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 .
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 39–47, 57, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0025995 to Ariji.
Regarding Claim 39, Ariji would have rendered obvious (e.g., Figs. 1 and 3, illustrating a first embodiment, and Fig. 41, illustrating a possible configuration for the yoke, and their corresponding descriptions, where combining the features from the various figures and embodiments would have been obvious to solve the problem of components colliding when the lens holder moves upwards, paragraphs [0277]–[0278]) a lens driving apparatus (lens driving device 10), comprising: a movable carrier (424/20), configured to accommodate a lens assembly (e.g., 12); a base 14, wherein the base and the movable carrier are correspondingly arranged in a spaced manner in a direction of an optical axis (Fig. 3, axis O); a driving mechanism, comprising at least one group of coils (e.g., 18/26) and at least one group of magnets (e.g., 28, comprising four permanent magnet pieces 282, paragraph [0148]), wherein the at least one group of coils and the at least one group of magnets are correspondingly arranged such that the driving mechanism is configured to drive the movable carrier to move relative to the base in an orthogonal plane direction of the optical axis (e.g., paragraph [0250]); and a plurality of magnetic yoke pieces (e.g., yoke 25 includes yokes 25A and 25B, paragraph [0279]; Fig. 41), mounted on the base, wherein each of the plurality of magnetic yoke pieces is located at a corner of the base (Fig. 41), and extends to two sides of the base (Fig. 41), at least a part of the plurality of magnetic yoke pieces faces the at least one group of magnets (Fig. 41).
Regarding Claim 40, Ariji would have rendered obvious the lens driving apparatus according to claim 39, wherein each of the plurality of magnetic yoke pieces comprises a first portion (e.g., leftmost of 254A/254B), a second portion (e.g., rightmost of 254A/254B, Fig. 41), and a connection portion (portion therebetween, 252A/252B), the first portion and the second portion integrally extend to two sides of the base from two ends of the connection portion, respectively (Fig. 41), all of the connection portions are located at four corners of the base, and the first portion and the second portion respectively face the at least one group of magnets (e.g., Fig. 41).
Regarding Claim 41, Ariji would have rendered obvious the lens driving apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the connection portion of each of the plurality of magnetic yoke pieces is obliquely connected to the first portion and the second portion, and a width of the connection portion is less than those of the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 41, where portions labeled 254A/B can be considered connection portions for the upper flat portions on either side).
Regarding Claim 42, Ariji would have rendered obvious the lens driving apparatus according to claim 41, wherein each of the plurality of magnetic yoke pieces further comprises an extending portion, the extending portion extends outwards from the connection portions at the four corners of the base, an outer end of each of the extending portion has an enlarged portion, and a width of the extending portion is less than those of the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 41, where portions labeled 254A/B can be considered connection portions for the upper flat portions on either side).
Regarding Claim 43, Ariji would have rendered obvious the lens driving apparatus according to claim 40, further provided with a plurality of guide grooves 302a and a plurality of supporting mechanisms 30 (e.g., Figs. 3, 25, and 29), wherein each of the plurality of guide grooves is respectively provided on opposite surfaces of the movable carrier and the base in an inward-concave manner, each of the plurality of supporting mechanisms is accommodated in each of the plurality of guide grooves, each of the plurality of magnetic yoke pieces extends to a corresponding position of the at least one group of magnets from a corresponding position of the plurality of guide grooves, and the supporting mechanism rollably supports the movable carrier to perform displacement in the orthogonal plane direction of the optical axis (Figs. 3, 25, and 29).
Regarding Claim 44, Ariji would have rendered obvious the lens driving apparatus according to claim 43, wherein each of the plurality of guide grooves is of a planar square groove structure, each of the plurality of supporting mechanisms is a ball to cause each of the plurality of supporting mechanisms to move in multiple degrees of freedom along a surface in each of the plurality of guide grooves, and each of the plurality of guide grooves on the base is higher than a side of the base to accommodate the at least one group of coils at the side of the base, so as to cause the at least one group of coils to be not higher than each of the plurality of guide grooves on the base (e.g., Figs. 3, 25, and 29, where ball bearings would have been an obvious selection for supporting movement, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 45, Ariji would have rendered obvious the lens driving apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the driving mechanism comprises at least one Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) coil (e.g., image stabilizer coil portions 18) and a circuit board 44, the circuit board is attached to the base (paragraph [0171]), the movable carrier comprises an OIS carrier, the at least one group of magnets is fixed on a side of the OIS carrier, the at least one OIS coil is attached to a side of the circuit board and is arranged opposite to the at least one group of magnets in the direction of the optical axis (e.g., Fig. 3), the at least one OIS coil and the at least one group of magnets form a first magnetic field loop to drive the OIS carrier to move relative to the base in the orthogonal plane direction of the optical axis for jitter correction (e.g., images stabilization).
Regarding Claim 46, Ariji would have rendered obvious the lens driving apparatus according to claim 45, further comprising a first sensing mechanism (position detection arrangement 50), wherein the first sensing mechanism is mounted on the back of the circuit board and is arranged opposite to the at least one group of magnets to detect positions of the at least one group of magnets and the OIS carrier (Fig. 3, paragraph [0182]), the base is provided with a first sensor mounting hole, the first sensor mounting hole is located between two adjacent magnetic yoke pieces in the plurality of magnetic yoke pieces, and the first sensing mechanism is accommodated in the first sensor mounting hole of the base (e.g., Fig. 2, illustrating element 50l within hole in base 14).
Regarding Claim 47, Ariji would have rendered obvious the lens driving apparatus according to claim 46, wherein the first sensor mounting hole comprises an X direction mounting hole and a Y direction mounting hole, the first sensing mechanism is respectively mounted in the X direction mounting hole and the Y direction mounting hole to detect X direction displacement and Y direction displacement of the OIS carrier, the first sensing mechanism comprises an OIS structure IC controller and an OIS position sensor, the OIS position sensor is able to sense a position of the OIS carrier moving relative to the base along an orthogonal plane of the optical axis, and the OIS structure IC controller is able to control a movement direction and stroke of the OIS carrier (e.g., paragraph [0135], stabilizes in X and Y directions orthogonal to optical axis O, where the exact structure is not taught, but would have been obvious to achieve the same results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 57, Ariji would have rendered obvious the lens driving apparatus according to claim 45, wherein a number of the plurality of magnetic yoke pieces is four, a number of the at least one OIS coils, a number of the at least one group of magnets, and the number of the plurality of magnetic yoke pieces is the same, and the at least one group of magnets is arranged along four sides of the OIS carrier (Figs. 3 and 41; also where selecting the number would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, based on desired level of control and size of the device, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 58, Ariji would have rendered obvious a camera module, comprising: the lens driving apparatus according to claim 39; a lens assembly, provided with at least one lens; and a photosensitive assembly, wherein the base is arranged between the photosensitive assembly and the lens assembly such that the photosensitive assembly is able to sense light for imaging (e.g., Figs. 1 and 3; paragraph [0137], CMOS image sensor).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 48–56 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights