center of the rotating support (see Iwasaki Figs. 1, 3, and 6, which show that the magnets are symmetrically placed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the rotor and stator of Oh to have embedded magnets and coils like that in Iwasaki in order to reduce the amount of space required to mount the components for the aperture drive system.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Chen et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0124144 A1; hereafter Chen).
Regarding claim 17, Oh discloses the variable aperture according to claim 2, the variable aperture comprises an initial state (see Oh Fig. 9), an intermediate state (see Oh Fig. 8A), and an end state (see Oh Fig. 8B), wherein: when the variable aperture (60) is in the initial state or the intermediate state, a maximum aperture of the light transmission hole (650) of the plurality of blades (65) has a dimension that is less than an aperture of the light transmission hole (see Oh Figs. 8A and 8B, which show the blades opening is smaller than the light transmission hole); and when the variable aperture is in the end state, a minimum aperture of the light transmission hole of the plurality of blades has a dimension that is greater than or equal to the aperture of the light transmission hole (see Oh Fig. 9).
Oh does not disclose that the variable aperture further comprises a gasket, connected to the rotating support and is positioned on a side of the plurality of blades facing the rotating support, the gasket including a light transmission hole, in communication with the light transmission hole of the plurality of blades and the space of the rotating support.
Chen discloses a variable aperture comprising a gasket, connected to the rotating support and is positioned on a side of the plurality of blades facing the rotating support, the gasket including a light transmission hole, in communication with the light transmission hole of the plurality of blades and the space of the rotating support (see Chen Fig. 1, item 1-102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a gasket like that in Chen in the device of Oh in order to provide further structural support for the rotating member and to aid in preventing unwanted light from reaching the image sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13, 15, 16 and 18 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.
Finality
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.
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 9/11/2026
