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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 5/13/2024 and 12/1/2025 have been considered.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary Amendment filed on 5/13/2024 has been considered. In the preliminary Amendment, Applicant amended the specification and amended claim 16.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/709,620 filed on 5/13/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
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.
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 12 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 12, said claim recites “a diameter of a ball positioned at an outer side is greater than a diameter of a ball positioned inside” in lines 2-3. It is not clear as to what the designation “inside” and “outside” refers to. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the quoted words refer to the plurality of balls (as indicated in paragraph [0322] of the specification.
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 1-2, 4-9, 13-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2024/0103341, hereinafter, “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a camera device 1000 (Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing 110 (Fig. 2, [0040]);
a first lens assembly 60 moving in an optical axis direction Z with respect to the housing (Fig. 2, [0041]); and
a first driving unit 120 configured to move the first lens assembly (Fig. 2, [0041]),
wherein the first driving unit includes a first driving coil C1 and a first driving magnet M1 facing the first driving coil (Fig. 3, [0059]),
the first driving coil includes a first sub-coil C11 and a second sub-coil C12 disposed in the optical axis direction (Fig. 3, 6, [0086]-[0087]) and
a maximum moving distance of the first lens assembly (i.e., magnet M1) in the optical axis direction Z is greater than a length of a hollow of the first sub-coil C11 in a short axis direction (Fig. 6, the movement of the mirror M1 which moves the first lens assembly 60 is greater than a length of the hollow of the first sub-coil C11 in direction Y (i.e., short axis direction)).
Park does not disclose a maximum moving distance of the first lens assembly in the optical axis direction is smaller than or equal to a length of the hollow of the first sub-coil C11 in the optical axis direction Z. Park shows the direction of moving of mirror M1 relative to the sub-coil C11 and C22 (Fig. 6), but is silent as to the range of the movement.
However, Park discloses that for a second driving unit 130 moving a second lens assembly 70 and comprising a second driving unit C2 comprising a first sub-coil C21, a second sub-coil C22 (and a third sub-coil C23), a maximum moving distance of the second lens assembly in the optical axis direction is smaller than a length of the hollow of the second sub-coil in the optical axis direction (Fig. 2, 4, 7, [0041], [0063], [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the first magnet (thus, the first lens assembly) has also a movement range such that a maximum moving distance of the first lens assembly in the optical axis direction is smaller than a length of the hollow of the first sub-coil in the optical axis direction, as taught by Park for the second lens assembly, for a better autofocusing or zooming operations ([0105] in Park).
Moreover, Park does not disclose the first sub-coil C11 and the second sub-coil C22 overlap each other. In Park, the first and the second sub-coil are disposed adjacent to each other, without any intervening element, and seemingly in very close proximity (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the first and the second sub-coil overlap each other (for example, being in contact), for reducing the size of the housing 110.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the camera device of claim 1.
Park does not disclose wherein a maximum length of the first sub-coil in the optical axis direction is greater than a length of the first driving magnet in the optical axis direction.
However, Park discloses that the maximum length of the driving coil is larger than the length of the driving magnet (Fig. 7) or vice versa (Fig. 6).
The parameter of the length of the moving magnet and the length of the corresponding coil is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the stroke range of the driving unit ([0104] in Park).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed relation between the maximum length of the first sub-coil and the length of the first magnet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the maximum length of the first sub-coil is greater than the length of the corresponding magnet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the lengths of the coil and the corresponding magnet are an art recognized result-effective variable in that they affect the performance of the actuator.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relation between the lengths of the first sub-coil and the corresponding magnet because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the camera device of claim 1, wherein
the first driving magnet is movable within a range from one side of the hollow of the first sub-coil to the other side of a hollow of the second sub-coil in the optical axis direction (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the camera device of claim 1, further comprising:
a second lens assembly 70 configured to move in the optical axis direction Z; and
a second driving unit 130 configured to move the second lens assembly,
wherein the second driving unit includes a second driving coil C2 and a second driving magnet M2 facing the second driving coil, and
the second driving coil includes a third sub-coil C21 and a fourth sub-coil C22 disposed to overlap each other in the optical axis direction (Fig. 2, 4, 7, [0041], [0063], [0104]).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the camera device of claim 5, further comprising
an image sensor ([0033]),
wherein the second lens assembly 70 is disposed closer to the image sensor than the first lens assembly 60 (Fig. 2).
Park does not disclose a moving distance of the second lens assembly in the optical axis direction is greater than a moving distance of the first lens assembly in the optical axis direction.
Park discloses movement ranges for the first lens assembly (Fig. 6) and the second lens assembly (Fig. 7).
The parameter of the length of the moving range of the first and the second lens assembly is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the zooming operation.
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed relation between the moving ranges of the first and the second lens assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the moving distance of the second lens assembly in the optical axis direction is greater than a moving distance of the first lens assembly in the optical axis direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the lengths of the moving ranges of the first and the second lens assembly are an art recognized result-effective variable in that they affect the performance of the camera.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relation between the lengths of the moving ranges of the first and the second lens assembly because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the camera device of claim 1, wherein
currents flow in the first sub-coil and the second sub-coil in difference directions ([0093]).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the camera device of claim 1, further comprising a yoke 180-1 disposed on a side surface of the first lens assembly 60,
wherein the yoke surrounds at least a portion of a side surface of the first driving magnet M1 (Fig. 3, [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses the camera device of claim 8, further comprising three or more Hall sensors H1 disposed in at least one of the first sub-coil C11 and the second sub-coil C12 (Fig. 3, [0061]).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses the camera device of claim 5, wherein a polarity of a face of the first driving magnet facing the first driving coil is the same as a polarity of the second driving magnet facing the second driving coil (Fig. 3, 4, [0074], both magnets facing the respective coils include N and S poles).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses the camera device of claim 1, wherein
any one of the hollow of the first sub-coil C11 and a hollow of the second sub-coil C12 has a lateral length in the optical axis direction greater than a length in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses the camera device of claim 1, wherein
a length of the first driving magnet M1 in the optical axis direction is greater than a length of any one of the hollow of the first sub-coil C11 and a hollow of the second sub-coil C12 in the optical axis direction (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses a camera device 1000 (Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing 110 (Fig. 2, [0040]);
a lens assembly 60 configured to move in an optical axis direction Z with respect to the housing (Fig. 2, [0041]);
a first driving magnet M1 disposed in the lens assembly (Fig. 2, [0041]),
a first driving coil C1 facing the driving magnet M1 (Fig. 3, [0059]),
wherein the first driving coil C1 includes a first sub-coil C11 and a second sub-coil C12 disposed in the optical axis direction (Fig. 3, 6, [0086]-[0087]) and
current directions of a first region of the first sub-coil overlapping the first driving magnet in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction and disposed perpendicular to the optical axis direction and a second region of the second sub-coil are the same ([0093], currents driving clockwise and counterclockwise in the two sub-coils have currents that have the same direction in different regions of the sub-coils).
Park does not disclose the first sub-coil C11 and the second sub-coil C22 overlap each other. In Park, the first and the second sub-coil are disposed adjacent to each other, without any intervening element, and seemingly in very close proximity (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the first and the second sub-coil overlap each other (for example, being in contact), for reducing the size of the housing 110.
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses a camera device 1000 (Fig. 1) comprising:
a fixed unit C1 including a first sub-coil C11 and a second sub-coil C12 disposed in the optical axis direction (Fig. 3, 6, [0086]-[0087]) and
a moving unit including a first driving magnet M1 and configured to move in the optical axis direction (Fig. 3, [0059]), wherein
a moving distance of the moving unit M1 in the optical axis direction Z is greater than a length of a hollow of the first sub-coil C11 in a short axis direction (Fig. 6, the movement of the mirror M1 which moves the first lens assembly 60 is greater than a length of the hollow of the first sub-coil C11 in direction Y (i.e., short axis direction),
current directions of a first region of the first sub-coil overlapping the first driving magnet in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction and disposed in the short axis direction and a second region of the second sub-coil are the same ([0093], currents driving clockwise and counterclockwise in the two sub-coils have currents that have the same direction in different regions of the sub-coils).
Park does not disclose a moving distance of the moving unit M1 in the optical axis direction is smaller than or equal to a length of the hollow of the first sub-coil C11 in the optical axis direction Z (long axis). Park shows the direction of moving of mirror M1 relative to the sub-coil C11 and C22 (Fig. 6), but is silent as to the range of the movement.
However, Park discloses that for a second driving unit 130 moving a second lens assembly 70 and comprising a second driving unit C2 comprising a first sub-coil C21, a second sub-coil C22 (and a third sub-coil C23), a maximum moving distance of the second lens assembly, i.e., mirror M2, in the optical axis direction is smaller to a length of the hollow of the second sub-coil in the optical axis direction (Fig. 2, 4, 7, [0041], [0063], [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the first magnet has also a movement range such that a moving distance of the mirror M1 in the optical axis direction is smaller to a length of the hollow of the first sub-coil in the optical axis direction, as taught by Park for the second mirror M2, for a better autofocusing or zooming operations ([0105] in Park).
Moreover, Park does not disclose wherein a maximum length of the first sub-coil in the optical axis direction is greater than a maximum length of the first driving magnet in the optical axis direction.
However, Park discloses that the maximum length of the driving coil is larger than the length of the driving magnet (Fig. 7) or vice versa (Fig. 6).
The parameter of the length of the moving magnet and the length of the corresponding coil is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the stroke range of the driving unit ([0104] in Park).
Park discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed relation between the maximum length of the first sub-coil and the length of the first magnet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the length of the sub-coil is greater than the length of the corresponding magnet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the lengths of the coil and the corresponding magnet are an art recognized result-effective variable in that they affect the performance of the actuator.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the relation between the lengths of the sub-coil and the corresponding magnet because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Finally, Park does not disclose the first sub-coil C11 and the second sub-coil C22 overlap each other. In Park, the first and the second sub-coil are disposed adjacent to each other, without any intervening element, and seemingly in very close proximity (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the first and the second sub-coil overlap each other (for example, being in contact), for reducing the size of the housing 110.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kim et al. (EP 3792686A1, hereinafter, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses the camera device of claim 9.
Park does not disclose wherein the three or more Hall sensors include a unit of two Hall sensors connected in series, and at least one unit of Hall sensors and another one Hall sensor are connected in parallel.
Kim discloses a camera including an actuator (Fig. 2, Abstract). In one embodiment, Hall sensors are used for position sensing. The sensors may be electrically connected in series and in parallel (Fig. 11, [0166]-[0169]).
Both Park and Kim disclose actuators for optical cameras,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that some Hall sensors are connected in series and some Hall sensors are connected in parallel, as taught by Kim, for minimizing the number of required input pins ([0169] in Kim).
Claims 3, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yeon et al. (US 2020/0127548, hereinafter, “Yeon”).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the camera device of claim 2.
Park does not disclose wherein the length of the first driving magnet in the optical axis direction is greater than the maximum moving distance of the first lens assembly.
Yeon discloses an actuator 100 for a camera 1000 (Fig. 2, [0037]). In one embodiment, the actuator comprises a coil 10-1 facing a magnet 20-1 and the interaction causes a carrier 30 (carrying an optical element) to move (see upwards arrow in Fig. 1(b)). The maximum movement of the carrier is smaller than the maximum length of the coil (see upwards arrow in Fig. 1(c), [0010], the upwards arrow in Fig. 1(c) is the largest).
Both Park and Yeon disclose actuators for optical cameras.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the length of the first driving magnet M1 in the optical axis direction Z is greater than the maximum moving distance of the first lens assembly, as taught by Yeon, for ensuring that the region of the magnet corresponding to the coil has enough overlap even for great displacements ([0010] in Yeon).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses the camera device of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of balls (balls are placed between the first carrier 120 and the housing 110 and between the second carrier 130 and the housing 110 in order to set the first carrier 120 and the second carrier 130 in smooth linear motion with the least friction ([0051]).
Park does not disclose further comprising: a plurality of first guide grooves positioned outside the first lens assembly; and a plurality of balls disposed in one of the plurality of first guide grooves, wherein the plurality of balls include balls having different diameters.
Yeon discloses an actuator 100 for a camera 1000 (Fig. 2, [0037]). In one embodiment, the carrier 110 moves relative to the housing 120 via a plurality of balls 170 disposed in grooves 111, 121 (Fig. 3, [0043], [0048], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that a plurality of guide grooves enclosing a plurality of balls are positioned on the first lens assembly, as taught by Yeon, for reducing noise, minimizing the driving force, and improving the driving precision ([0048] in Yeon).
Park/Yeon does not disclose the plurality of balls include balls having different diameters.
The parameter of the diameter of a ball in a guide groove is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the moving operation of the movable component.
Park/Yeon discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed relation between the sizes of the diameters of the balls in the guide grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park/Yeon so that the plurality of balls include balls having different diameters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the diameter of the balls in the grooves is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the actuator.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the diameter of the balls in the grooves because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 12, Park/Yeon discloses the camera device of claim 11, wherein among the plurality of balls, a diameter of a ball positioned at an outer side is greater than a diameter of a ball positioned inside (In the modified camera device of Park/Yeon, a plurality of balls with uneven diameters is placed in a groove. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, a ball positioned away from another ball has a greater relative diameter).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Park (KR 20210014875A, hereinafter, “Park1”).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses the camera device of claim 1.
Park does not disclose wherein the length of the first driving magnet in the optical axis direction is smaller than a distance from one side of the hollow of the first sub-coil to the other side of a hollow of the second sub-coil.
Park1 discloses (figure reference numbers herein refer to the original, paragraph reference numbers refer to the English translation) a camera module including an actuator (Fig. 2, [0069]). In one embodiment, the actuator comprises a first driving unit, i.e., a magnet 510, facing and interacting with a second driving unit, i.e., a coil 610, with the length of the magnet being greater than the length of the coil ([0109]).
Both Park and Park1 disclose actuators for optical cameras.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park so that the length of the first driving magnet M1 in the optical axis direction Z is smaller than the length of the coil C1, as taught by Park1, for ensuring that the region of the magnet corresponding to the coil has enough overlap even for great displacements ([0010] in Yeon).
Regarding claim 17, Park/Park1 discloses the camera device of claim 16.
Park/Park1 does not disclose wherein the length of the first driving magnet in the optical axis direction is smaller than a distance from the one side of the hollow of the first sub-coil to one side of the hollow of the second sub-coil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park/Park1 so that the length of the first driving magnet M1 in the optical axis direction Z is smaller than a distance from the one side of the hollow of the first sub-coil C11 to one side of the hollow of the second sub-coil C12, for ensuring that the region of the magnet corresponding to the coil has enough overlap even for great displacements ([0010] in Yeon).
Regarding claim 18, Park/Park1 discloses the camera device of claim 17.
Park/Park1 does not disclose wherein the length of the first driving magnet in the optical axis direction is smaller than a distance from the other side of the hollow of the first sub-coil to the other side of the hollow of the second sub-coil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Park/Park1 so that the length of the first driving magnet M1 in the optical axis direction Z is smaller than a distance from the other side of the hollow of the first sub-coil C11 to the other side of the hollow of the second sub-coil C12, for ensuring that the region of the magnet corresponding to the coil has enough overlap even for great displacements ([0010] in Yeon).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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 on 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights