Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-6 are now pending in the application. Claims 1, and 4-6 have been amended and claims 2-3 have been canceled by the Applicant. Previous claim 5 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 5.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application KR 10-2023-0061406, filed 05/12/2023 (Korea).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (hereafter Kim, of record) US 20230185053 A1 in view of Seol et al. (hereafter Seol, of record) US 20180239161 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-16) an actuator for a reflector (i.e. reflective module actuator 3000 with reflector member 3100, as part of camera module 100, e.g. see abstract, paragraphs [02, 08-38, 64-75,88-92,96-98,109-122,126-136], e.g. Figs. 2-4,7-11), comprising:
a carrier at which a reflector is installed (reflective holder 3200 with 3100 reflective member, e.g. paragraphs [70-75,109-122,126-136], Figs. 2-4,7-11);
first and second magnets installed at the carrier and placed in directions perpendicular to each other (magnets second 3231 and first 3331, installed at 3200 in perpendicular directions to each other, e.g. paragraphs [129-133], see Figs. 8-11);
a ball guide configured to support rotational movement of the carrier in a first direction (rotatable holder 3300 supporting reflective holder 3200 rotating in/around e.g. R2 direction, paragraphs [74-75, 117-122,125-136,156-157], e.g. Figs. 2-4,7-11);
a first ball placed between the carrier and the ball guide (e.g. one of balls 3430 between 3200 and 3300, paragraphs [117-118,125], e.g. Figs. 8-9, 11);
a housing configured to support rotational movement of the ball guide in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (housing 1100 supporting rotating of 3300 in, around R1 direction perpendicular to R2, paragraphs [64, 74-75, 117-122,129-143,156], e.g. Figs. 2-4,7-11); and
a second ball placed between the ball guide and the housing (e.g. balls 3410, 3420, between 3300 and 1100, and another of balls 3430 between inner wall part with groove 3310 of 3300 and 1100, e.g. paragraphs [117-122,129-143,156,190], e.g. Figs. 2-4,7-11),
wherein the second magnet is installed at the carrier to protrude outward (as 3231 is installed at back of 3200 in extension 3210 and is protruding outward from 3200, as best depicted in Figs. 8-9, paragraphs [129-133, 164-169, 174-175]), and
wherein the ball guide has an opening (i.e. as back opening between bottom frame part of 3300 and two vertical columns where 3231 is exposed , depicted in Figs. 8-9, paragraphs [129-133,164-172]) and faces the carrier in such a way that the second magnet enters an interior of the opening (i.e. as 3300 faces 3200 such that 3231 enters the opening of 3300, as best depicted in Figs. 8-9, paragraphs [129-133, 164-172]), But Kim is silent that the opening (i.e. as back opening between bottom frame part of 3300 and two vertical columns where 3231 is exposed , see Figs. 8-9) is a hole, i.e. a full hole (i.e. as the above described opening is partial hole, see Figs. 8-8).
However, Seol teaches in the same field of invention of an apparatus for driving an optical-reflector for optical image stabilization (OIS) (see Figs. 1-7, title, abstract, paragraphs [02, 11-24, 33-38, 74-86, 95-104]), and further teaches that the ball guide has a hole (i.e. as middle frame ball guide has a hole opening 139, as full hole through which magnet 121 in mounting portion 125 enters the interior of hole 139, as depicted in Figs. 5-6, paragraphs [96-100], providing that it is possible to suppress the support frame 120 not to be separated or shaken in any direction other than the X-axial direction in which the support frame 120 rotates based on the middle frame 130, and allowing that the electromagnetic force generated from the first coil 150-1 may be concentrated on the first magnet 121 more intensively, thereby allowing the support frame 120 to be driven in an X-axial direction in a lower-power environment, e.g. paragraphs [96-100]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the back opening between bottom frame part and two vertical columns of ball guide rotatable holder of Kim into a full hole opening according to teachings of Seol in order to suppress the support frame/reflective holder not to be separated or shaken in any direction other than the axial direction in which the support frame/reflective holder rotates based on the middle frame/ rotatable holder, and to allow that the electromagnetic force generated from the driving coil (i.e. 3232) to be concentrated on the driving magnet (3231) more intensively, thereby allowing the support frame/reflective holder to be driven in an axial direction in a lower-power environment (see Seol e.g. paragraphs [96-100]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-16) further comprising: a yoke plate (3234) provided in the housing (as second yoke 3234 in 1100 at the rear of second driving coil 3232, paragraphs [133,167], Figs. 8, 10-11) and configured to generate an attractive force with the second magnet exposed through the first space (as 3234 configured as attractive magnetic force generated by the second driving magnet 3231 in back space of 3300, paragraphs [133,167], depicted in Figs. 8, 10-11).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-16) that the attractive force between the yoke plate and the second magnet brings the carrier and the ball guide with the first ball interposed therebetween, into close contact (as yoke 3234,3334 attracted by magnetic force generated by the second driving magnet 3231 on 3200, brings 3200 and 3300 with 3430 therebetween into contact, paragraphs [133,167], depicted in Figs. 8, 10-11) and brings the ball guide and the housing with the second ball interposed therebetween, into close contact (i.e. brings 3300 and 1100 with 3420 therebetween into contact, as depicted in Figs. 8, 10-11, paragraphs [74-75, 117-122,125-136,156-157,167]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-16) that the ball guide includes a rounded first rail where the first ball is placed (i.e. as one of rounded accommodation grooves 3310 with one 3430, paragraphs [162-163,190], Figs. 8-9), wherein the first rail is provided on a first surface, which is a surface facing the carrier, and is provided outside the first space (as one of 3310 is on first face of 3300 facing holder 3200 outside the back space of 3300 between two vertical columns, paragraphs [162-163,190], Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-16) that the ball guide further includes a rounded second rail where the second ball is placed (i.e. as 3322, 3321 with 3420 and 3410, and/or other of rounded accommodation grooves 3310 with one 3430, paragraphs [144, 162-163,190], Figs. 8-9), wherein the second rail is provided on a second surface, which is a surface opposite to the first surface, and is provided outside the first space (as 3322, 3321 and other of 3310 is on other opposite face of 3300, and outside the back space of 3300 between two vertical columns, paragraphs [162-163,190], Figs. 8-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 03/06/2026 with respect to claims 1 and its dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pages 8-11 of the Remarks, that the cited prior art of Kim teaches that the first and second magnets are installed on physically different objects, and that there is no need for second magnet to protrude outwards, and that there are difference in which the driving force is applied. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to these issues, as noted in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Kim teaches most and in combination with cited prior art of Seol teaches and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, as Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-16) an actuator for a reflector (i.e. reflective module actuator 3000 with reflector member 3100, as part of camera module 100, e.g. see abstract, paragraphs [02, 08-38, 64-75,88-92,96-98,109-122,126-136], e.g. Figs. 2-4,7-11), comprising:
a carrier at which a reflector is installed (reflective holder 3200 with 3100 reflective member, e.g. paragraphs [70-75,109-122,126-136], Figs. 2-4,7-11);
first and second magnets installed at the carrier and placed in directions perpendicular to each other (magnets second 3231 and first 3331, installed at 3200 in perpendicular directions to each other, e.g. paragraphs [129-133], see Figs. 8-11);
a ball guide configured to support rotational movement of the carrier in a first direction (rotatable holder 3300 supporting reflective holder 3200 rotating in/around e.g. R2 direction, paragraphs [74-75, 117-122,125-136,156-157], e.g. Figs. 2-4,7-11);
a first ball placed between the carrier and the ball guide (e.g. one of balls 3430 between 3200 and 3300, paragraphs [117-118,125], e.g. Figs. 8-9, 11);
a housing configured to support rotational movement of the ball guide in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (housing 1100 supporting rotating of 3300 in, around R1 direction perpendicular to R2, paragraphs [64, 74-75, 117-122,129-143,156], e.g. Figs. 2-4,7-11); and
a second ball placed between the ball guide and the housing (e.g. balls 3410, 3420, between 3300 and 1100, and another of balls 3430 between inner wall part with groove 3310 of 3300 and 1100, e.g. paragraphs [117-122,129-143,156,190], e.g. Figs. 2-4,7-11),
wherein the second magnet is installed at the carrier to protrude outward (as 3231 is installed at back of 3200 in extension 3210 and is protruding outward from 3200, as best depicted in Figs. 8-9, paragraphs [129-133, 164-169, 174-175]), and
wherein the ball guide has an opening (i.e. as back opening between bottom frame part of 3300 and two vertical columns where 3231 is exposed , depicted in Figs. 8-9, paragraphs [129-133,164-172]) and faces the carrier in such a way that the second magnet enters an interior of the opening (i.e. as 3300 faces 3200 such that 3231 enters the opening of 3300, as best depicted in Figs. 8-9, paragraphs [129-133, 164-172]), But Kim is silent that the opening (i.e. as back opening between bottom frame part of 3300 and two vertical columns where 3231 is exposed , see Figs. 8-9) is a hole, i.e. a full hole (i.e. as the above described opening is partial hole, see Figs. 8-8).
However, Seol teaches in the same field of invention of an apparatus for driving an optical-reflector for optical image stabilization (OIS) (see Figs. 1-7, title, abstract, paragraphs [02, 11-24, 33-38, 74-86, 95-104]), and further teaches that the ball guide has a hole (i.e. as middle frame ball guide has a hole opening 139, as full hole through which magnet 121 in mounting portion 125 enters the interior of hole 139, as depicted in Figs. 5-6, paragraphs [96-100], providing that it is possible to suppress the support frame 120 not to be separated or shaken in any direction other than the X-axial direction in which the support frame 120 rotates based on the middle frame 130, and allowing that the electromagnetic force generated from the first coil 150-1 may be concentrated on the first magnet 121 more intensively, thereby allowing the support frame 120 to be driven in an X-axial direction in a lower-power environment, e.g. paragraphs [96-100]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the back opening between bottom frame part and two vertical columns of ball guide rotatable holder of Kim into a full hole opening according to teachings of Seol in order to suppress the support frame/reflective holder not to be separated or shaken in any direction other than the axial direction in which the support frame/reflective holder rotates based on the middle frame/ rotatable holder, and to allow that the electromagnetic force generated from the driving coil (i.e. 3232) to be concentrated on the driving magnet (3231) more intensively, thereby allowing the support frame/reflective holder to be driven in an axial direction in a lower-power environment (see Seol e.g. paragraphs [96-100]).
Specifically, Kim expressly teaches that the first and second magnets installed at the carrier and placed in directions perpendicular to each other (magnets second 3231 and first 3331, installed at 3200 in perpendicular directions to each other, e.g. paragraphs [129-133], see Figs. 8-11). The claim language does not require that the first and second magnets be installed in the same single physical object, as alleged by the Applicant.
Kim also expressly teaches that the second magnet is installed at the carrier and protrudes outward, as 3231 is installed at back of 3200 in extension 3210 and is protruding outward from 3200, as best depicted in Figs. 8-9, paragraphs [129-133, 164-169, 174-175], which means that there is some need for the configuration disclosed in Kim.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific arrangements of the structures that result in specific arrangements of driving forces on the carrier) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Additionally, Kim teaches limitations of claim 5, as noted above. The rejection was not relaying on magnetic body 3340 as alleged by the Applicant. Instead Kim teaches that the attractive force between the yoke plate and the second magnet brings the carrier and the ball guide with the first ball interposed therebetween, into close contact, as yoke 3234,3334 attracted by magnetic force generated by the second driving magnet 3231 on 3200, brings 3200 and 3300 with 3430 therebetween into contact, paragraphs [133,167], depicted in Figs. 8, 10-11, and brings the ball guide and the housing with the second ball interposed therebetween, into close contact (i.e. brings 3300 and 1100 with 3420 therebetween into contact, as depicted in Figs. 8, 10-11, (paragraphs [74-75, 117-122,125-136,156-157,167]). The claim language does not require that all the components are aligned in some same direction or arrangement. Moreover, although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention disclosed by Applicant, the language of Applicant's claims is sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s). Lastly, it is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." See MPEP §2123.
No additional substantial arguments were presented in the Remarks dated 03/06/2026 after page 12.
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872