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 with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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.
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujinaka US2021/0356841 in view of KR 10175105B1 (‘KR105) (translation provided).
Regarding claim 1 Fujinaka teaches a lens drive unit, comprising: a n-phase coils (fig. 3 two phase coils 10a, 10b) (n is an integer of 2 or more) that are fixed to a moving frame (lens frame 3) that is configured to move back and forth in an optical axis direction and hold a lens (lens L1), and are disposed side by side along the optical axis direction; a first field portion (magnet 9)that has N poles and S poles alternately (N/S see fig. 4) disposed along the optical axis direction, wherein the coils are disposed in two or more sets side by side in the optical axis direction (see fig. 3 and 4), each set forming the n-phase coil with respect to one the first field portions.
Fujinaka does not teach a plurality of n-phase coils and each of the plurality of n-phase coils is made of up a set of n-phase coils is made up of a set of n coils since Fujinaka only discloses a single n-phase coil made of of n-coils. However KR106’ discloses using multiple phase coils (coil 450) to distribute and apply force across a the multiple surfaces of the lens hold (holder 250). Fujinaka already teaches two and three phase coils for enabling a longer stroke without magnetic saturation (see 0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujinaka in view of KR106’ to more evenly distribute the force across the lens holder.
Regarding claim 2, Fujinaka in view of KR106’ teaches the lens drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the n-phase coils have a winding axis in a direction substantially perpendicular to the optical axis of the lens (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Fujinaka in view of KR106’ teaches the lens drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the first field portion (magnet 9) is disposed at a position opposite both sides of the n-phase coils in the radial direction (see fig. 15A magnet 9)so as to sandwich the n-phase coils in the radial direction centered on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 4, Fujinaka in view of KR106’ teaches the lens drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the n-phase coils are two-phase coils (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Fujinaka in view of KR106’ teaches a lens barrel comprising: the lens drive unit according to claim 1; a lens held by the moving frame (a part of lens frame 3) (see fig. 3), and is driven back and forth in the optical axis direction by the lens drive unit (see fig. 3).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujinaka US 2021/0356841 in view of KR101751105 (KR105’) and further in view of Yano US 2015/0062408.
Regarding claim 5-6, Fujinaka in view of KR106’ teaches the lens drive unit according to claim 1, but does not teach further comprising a second field portion disposed so as to surround the optical axis along with the first field portion. With respect to claim 6, Fujinaka teaches a main shaft (fig. 1 holding frame 2) configured to support the first moving frame in a state of being able to move back and forth in the optical axis direction but does not teach wherein the first field portion and the second field portion are disposed on either side of a plane so as to sandwich the plane passing through the main shaft and a center of gravity of the first moving frame holding the lens. However Yano teaches the first field portion (fig. 4 magnet 42 top) and the second field portion (magnet 42 bottom) are disposed on either side of a plane so as to sandwich the plane passing through the main shaft (formed by fixing frame 39) and a center of gravity of the first moving frame (lens holding member 25) holding the lens (unlabeled see fig. 3-4) to distribute the force evenly and apply more force the frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujinara in view of Yano to distribute force evenly to the moving frame and apply a higher force resulting in faster actuation.
Regarding claim 7, Fujinaka in view of KR106’ in view of Yano teach the lens drive unit according to claim 5 but Fujinaka does not explicitly teach further comprising a third field portion that is disposed to surround the optical axis together with the first field portion and the second field portion. However one of ordinary skill in the art could easily apply a third field portion in a similar manner to a second according to Yano to further increase force distribution and the force applied and examiner takes official notice of this. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fujinara in view of Yano to distribute force move evenly to the moving frame and apply a higher force resulting in faster actuation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujinaka US 2021/0356841 in viewof KR101751105 (KR105’) and further in view of Tanaka JP 2010-112976
Regarding claim 8, Funinaka in view of KR106’ teaches the lens drive unit according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the moving frame and lens comprise a first moving frame and a second moving frame holding a first lens and a second lens respectively, where a first of the plurality of n-phase coils is fixed to a first moving frame and a second of the plurality of n-phase coils is fixed to the second moving frame with respect to the first field porito and the first moving frame and second moving frame are driven separately. However Tanaka teaches a second moving frame (fig. 12 250b) that holds a lens, wherein the n-phase coils (flat coil 221) with respect to one of the first field portions are fixed to the second moving frame, and the first moving frame and the second moving frame are driven separately (see page 9 second paragraph) allowing for individual zoom and focus control (see page 9 second paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fujinara in view of Tanaka to implement individual zoom and focus control.
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 PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
