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 Amendment
The Amendment filed August 29th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 29th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the instant application has a configuration in which a single magnet provides pulling operations in two different directions, whereas Lee discloses a first magnet and a second magnet for providing pulling operations in different directions. However, the examiner disagrees. Lee discloses a configuration of a driving magnet 252, a yoke 256, a magnetic material/yoke 266, and a driving coil 254 in the same configuration as what is claimed in the independent claims and what is shown in the drawings, therefore the driving magnet 252 would also provide a pulling operation in two directions. Because the structure of the claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP §2114. Additionally, it is not stated in the claims that only a single magnet can be doing the pulling operations. Even if it were, it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson 144 USPQ 347, 349, (CCPA 1965). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first driving magnet 252 and second driving magnet 262 be a single driving magnet for ease of manufacturing and reducing manufacturing costs, and since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding applicant’s argument that the magnet 252 does not appear to face the yoke 266 of Lee, examiner disagrees. The magnet 252 has at least one surface that faces the yoke 266 as can be seen in Fig. 9. Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). And it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, making the magnet 252 thicker or the yoke 266 reach further or having the magnet 252 sit higher so that it faces the yoke 266 or have the yoke 266 sit lower such that it faces the magnet would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, Lee does disclose the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 “a first yoke disposed on the housing…wherein the first driving magnet faces the first driving coil and the first yoke in a first direction and faces the first magnetic material in a second direction different from the first direction.” Additionally, Lee discloses the limitations of independent claim 11 “a magnet, configured to generate an attractive force with regard to the reflective holder in a first direction, parallel to the optical axis, and configured to generate an attracting force with regard to the housing in a second direction, parallel to a first axis, perpendicular to the optical axis, is disposed on the rotating holder,” for the same reasons as set forth above.
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) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210181460 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee discloses a reflective module (20; Fig. 9; ¶0064), comprising:
a housing (220; Fig. 9; ¶0061);
a rotating holder (230; Fig. 9; ¶0064) accommodated in the housing (220) (Fig. 9; ¶0064);
a reflective holder (240; Fig. 9; ¶0086) on which a reflective member (210; Figs. 1, 9; ¶0062) configured to change a path of incident light is disposed (Figs. 1, 9; ¶0062); and
a first magnetic material (266; Fig. 9; ¶0100),
a driving unit (250, 260; ¶0066; ¶0100) configured to generate a driving force to rotate the reflective member (210) (¶0066); and
a first yoke (256; Fig. 9; ¶0098); disposed on the housing (220) (Fig. 9),
wherein the driving unit (250, 260) comprises a first driving magnet (252; Fig. 9; ¶0066) disposed on the rotating holder (230) (Fig. 9), and a first driving coil (254; Fig. 9; ¶0066) disposed on the housing (220) (Fig. 9; ¶0066), and
wherein the first driving magnet (252) faces the first driving coil (254) and the first yoke (256) in a first direction (Fig. 9), and faces the first magnetic material (266) in a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 9).
Lee does not disclose the first magnetic material is disposed on the reflective holder. However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The first magnetic material can be disposed on the reflective holder instead of on the housing with the same orientation relative to the other drive elements without changing the function of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to have the first magnetic material be disposed on the reflective holder since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, as set forth above, Lee further discloses the reflective holder (240) is disposed on the rotating holder (230) (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the first direction in which the first driving magnet (252) and the first driving coil (254) face each other (Fig. 9), and the second direction in which the first driving magnet (252) and the first magnetic material (254) face each other are perpendicular to each other (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the first driving coil (254) comprises two coils (254) spaced apart in a length direction of the first driving magnet (252) (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lee further discloses a first ball group (272, 274; Fig. 9; ¶0068) disposed between the housing (220) and the rotating holder (230) (Fig. 9; ¶0068), wherein the first ball group (272, 274) comprises a rotation axis ball (272; Fig. 9; that forms a first axis (Figs. 4, 9; ¶0073), which is a rotation axis of the rotating holder (230) (Fig. 9), and a plurality of guide balls (274; Fig. 9) spaced apart from the rotation axis ball (272) and configured to support a rotation of the rotating holder (230) (Figs. 4, 9; ¶0068, ¶0073).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 5, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the first driving magnet (252) and the first driving coil (254) are disposed adjacent to the rotation axis ball (272) and biased toward the rotation axis ball (272) (Figs. 5-7, 9). Lee does not disclose the first driving magnet and the first driving coil are disposed between the rotation axis ball and the plurality of guide balls.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Adjusting the position of the first driving magnet and the first driving coil to place them between the rotation axis ball and the plurality of guide balls would not affect the function of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to have the first driving magnet and the first driving coil disposed between the rotation axis ball and the plurality of guide balls since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the driving unit (250, 260) comprises a second driving magnet (262; Fig. 9; ¶0100) disposed on the reflective holder (240) (Fig. 9; ¶0100), and a second driving coil (264; Fig. 9; ¶0100) disposed on the housing (220) (Figs. 9, 13; ¶0100).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 7, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the reflective holder (240) further comprises an extension portion (rear surface; Fig. 9; ¶0100) that extends between the rotating holder (230) and the housing (220) (Fig. 9), and the second driving magnet (262) is disposed on the extension portion (rear surface) (Fig. 9; ¶0100).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lee further discloses a second ball group (278; Fig. 9; ¶0094) disposed between the rotating holder (230) and the reflective holder (240) (Fig. 9; ¶0098), wherein the second ball group (278) comprises two ball members (278; Fig. 9) spaced apart in a direction of a second axis (Fig. 9), which is a rotation axis of the reflective holder (240) (Figs. 9, 14).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the reflective module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the rotating holder (230) is supported by the housing (220) in the first direction (Fig. 9), and the reflective holder (240) is supported by the rotating holder (230) in the second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 9).
Regarding independent claim 11, Lee discloses a camera module, comprising:
a housing (220; Fig. 9; ¶0061);
a reflective module (230, 240; Fig. 9; ¶0064, ¶0086) accommodated in the housing (220) (Fig. 9; ¶0064), and comprising a reflective member (210; Figs. 1, 9; ¶0062) configured to change a path of incident light (Figs. 1, 9; ¶0062); and
a lens module (30; Fig. 1; ¶0065) accommodated in the housing (220) (Fig. 1), and comprising at least one lens (¶0065) disposed in a direction, parallel to an optical axis (Fig. 1),
wherein the reflective module (230, 240) comprises a reflective holder (240; Fig. 9; ¶0086) on which the reflective member (210) is disposed (Fig. 9), and a rotating holder (230; Fig. 9; ¶0064) on which the reflective holder (240) is disposed (Fig. 9), and
wherein a magnet (252; Fig. 9; ¶0066), configured to generate an attractive force with regard to the reflective holder (240) in a first direction, parallel to the optical axis (Figs. 1, 9), and configured to generate an attractive force with regard to the housing (220) in a second direction, parallel to a first axis (Figs. 1, 9), perpendicular to the optical axis (Figs. 1, 9), is disposed on the rotating holder (230) (Fig. 9; ¶0066).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses the camera module of claim 11, as set forth above. Lee further discloses wherein the magnet (252) faces a first magnetic material (256; Fig. 9; ¶0098) in the first direction, parallel to the optical axis (Figs. 1, 9), and faces a first yoke (266; Fig. 9; ¶0100) in the second direction, parallel to the first axis (Figs. 1, 9).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the camera module of claim 12, wherein the first magnetic material (256) is a pulling yoke (¶0098). Lee does not disclose the first magnetic material is disposed on the reflective holder.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Placing the magnetic material on the reflective holder so that it is above the magnet instead of below the magnet would not affect its ability to cause the reflective member to rotate, keeping the operation of the device the same.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee so that the first magnetic material is disposed on the reflective holder since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the camera module of claim 12, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the magnet (252) faces a coil (264; Fig. 9; ¶0092) in the second direction, parallel to the first axis (Figs. 1, 9).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses the camera module of claim 11, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the rotating holder (230) is configured to rotate about the first axis (Figs. 9, 12), wherein a rotation axis ball (272; Fig. 9; ¶0068) that forms the first axis (Figs. 9, 12) and a plurality of guide balls (274; Fig. 9; ¶0068) spaced apart from the rotation axis ball (272) are disposed between the rotating holder (230) and the housing (220) (Fig. 9), and wherein the magnet (252) is biased toward the rotation axis ball (272 in a direction of the optical axis (Figs. 5-7, 9). Lee does not disclose the magnet is disposed between the rotation axis ball and the plurality of guide balls.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Adjusting the position of the magnet between the rotation axis ball and the plurality of guide balls would not affect the function of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to have the magnet disposed between the rotation axis ball and the plurality of guide balls since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses the camera module of claim 11, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the reflective holder (240) is configured to rotate about a second axis (Figs. 9, 14), perpendicular to the optical axis and the first axis (Figs. 9, 14), and wherein a plurality of ball members (278; Fig. 9; ¶0094) spaced apart in a direction of the second axis are disposed between the reflective holder (240) and the rotating holder (230) (Figs. 9, 13).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210181460 A1) in view of Im et al. (US 20180224665 A1), hereinafter Im.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the camera module of claim 11, as set forth above. Lee further discloses the lens module (30) is configured to move in a direction of the optical axis (¶0061). Lee does not disclose a plurality of ball members that support a movement of the lens module in the direction of the optical axis are disposed between the lens module and the housing.
However, Im teaches a similar camera module comprising a reflective module (1100; Figs. 3-4; ¶0084), a lens module (1200; Figs. 3-4), and a housing (1010; Fig. 4; ¶0084) wherein the lens module (1200) is configured to move in a direction of the optical axis (¶0143) and a plurality of ball members (1250; Fig. 4; ¶0143) that support a movement of the lens module (1200) in the direction of the optical axis are disposed between the lens module (1200) and the housing (1010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the plurality of ball members between the lens module and the housing as taught by Im for the purpose of having bearings to guide the lens holder during focusing and maintaining a spacing between the lens holder and the housing (¶0144 of Im).
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 21st, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights