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 (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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0188761 – hereinafter referred to as “Wade”) in view of Ge et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN 117518680 – machine translation – hereinafter referred to as “Ge”).
Regarding claim 1, Wade teaches a lens driving device (Figure 1), comprising:
a fixation frame (Figure 2 fixed body 3, [0033]);
a lens barrel (Figure 2 movable body 2, [0033]) received in the fixation frame (Figure 2, [0033] fixed body 3 holds movable body 2) and configured to carry a lens assembly having an optical axis (Figure 2, lens holder 7 with optical axis L, [0033]-[0034] movable body 2 carries lens holder 7 with optical axis L) ;
an elastic connection member (Figure 3 springs 5,6) connecting the fixation frame to the lens barrel and supporting the lens barrel to move relative to the fixation frame ([0033] movable body 2 is movably held to fixed body 3 through springs 5,6); and
a driving assembly (Figure 2 drive mechanism 4) driving the lens barrel to move along a direction of the optical axis ([0033] drive mechanism 4 drives movable body 2 in optical axis direction),
wherein the driving assembly is arranged at a corner of the fixation frame (Figures 1 and 2 drive mechanism 4 is in corners of fixed body 3, [0044]), the driving assembly comprises a magnetic circuit system (Figure 3 magnetic parts 17) fixed to the fixation frame (Figure 3 magnet parts 17 are disposed at four inner corners of case body 11 of fixed body 3, [0044]) and a coil (Figure 3 drive coil 18) fixed to the lens barrel ([0034] drive coils 18 are fixed to movable body 2), the magnetic circuit system comprises a magnet portion (Figure 3 magnetic parts 17), the coil arranged at a peripheral of the magnet portion (Figure 5 drive coil 18 is arranged at periphery of magnetic parts 17)
Wade fails to teach the a magnetic frame and the magnet portion received in the magnetic frame, the magnetic frame comprises a top wall and a bottom wall opposite to each other along the direction of the optical axis, and a side wall connecting the top wall and the bottom wall, the magnet portion is sandwiched between the top wall and the bottom wall, the coil is received in the magnetic frame, the side wall is provided with two notches that are formed at two sides of the coil, the lens barrel extends toward the coil to form a pair of support arms for clamping the coil, and the pair of support arms enter the magnetic frame from the two notches of the side wall to clamp the coil.
However, Ge is related to Wade with respect to an optical lens driving device (Figure 1) and teaches a magnetic frame (Figure 3 support plate 25 and yoke 22 form a magnetic frame, [0061]) and the magnet portion received in the magnetic frame (Figure 3 magnet 23 is received in frame composed of support plate 25 and yoke 22) the magnetic frame comprises a top wall (Figure 3 top of yoke 22) and a bottom wall (Figure 3 bottom of yoke 22) opposite to each other along the direction of the optical axis (Figure 4 top and bottom yoke 22 are opposite to each other in direction of optical axis), and a side wall connecting the top wall and the bottom wall (Figure 3 left side of yoke 22 and support plate 25 form side wall), the magnet portion is sandwiched between the top wall and the bottom wall (Figure 3 magnet 23 is between top and bottom of yoke 22), the coil is received in the magnetic frame (Figure 3 coil 21 is received in frame composed of support plate 25 and yoke 22), the side wall is provided with two notches that are formed at two sides of the coil (Figures 3 and 4 two openings in side wall of frame), the lens barrel extends toward the coil to form a pair of support arms for clamping the coil (Figure 2 moving part 12 has two support arm clamping coil 21). Ge further teaches using a magnetic frame to achieve a large stroke driving force to achieve an efficient driving method and suspend the moving part ([0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens driving device taught by Wade using the magnetic frame taught by Ge to enclose the magnetic portion and coil taught by Wade in order to achieve a large stroke driving force to achieve an efficient driving method and suspend the moving part (Ge [0061]).
Wade and Ge fail to teach the pair of support arms enter the magnetic frame from the two notches of the side wall to clamp the coil. However, modifying the lens driving device taught by Wade and Ge would merely have required a change in size of components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the support arms and/or magnetic frame taught by Wade and Ge such that the support arms enter the magnetic frame as doing so would merely require a change in size.
Regarding claim 2, Wade and Ge teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wade further teaches the magnet portion (Figure 8 magnetic part 17) comprises a first magnet fixed to the top wall (Figure 8 top magnet piece 23, [0046]), a second magnet fixed to the bottom wall (Figure 8 bottom magnet piece 24, [0046]), and a pole core sandwiched between the first magnet and the second magnet (Figure 8 magnetic plate 25 between magnet pieces 23 and 24, [0046]); the first magnet and the second magnet are magnetized in the direction of the optical axis (Figure 2 magnet pieces 23,24 are magnetized in direction of optical axis L) ; and a magnetizing direction of the first magnet is opposite to a magnetizing direction of the second magnet (Figure 2 magnet pieces 23,24 have opposite magnetizing directions).
Regarding claim 3, Wade and Ge teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wade further teaches the coil comprises a first coil wall (Figure 7 first coil wall, see labeled figure below) and a second coil wall opposite to each other in parallel (Figure 7 second coil wall opposite first coil wall in parallel, see labeled figure below), and a pair of third coil walls connecting the first coil wall to the second coil wall (Figure 7 pair of third coil walls connect first and second coil walls, see labeled figure below); the first coil wall is closer to the lens barrel than the second coil wall (Figure 4 first coil wall is closer to movable body 2); a length of an orthographic projection of the first coil wall along the direction of the optical axis is greater than a length of an orthographic projection of the second coil wall along the direction of the optical axis (Figure 7 first coil wall is longer than second coil wall, see figure below). Wade fails to teach the pair of support arms are fixedly connected to the pair of third coil walls.
However, Ge teaches the pair of support arms are fixedly connected to the pair of third coil walls (Figure 2 moving part 12 has two support arms clamping coil 21 on the third walls, [0061]). Ge further teaches using a magnetic frame to achieve a large stroke driving force to achieve an efficient driving method and suspend the moving part ([0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens driving device taught by Wade and Ge by connecting the support arms to the third walls as taught by Ge to enclose the magnetic portion and coil taught by Wade in order to achieve a large stroke driving force to achieve an efficient driving method and suspend the moving part (Ge [0061]) and attach the coil to the movable part.
PNG
media_image1.png
289
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Wade and Ge teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wade further teaches when viewed from the direction of the optical axis, the coil and the magnet portion have contour shapes matching each other (Figure 7 shapes of magnetic part 17 and coil 18 match each other).
Regarding claim 5, Wade and Ge teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wade further teaches two driving assemblies are provided, and the two driving assemblies are arranged at a pair of corners opposite to each other of the fixation frame (Figure 2 two drive mechanisms 4 are arranged at opposite corners).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0188761) in view of Ge (Chinese Patent Publication CN 117518680) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0025951).
Regarding claim 6, Wade and Ge teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wade and Ge fail to teach the elastic connection member is made of a polymer material. However, Park is related to Wade with respect to an optical driving device (Figure 1) and teaches the elastic connection member is made of a polymer material ([0012] elastic members may be made of polyimide or polyamide). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens driving device taught by Wade and Ge by having the elastic connection members be made of a polymer as taught by Park since polymers are well-known elastic materials.
Regarding claim 7, Wade, Ge, and Park teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 6. Wade and Ge fail to teach the polymer material comprises at least one of silica gel, nitrile rubber, ethylene acrylate rubber, acrylate rubber, butyl rubber, polyether-ether-ketone plastic or polyimide plastic. However, Park teaches the polymer material comprises at least one of silica gel, nitrile rubber, ethylene acrylate rubber, acrylate rubber, butyl rubber, polyether-ether-ketone plastic or polyimide plastic ([0012] elastic members may be made of polyimide or polyamide). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens driving device taught by Wade and Ge by having the elastic connection members be made of a polyimide as taught by Park since polyimides are well-known elastic materials.
Regarding claim 8, Wade, Ge, and Park teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 6. Wade further teaches the elastic connection member (Figure 3 springs 5,6) comprises:
a first elastic member (Figure 3 spring 5) that is arranged at a top of the lens barrel (Figure 3 spring 5 is at the top of movable part 2) and is of a complete annular structure (Figure 3 center of spring 5 has a complete annular structure); and
a second elastic member (Figure 3 spring 6) arranged at a bottom of the lens barrel (Figure 3 spring 6 is below movable part 2) and correspondingly arranged at four corners of the fixation frame (Figure 3 corners of spring 6 are arrange at four corners of fixed body 3).
Wade, Ge, and Park fail to teach four second elastic members. However, modifying the second elastic member taught by Wade into to four members would merely have required splitting the element into four pieces. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP 2144.04 Section V. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second elastic member taught by Wade to have four sections since doing so would merely require separating the element into four separate elements.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0188761) in view of Ge (Chinese Patent Publication CN 117518680) and Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0025951) as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Kim (International Patent Publication WO 2014/126275).
Regarding claim 9, Wade, Ge, and Park teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 6. Wade further teaches the elastic connection member (Figure 3 springs 5) comprises a deformation portion ([0042] spring parts connect sleeve fixed part with the case body fixed part), a first fixing portion extending from an inner periphery of the deformation portion (Figure 3 inner ring of spring 5, [0042] sleeve fixed part), and a second fixing portion extending from an outer periphery of the deformation portion (Figure 3 outer square of spring 5, [0042] case body fixed part); and the first fixing portion is fixed to the lens barrel ([0042] sleeve fixed part is fixed to sleeve 8 which is a part of movable part 2), and the second fixing portion is fixed to the fixation frame ([0042] case body fixed part is fixed to case body 11 which is a part of fixed body 3).
Wade, Ge, and Park fail to teach the deformation portion has a wave-shaped cross section. However, Kim is related to Wade with respect to a lens driving device (Figure 2) and teaches the deformation portion has a wave-shaped cross section (Page 18 second paragraph elastic member (402,404), is for example, a wavy plate spring in which a wavy groove is formed along the circumference). Kim further teaches using a wave-shaped cross section to improve the restoring force while mitigating external shocks (Page 18 second paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastic connection member taught by Wade to have a wave-shaped cross section as taught by Kim in order to improve the restoring force while mitigating external shocks (Wade Page 18 second paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Terajima (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0160470) discloses similar magnet circuit system to the instant invention comprising a coil arranged at the periphery of magnet received in frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights