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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al (US Patent 12,353,047 B2).
With regard to claim 1: Cheng discloses a lens holder driving device in Figures 6-9 which comprises a first fixed side member 900; first 300 and second 400 lens holders which are configured to hold first and second lens bodies such that they have a same optical axis (see column 5 lines 26-67 describing connection of lens modules to the movable portions and Figure 7 showing the positioning of the optical axis M, note per column 11 lines 5-12 the overall structure of the embodiment of Figures 6-9 is similar to that of the earlier Figures). Cheng includes a first movable-side member (720) which includes (is connected to) the first lens holder per column 7 lines 2-3, a second movable side member (820) which includes (is connected to) the second lens holder per column 11 lines 45-46 ; a first piezoelectric driver (combination of 710 and 715) which is configured to include a first piezoelectric device 715 and move the first movable side member in a direction of the optical axis by a motion of the first piezoelectric member (see column 5 line 55 through column 6 line 5) and a second piezoelectric driver (combination of 810 and 815) which is configured to include a second piezoelectric device 815 and move the second movable side member in a direction of the optical axis relative to the first lens holder by a motion of the second piezoelectric member (see column 11 lines 36-52 describing drive of element 820). Cheng discloses that the first piezoelectric driver is provided in the fixed-side member (this is best visible in Figure 6) and that the second piezoelectric driver is provided in the first lens holder (see column 12 lines 24-28 noting that the second driver is fixed to the first movable portion 300, which corresponds to the claimed first lens holder).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Paik et al.
With regard to claim 2: Cheng does disclose positioning the first piezoelectric driver in the fixed-side member and the members which transmit and receive the driving forces between the driving piezoelectric element and the first movable side member include structures which extend in a direction of the optical axis (the inner surface of element 780 which receives force from the piezoelectric drive 720 extends in the optical axis direction).
Cheng however does not disclose the inclusion of a first biasing member which is provided in the fixed side member that biases the first piezoelectric driver toward the first receiving member (the inner surface of 720). This is because Cheng discloses what is typically known in the art of photography as an “impact” type piezoelectric actuator, which operate by alternately slowly expanding (or contracting) a piezoelectric element to move a driving member (usually a shaft) and movable member which is frictionally retained by the driving member and then rapidly contacting (or expanding) the piezoelectric element such that the friction between the movable member and the driving member is unable to overcome the inertia of the movable member which slips to a new position on the driving member (then repeating the cycle over and over to cause large movement). In such an actuator any biasing member would be between the movable-side member and the driving member to mediate the amount of friction present at the interface, not between the fixed side member and the piezoelectric driver.
Impact piezoelectric actuators, however, have known problems which are recognized in the art of camera lens drive systems. See the discussion of such drive systems Figures 3A-3B and column 2 lines 4-23 of Paik, which notes that the drive circuitry of impact actuators is complex due to the asymmetric signals involved in the drive waveform, and the difficulty in miniaturizing the resulting device.
Paik teaches the use of an alternative piezoelectric drive system which uses a force receiving member which extends in the optical axis direction and which receives a drive motion from a piezoelectric driver, see Figure 6 showing a contact member 116 mounted to a portion 112 of a movable lens holder 111 which is contacted by output member 122 of piezoelectric driver 120 (see column 4 line 56 through column 5 line 18). This arrangement relies upon a biasing member 130 positioned between one part of the fixed portion 152 on the fixed portion and the piezoelectric element which is held by another portion of the fixed side member 151 to bias the piezoelectric driving element toward the contact member (see column 8 lines 5-18). This overall arrangement allows for miniaturization of the device (see column 8 lines 60-67) and allows driving the actuator with relatively simple circuitry (see column 7 lines 30-58).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have used a piezoelectric drive arrangement as taught by Paik in place of the first actuator of Cheng in order to allow easier miniaturization and the use of a simpler drive waveform as taught by Paik.
With regard to claim 3: In the lens holder driving device of Cheng the fixed side member includes a first shaft member and a second shaft member (each labeled 550) which extend in the direction of the optical axis and configured to guide the first movable side member to be movable in the direction of the optical axis (see column 6 lines 7-17).
Paik teaches that the center of one of the two guide rods should be coplanar with the contact point of the piezoelectric driving unit upon the first receiving member (presumably to minimize a rotational force component of the pressing force upon the lens module holder, see column 6 lines 21-33). Cheng indicates that overlapping units in the D3 direction (that is, looking down on the lens holder driving apparatus) aids in miniaturization in the D2 direction (see column 12 lines 50-62).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have configured the first receiving member to be coplanar with one of the guide members as taught by Paik, but also to overlap with it in the D3 direction (an arrangement which is not coplanar with both guide members) in order to reduce the size of the unit in the D2 direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 4 and claims dependent thereupon: The prior art does not teach a pair of piezoelectric driving systems which have the claimed configuration. While biasing members are known (as applied to claim 2, above), the prior art does not teach that it would have been obvious to have configured a lens holder driving device to have such an arrangement. If the second piezoelectric device of Cheng were to be converted to resemble that of Paik (similar to the first as applied to claim 2) the piezoelectric driver would be positioned on the first movable member, not the second.
With regard to claim 10: The prior art does not teach configuration of a pair of magnetic sensors, one on the fixed side member and one on the second movable member, which sense the magnetic field generated by a first movable member magnetic field generating member as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights