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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2025 and 07/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0185053) in view of Fullerton et al. (US 2012/0007705).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a reflection module ([0109] discloses: 3000, reflective module), comprising:
a housing ([0109] discloses: 1100, housing);
a guide member ([0109] discloses: 3300, rotatable holder) disposed to be relatively rotatable on the housing ([0118] discloses: 3300, rotatable holder moved rotatable relative to the housing), based on a first rotation axis ([0156] discloses: 3300, rotatable holder, rotates about R2, second rotation axis); and
a holder ([0118] discloses: 3200, reflective holder) disposed to be relatively rotatable on the guide member ([0118] discloses: 3200, reflective holder, configured to be rotatably supported by the 3300, rotatable holder) based on a second rotation axis ([0156] discloses: 3200, reflective holder, configured to be rotatably supported by the 3300, rotatable holder, based on R2, second rotation axis,) and having a reflection member mounted therein ([0117] discloses: 3100, reflective member disposed in 3200, reflective member),
wherein a first pulling magnet ([0124] discloses: 3240, magnetic body) is disposed on one of the guide member and the holder ([0125] discloses: 3240 and 3340, magnetic bodies, may be separately disposed on 3300, rotatable holder and 3200, reflective holder),
wherein a second pulling magnet ([0124] discloses: 3340, magnetic body) facing the first pulling magnet ([0124] discloses: 3240, magnetic body, 3340, magnetic body, face each other) is disposed on the other of the guide member and the holder ([0125] discloses: 3240 and 3340, magnetic bodies, may be separately disposed on 3300, rotatable holder and 3200, reflective holder).
Kim fails to disclose a module wherein both attractive force and repulsive force are applied between the first pulling magnet and the second pulling magnet. Kim and Fullerton are related because both disclose magnetic force manipulation.
Fullerton teaches a module wherein both attractive force and repulsive force ([0188] teaches: opposing forces can be employed simultaneously) are applied between the first pulling magnet and the second pulling magnet (Figure 34 depicts: 3400a, 3400b, magnets, programed with repel and snap behavior, see also Figures 18A-18F).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Fullerton and provide a module wherein both attractive force and repulsive force are applied between the first pulling magnet and the second pulling magnet. Doing so would allow for tailoring the magnetic force response between the relative movable holders, thereby improving controlled support and positional stability of the reflective holder.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 1,
wherein one surface of the first pulling magnet and one surface of the second pulling magnet face each other ([0124] discloses: 3240, magnetic body, 3340, magnetic body, face each other), and
wherein a number of polarities of the one surface of the first pulling magnet and a number of polarities of the one surface of the second pulling magnet are different from each other (Fullerton: [0142] teaches: 1800, magnet, has a single polarity on its facing side, while 1002, magnetic structure, has 1006, inner portion, of one polarity, and 1004, outer portion of the opposite polarity; thus, the facing surface of 1800, magnet, has one polarity, while the facing surface of 1002, magnetic structure has a plurality of polarities, such that the number of polarities on the respective facing surfaces are different, See Figure 18B; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 2,
wherein an area in which opposite polarities face each other is greater than an area in which same polarities face each other, on the one surface of the first pulling magnet and the one surface of the second pulling magnet (Fullerton: Figure 18B depicts & [0142] teaches: 1002, magnetic structure, having 1004, outer portion and 1006, inner portion facing 1800, magnet, while 1004, outer portion has a polarity opposite that of the facing surface of 1800, magnet and 1006, inner portion, has the same polarity as the facing surface of 1800, magnet; as shown, the area of 1004, outer portion is greater than the area of 1006, inner portion; thus, the area in which opposite polarities face each other is greater than the area in which same polarities face each other; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 1,
wherein a magnitude of the attractive force is greater than a magnitude of the repulsive force (Fullerton: [0092] teaches: more powerful peak attractive force curve and a weaker peak repulsive force curve; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 1,
wherein one surface of the first pulling magnet and one surface of the second pulling magnet face each other ([0124] discloses: 3240, magnetic body, 3340, magnetic body, face each other),
wherein the one surface of the first pulling magnet has one polarity (Fullerton: [0142] teaches: 1800, magnet, having a first polarity on one side and an opposite second polarity on its other side; thus the surface of 1800, magnet facing 1002, magnetic structure, has one polarity), and
wherein the one surface of the second pulling magnet has a plurality of polarities including opposite polarities (Fullerton: [0142] teaches: 1002, magnetic structure, has 1006, inner portion, of one polarity, and 1004, outer portion of the opposite polarity; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 5,
wherein the one surface of the second pulling magnet has two first polarities spaced apart from each other and a second polarity disposed between the two first polarities (Fullerton: [0143] teaches: different variations of portions of two magnetic structures can be employed to include portions that are next to each other, for example side by side strips; adapting Figure 18 would give us 1002 = S|N|S and 1800 = N|N|N),
wherein the first polarity is a same polarity as the one polarity of the one surface of the first pulling magnet (Fullerton: [0142] and the inner portion would have the opposite polarity), and
wherein the first polarity and the second polarity are opposite polarities (Fullerton: [0142] teaches: opposite polarities of inner and outer regions; [0092] teaches: reversing roles of polarities; thus giving us
N
|
S
|
N
N
|
N
|
N
, the first and second polarities are opposite polarities and the first polarity is the same polarity as the one polarity of the one surface of the first pulling magnet).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 6.
Kim fails to disclose wherein a length of the second polarity is equal to or longer than a sum of lengths of the two first polarities, and wherein the length is a length in a direction of the first rotation axis. However, optimizing the length of the polarity elements would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, in [0140] Fullerton teaches the relative sizes and the field strengths of the correlated magnetic structures can be varied based on corresponding operational characteristics and establishes the size and length of the magnetic structures as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow for increasing the contribution of the attractive magnetic interaction relative to the repulsive magnetic interaction, thereby improving retention of the moveable holder while maintaining a restoring force. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose wherein a length of the second polarity is equal to or longer than a sum of lengths of the two first polarities, and wherein the length is a length in a direction of the first rotation axis since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 1,
Kim fails to disclose wherein among the first pulling magnet and the second pulling magnet, a length of the pulling magnet mounted on the holder is equal to or longer than a length of the pulling magnet mounted on the guide member, and wherein the length is a length in a direction of the first rotation axis. However, optimizing the length of the polarity elements would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, in [0140] Fullerton teaches the relative sizes and the field strengths of the correlated magnetic structures can be varied based on corresponding operational characteristics and establishes the size and length of the magnetic structures as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow for increasing the contribution of the attractive magnetic interaction relative to the repulsive magnetic interaction, thereby improving retention of the moveable holder while maintaining a restoring force. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose wherein a length of the second polarity is equal to or longer than a sum of lengths of the two first polarities, and wherein the length is a length in a direction of the first rotation axis since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 1,
wherein a first ball member including a plurality of balls is disposed between the guide member and the holder ([0157] discloses: a plurality of second ball members may be disposed between 3200, reflective holder and 3300, rotatable holder), and
wherein the plurality of balls are spaced apart from each other in a direction of the second rotation axis ([0157] discloses: plurality of second ball members, form a second rotation axis; [0159] discloses: plurality of second ball member are spaced apart in a direction perpendicular to the first rotation axis, thus the ball members are spaced apart in a direction of the second rotation axis as they form it).
Claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0185053) in view of Fullerton et al. (US 2012/0007705), as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0294184) hereinafter Kim184.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 5.
Kim fails to disclose a module wherein a boundary region between the plurality of polarities is parallel to the second rotation axis. Kim and Kim184 are related because both disclose reflection modules.
Kim184 teaches a module wherein a boundary region between the plurality of polarities is parallel to the second rotation axis (Figure 7 depicts: 811, first magnet with 811c, region, parallel to the x axis, considered the second rotation axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Kim184 and provide a module wherein a boundary region between the plurality of polarities is parallel to the second rotation axis. Doing so would allow for providing the multipolar pulling magnet with a known polarity region orientation used in a two-axis reflection module, thereby facilitating magnetic interaction during rotation of the holder about the second rotation axis.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 1,
wherein the first pulling magnet includes a first-first pulling magnet and a first-second pulling magnet (Fullerton: [0158] teaches: the two interacting magnetic structures are either a single piece of material or multiple pieces of material, or discrete magnets; Examiner notes that this includes the first pulling magnet being broken into a first-first and a first-second pulling magnet),
wherein the second pulling magnet includes a second-first pulling magnet facing the first-first pulling magnet and a second-second pulling magnet facing the first-second pulling magnet (Fullerton: [0158] teaches: the two interacting magnetic structures are either a single piece of material or multiple pieces of material, or discrete magnets; Examiner notes that this includes the second pulling magnet being broken into a second-first and a second-second pulling magnet),
wherein both attractive force and repulsive force are applied between the first-first pulling magnet and the second-first pulling magnet (Fullerton: [0188] teaches: opposing forces can be employed simultaneously), and
wherein both attractive forces and repulsive forces are applied between the first-second pulling magnet and the second-second pulling magnet (Fullerton: [0188] teaches: opposing forces can be employed simultaneously; Examiner notes that breaking up a magnet would result in another magnet, multiplying the number of each polarities with each separation; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Kim fails to disclose a module wherein the first pulling magnet includes a first-first pulling magnet and a first-second pulling magnet spaced apart from each other in a direction of the first rotation axis. Kim and Kim184 are related because both disclose reflection modules.
Kim184 teaches wherein the first pulling magnet includes a first-first pulling magnet and a first-second pulling magnet spaced apart from each other in a direction of the first rotation axis ([0140] teaches: a plurality of magnets disposed on both sides of 330, holder; Figures 4-7 depict: 330, holder with magnets spatially separated from one another along the Y direction, considered the first axis of rotation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Kim184 and provide a module wherein the first pulling magnet includes a first-first pulling magnet and a first-second pulling magnet spaced apart from each other in a direction of the first rotation axis. Doing so would allow for distributing the magnetic interaction at spaced locations on the relatively movable members, thereby providing flexibility in placement of the magnetic structures within the reflection module.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 10,
wherein a number of polarities of one surface of the first-first pulling magnet and a number of polarities of one surface of the second-first pulling magnet facing each other are different from each other (Fullerton: Figure 18B depicts: 1800, magnetic member, having a single polarity on its facing surface opposed to 1002, magnetic structure, having multiple polarities on its facing surface, including 1006, inner portions and 1004, outer portions of opposite polarities, see [0142], this the opposed facing surfaces have different number of polarities), and
wherein a number of polarities of one surface of the first-second pulling magnet and a number of polarities of one surface of the second-second pulling magnet facing each other are different from each other (Fullerton: [0158] teaches: the two interacting magnetic structures are either a single piece of material or multiple pieces of material, or discrete magnets; Examiner notes that the two discrete magnetic pairs would be configured according to Figure 18Bs arrangement, such that one member of each pair has one facing polarity while the opposed member has multiple facing polarities; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 11,
wherein the one surface of the first-first pulling magnet and the one surface of the first-second pulling magnet have a first polarity and a second polarity, respectively (Examiner notes that Fullerton teaches magnetic portions having selectively assigned opposite polarities; thus the spaced first-first and first-second pulling magnets may respectively include a first polarity and an opposite polarity as demonstrated by Figures 18A-18F; Fullerton teaches, multiple discrete magnets instead of one, and teaches first and second polarities of single magnets), and the one surface of the second-first pulling magnet and the one surface of the second-second pulling magnet have a first polarity or a second polarity, respectively (Examiner notes that Fullerton teaches magnetic portions having selectively assigned opposite polarities; thus the spaced second-first and second-second pulling magnets may respectively include a first polarity and an opposite polarity as demonstrated by Figures 18A-18F; Fullerton teaches, multiple discrete magnets instead of one, and teaches first and second polarities of single magnets), and
wherein the first polarity and the second polarity are opposite polarities (Fullerton: [0087] teaches: two opposite polarity forces; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claim 1.
Kim fails to disclose a module further comprising: a first driver including a first magnet disposed in the holder and a first coil facing the first magnet, wherein the first magnet includes two magnets, and the two magnets are disposed separately on one surface and another surface of the holder spaced apart from each other in a direction of the first rotation axis, wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the first rotation axis in a direction of the second rotation axis, and wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the second rotation axis in a direction of the first rotation axis. Kim and Kim184 are related because both disclose reflection modules.
Kim184 teaches a module further comprising: a first driver ([0107] teaches: 810 driving portion) including a first magnet ([0107] teaches: 811, first magnet) disposed in the holder and a first coil facing the first magnet ([0107] teaches: 813, first coil; Figure 6 depicts: 811, first magnet mounted on 300, reflection module, analogous to the holder),
wherein the first magnet includes two magnets, and the two magnets are disposed separately on one surface and another surface of the holder spaced apart from each other in a direction of the first rotation axis ([0140] teaches: plurality of magnets disposed on both side walls of 330, holder with magnets faces the coil in the Y direction; therefore a magnet is disposed on each opposed holder sidewall and the two magnets are spaced from one another in the Y direction, corresponding to the claimed first rotation axis direction, see [0131]),
wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the first rotation axis in a direction of the second rotation axis, and
wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the second rotation axis in a direction of the first rotation axis (Figures 4 and 6 depicts: B1 and B2, defining perpendicular first and second rotational axes, and 810, first driving portion, having 811, magnets disposed on opposed sidewalls of 330, holder, and corresponding facing 813, coils; 810, driving portion is displaced from the guide/housing rotation axis in the holder/guide rotation axis direction and is displaced from the holder/guide rotation axis in the guide/housing rotation axis direction; thus the drive is spaced apart from the first rotational axis in a direction of the second rotational axis; meaning the driver is spaced/offset from the x-axis in the Y direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Kim184 and provide disclose a module further comprising: a first driver including a first magnet disposed in the holder and a first coil facing the first magnet, wherein the first magnet includes two magnets, and the two magnets are disposed separately on one surface and another surface of the holder spaced apart from each other in a direction of the first rotation axis, wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the first rotation axis in a direction of the second rotation axis, and wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the second rotation axis in a direction of the first rotation axis. Doing so would allow for generating rotational driving force at a location spaced from the rotational axes, thereby providing a moment for rotating the holder.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0185053) in view of Fullerton et al. (US 2012/0007705), as applied to claims 12 above, in view of Moon (US 2023/0117477).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Kim discloses the reflection module according to claims 12.
Kim fails to disclose a module wherein among the first polarity and the second polarity of the one surface of the first- first pulling magnet, a length of a polarity disposed closer to the second rotation axis is equal to or longer than a length of the other polarity, wherein among the first polarity and the second polarity of the one surface of the first- second pulling magnet, a length of a polarity disposed closer to the second rotation axis is equal to or longer than a length of the other polarity, and wherein the length is a length in a direction of the first rotation axis. However, optimizing the relative sizes and lengths of the magnets with respect to the axes would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Moon teaches that the relative areas or lengths of magnetic interaction portions, and the locations of such portions relative to a rotational axis, affects the magnetic forces and resulting rotational force, see [0224], [0226]-[0227]. [0231], [0240], and expressly discloses arrangements where portions located closer to the rotation axis are longer than portions located farther from the rotation axis, see [0249] and therefore establishes the relative sizes and lengths of the magnets with respect to the axes as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow for tailoring the magnetic force distribution relative to the rotational axis, thereby providing a desired rotational restoring force characteristic. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose a module wherein among the first polarity and the second polarity of the one surface of the first- first pulling magnet, a length of a polarity disposed closer to the second rotation axis is equal to or longer than a length of the other polarity, wherein among the first polarity and the second polarity of the one surface of the first- second pulling magnet, a length of a polarity disposed closer to the second rotation axis is equal to or longer than a length of the other polarity, and wherein the length is a length in a direction of the first rotation axis since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0294184) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0210299).
Regarding claim 16, Kim disclose a camera module, comprising:
a housing ([0107] discloses: 110, housing);
a guide member ([0107] discloses: 200, guide member) disposed to be relatively rotatable on the housing ([0121] discloses: B2, second ball member, is disposed between 110, housing and 200, guide member; [0130] discloses: 300, reflection module may pivot with 200, guide member, relative to 110, housing), based on a first rotation axis ([0130] discloses: rotation about the Y axis, considered the first rotation axis);
a holder ([0073] discloses: 330, holder) disposed to be relatively rotatable on the guide member based on a second rotation axis and having a reflection member mounted therein ([0073] discloses: 330, holder, may include 310, reflective member; [0013] discloses: reflection module rotates about both axes); and
a first driver ([0076] discloses: 810, driving assembly) including a first magnet ([0137] discloses: 811, first magnet) disposed in the holder and a first coil facing the first magnet ([0137] discloses: 813, first coil; [0138] discloses: first magnet may be disposed on a side wall of 330, holder),
wherein the first magnet includes two magnets ([0140] discloses: 811, first magnet may include a plurality of magnets), and the two magnets are disposed separately on one surface and another surface of the holder ([0140] discloses: 811, first magnet may include a plurality of magnets, disposed on both side walls of the holder, as show in Fig. 4, the opposed sidewalls are spaced from one another in the Y direction, which corresponds to the claimed first rotation axis direction), which are spaced apart from each other in a direction of the first rotation axis (Examiner notes that because 811, magnets and 813, coil oppose/face one another in the Y direction, [0139], those opposed sidewall locations are separated along Y, corresponding to the claimed first rotation axis direction),
wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the first rotation axis in a direction of the second rotation axis (Examiner notes that because the fist driving portions are disposed on opposed sidewalls of 330, holder and the magnet/coil pairs are disposed in the Y direction, the first driving portions are displaced from the X-axis, corresponding to the claimed second rotation axis, in the Y direction, corresponding to the claimed first rotation axis direction; see Fig. 4).
Kim fails to disclose a module wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the second rotation axis in the direction of the first rotation axis. Kim and Kwon are related because both disclose reflective modules.
Kwon teaches disclose a module wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the second rotation axis in the direction of the first rotation axis ([0112] teaches: driving magnet away from the rotational axis in a direction perpendicular to the first axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Kwon and provide a module wherein the first driver is spaced apart from the second rotation axis in the direction of the first rotation axis. Doing so would allow for increasing the moment arm of the driving force, thereby increasing rotational torque.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0294184) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0210299), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Son (US 2022/0214520).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Kim discloses the camera module according to claim 16.
Kim fails to disclose a device further comprising: a first lens module having a first optical axis and coupled to the holder, wherein the first optical axis is perpendicular to the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis. Kim and Son are related because both disclose camera modules.
Son teaches a device further comprising:
a first lens module ([0134] teaches: 1120, rotating holder) having a first optical axis and coupled to the holder ([0134] teaches: carrying 1110, reflective member, and 1160-2, extension member, integrally formed with 1120, rotating holder, and extending from the holder in the optical axis direction; [0135] teaches: at least one extension lens is disposed within the extension member, in through portion 1161 through which optical light passes; therefore 1162, lens + lens supporting extension member is the lens module and that structure is coupled with the rotating holder),
wherein the first optical axis is perpendicular to the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis ([0092] teaches: 1120, rotating holder, to be rotatable with respect to the first axis and the second axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Son and provide a device further comprising: a first lens module having a first optical axis and coupled to the holder, wherein the first optical axis is perpendicular to the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis. Doing so would allow for integrating the lens with the movable reflecting assembly, thereby providing a compact optical image stabilization arrangement.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0294184) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0210299), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0185053) hereinafter Kim053 in view of Fullerton et al. (US 2012/0007705).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses the camera module according to claim 16.
Kim fails to disclose a module wherein a first pulling magnet is disposed in one of the guide member and the holder, a second pulling magnet facing the first pulling magnet is disposed in the other one of the guide member and the holder, one surface of the first pulling magnet and one surface of the second pulling magnet face each other, and a number of polarities of the one surface of the first pulling magnet is different from a number of polarities of the one surface of the second pulling magnet. Kim and Kim053 are related because both disclose reflection modules.
Kim053 teaches a first pulling magnet ([0124] discloses: 3240, magnetic body) is disposed in one of the guide member and the holder ([0125] discloses: 3240 and 3340, magnetic bodies, may be separately disposed on 3300, rotatable holder and 3200, reflective holder), a second pulling magnet facing ([0124] discloses: 3340, magnetic body) the first pulling magnet ([0124] discloses: 3240, magnetic body, 3340, magnetic body, face each other) is disposed in the other one of the guide member and the holder ([0125] discloses: 3240 and 3340, magnetic bodies, may be separately disposed on 3300, rotatable holder and 3200, reflective holder),
one surface of the first pulling magnet and one surface of the second pulling magnet face each other ([0124] discloses: 3240, magnetic body, 3340, magnetic body, face each other). Kim and Fullerton are related because both disclose reflection modules.
Fullerton teaches a number of polarities of the one surface of the first pulling magnet is different from a number of polarities of the one surface of the second pulling magnet ([0142] teaches: 1800, magnet, has a single polarity on its facing side, while 1002, magnetic structure, has 1006, inner portion, of one polarity, and 1004, outer portion of the opposite polarity; thus, the facing surface of 1800, magnet, has one polarity, while the facing surface of 1002, magnetic structure has a plurality of polarities, such that the number of polarities on the respective facing surfaces are different).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Kim053 and Fullerton and provide a first pulling magnet is disposed in one of the guide member and the holder, a second pulling magnet facing the first pulling magnet is disposed in the other one of the guide member and the holder, one surface of the first pulling magnet and one surface of the second pulling magnet face each other, and a number of polarities of the one surface of the first pulling magnet is different from a number of polarities of the one surface of the second pulling magnet. Doing so would allow for tailoring the magnetic force response between the relative movable holders, thereby improving controlled support and positional stability of the reflective holder.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Kim discloses the camera module according to claim 16,
wherein a first ball member including a plurality of balls is disposed between the guide member and the holder ([0121] discloses: B1, first ball member disposed between the guide member and the reflection module; [0122] discloses: first ball members, may include a plurality of ball members), and the plurality of balls of the first ball member are spaced apart from each other in the direction of the second rotation axis ([0020] discloses: plurality of ball members disposed along the first axis), and
wherein a second ball member including a plurality of balls is disposed between the guide member and the housing ([0121] discloses: B2, second ball member disposed between the guide member and the reflection module; [0122] discloses: second ball members, may include a plurality of ball members), and the plurality of balls of the second ball member are spaced apart from each other in the direction of the first rotation axis ([0020] discloses: plurality of ball members disposed along the first axis).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Kim discloses the camera module according to claim 19,
wherein a virtual line connecting the plurality of balls of the first ball member in the direction of the second rotation axis is spaced apart from the first magnet in the direction of the first rotation axis ([0122] discloses: B1, first ball member, spaced apart on the x axis), and
wherein a virtual line connecting the plurality of balls of the second ball member in the direction of the first rotation axis is spaced apart from the first magnet in the direction of the second rotation axis ([0133] disclose: B2, second ball member, disposed on the Y axis, therefore each has its own axis and a virtual line connecting each set of plurality of balls is spaced apart).
Compact Prosecution
Applicant may consider amending the independent claim to further define the specific axis relative polarity arrangement of the pulling magnets, including the relative polarity region lengths and resulting attractive/repulsive force distribution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hong (US 2022/0066291) and Lee et al. (US 2023/0010659) both disclose relevant camera modules but fail to disclose the correct magnet assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights