CTNF 19/090,348 CTNF 86258 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ far ” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ far ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-14, 17, 19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyoshi (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0317470) . Regarding claim 1, Miyoshi discloses shake correction device comprising: an imaging element (figure 1 exhibits image sensor 6 as disclosed at paragraph 27); a fixed unit that includes a magnet member and a yoke member (figure 3B exhibits plate 110 which holds magnet member 107 and yoke 108); and a movable unit that includes a holding member holding the imaging element and a first coil member, the holding member being movably supported (figure 2 exhibits frame 206 which holds the image sensor 6 and coil 205c as disclosed at paragraph 41), wherein the magnet member includes a first magnet and a second magnet (figure 4 exhibits magnet 1073 which includes magnets 107f and 1072e as disclosed at paragraph 31), the first magnet and the second magnet are disposed on the same plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the imaging element (figure 4 shows that he magnets are on the same plane and perpendicular to the optical axis), and a first width which is a width of the first magnet is wider than a second width which is a width of the second magnet (figure 4 shows that the width 107i is greater than the width 107h as disclosed at paragraph 49). Regarding claim 2, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 1, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the first width is a length of a shorter side of an outer shape of the first magnet, and the second width is a length of a shorter side of an outer shape of the second magnet (figures 2 and 4 show that the widths 107h and 107i are the shorter sides of the outer shapes of the magnets). Regarding claim 3, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 1, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein a ratio between a first magnetic flux density, which is a magnetic flux density of the first magnet, and a second magnetic flux density, which is a magnetic flux density of the second magnet, falls within a predetermined range (it is apparent that there is a range in which the ratio of the magnetic flux densities fall). Regarding claim 4, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 3, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the first width and the second width are widths corresponding to the predetermined range (it is apparent that the differences in widths would cause affect the flux densities of the magnets and therefore control them to fall within the range in which the ratio of the magnetic flux densities fall). Regarding claim 6, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 1, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the first magnet is disposed closer to the imaging element than the second magnet is (figure 4 shows that magnet 107f is closer to the optical axis and therefore closer to the image sensor than magnet 107e). Regarding claim 7, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 6, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the first magnet is disposed in a region in which a first distance, which is a distance between the first magnet and the imaging element, is shorter than a second distance, which is a distance between the second magnet and the imaging element (figure 4 shows that magnet 107f is closer to the optical axis and therefore closer to the image sensor than magnet 107e, therefore the magnets are disposed in regions in which the distance between the magnet 107f is shorter than the distance between the magnet 107e and the imaging element). Regarding claim 8, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 1, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the yoke member includes a first yoke connected to the magnet member (figure 4 exhibits yoke 108 connected to magnet 107 as disclosed at paragraph 30) and a second yoke (figure 4 exhibits yoke 101 as disclosed at paragraph 30), the second yoke is disposed on a side opposite to the magnet member with the first coil member interposed therebetween (figure 4 shows yoke 101 on a side of magnet 107 opposite yoke 108 with coil 205c disposed therebetween), and a first region in which the second yoke covers the first magnet is smaller than a second region in which the second yoke covers the second magnet (figure 4 shows that yoke 108 covers a larger area of magnet 107 than yoke 101). Regarding claim 9, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 8, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the first region is a region in which the second yoke and the first magnet overlap each other in a case where the first magnet is seen from a side of the second yoke, and the second region is a region in which the second yoke and the second magnet overlap each other in a case where the second magnet is seen from the side of the second yoke (figure 8 shows that the regions are overlapping regions when viewed from either side). Regarding claim 10, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 8, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein a difference between a size of the first region and a size of the second region is changed according to a movable amount of the movable unit (figure 4 shows that the size are the first and second regions will change as frame 206 and image sensor 6 are moved in the first direction as disclosed at paragraph 46). Regarding claim 11, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 1, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are a pair of magnets in which magnetic poles are disposed in opposite directions (figure 4 shows that magnets 107e and 107f have poles disposed in opposite directions). Regarding claim 12, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 1, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the first magnet, the second magnet, and the movable unit constitute a magnetic circuit (paragraph 46 teaches that the magnets 107e and 107f work with the movable unit using magnetic forces to move frame 206 and therefore constitutes a magnetic circuit). Regarding claim 13, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 12, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the movable unit is moved in a plane parallel to an imaging surface of the imaging element by using the magnetic circuit and a current flowing through the first coil member (figure 4 shows that the frame 206 moves in a plane parallel to the imaging surface of sensor 6 as disclosed at paragraph 46). Regarding claim 14, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 1, in addition, Miyoshi discloses a biasing member that biases the movable unit toward the fixed unit (figure 2 shows screws 102a-102c which bias the frame 206 towards fixed unit 110). Regarding claim 17, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 8, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein a thrust force of the movable unit at an end part of a movable range of the second yoke is decreased as compared with a thrust force of the movable unit at a center of the movable range (figure 5 shows that the magnetic density decreases after reaching a peak and paragraph 54 teaches that smaller magnetic density causes smaller thrust). Regarding claim 19, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 1, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the holding member further holds a second coil member (figure 2 exhibits a second coil 205a as disclosed at paragraph 62), and the first coil member is a coil member for moving the movable unit in a first direction, and the second coil member is a coil member for moving the movable unit in a second direction intersecting the first direction (paragraph 46 teaches that coil 205c drives the frame 206 in the first direction and paragraph 62 teaches that coil 205a drives the fame in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction as shown in figure 4). Regarding claim 22, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 19, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein at least a magnetic sensor is provided inside the second coil member (figure 2 exhibits hall element 202a which is located within the windings of coil 205a as disclosed at paragraph 43). Regarding claim 23, Miyoshi disclose the shake correction device according to claim 19, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the holding member has a recessed portion in a first holding portion far from the imaging element in a holding portion that holds the first coil member and the second coil member (figure 2 shows that holder 206 has recessed portions, not labeled, for the coils, these are interpreted as being “far” from the location of the image sensor 6) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi in view of Sen (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0074460) . Regarding claim 5, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 3, however, Miyoshi fails to disclose wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are made of the same material. Miyoshi discloses magnets of unknown materials. Sen discloses that magnets can be made of the same material (paragraph 21). Because both Miyoshi and Sen discloses magnets for interacting with a coil to form a motor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the same magnetic material for each magnet as taught by Sen for the unknown magnetic material disclosed my Miyoshi to achieve the predictable result of forming an actuator. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi . Regarding claim 15, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 1, however, Miyoshi fails to disclose wherein the first width is 1.2 or more and 1.3 or less in a case where the second width is 1. Miyoshi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first width is 1.2 or more and 1.3 or less in a case where the second width is 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the first width to 1.2 or more and 1.3 or less in a case where the second width is 1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 16, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 3, however, Miyoshi fails to disclose wherein the first magnetic flux density is 1.00 or more and 1.025 or less in a case where the second magnetic flux density is set to 1. Miyoshi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first magnetic flux density is 1.00 or more and 1.025 or less in a case where the second magnetic flux density is set to 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the first magnetic flux density to 1.00 or more and 1.025 or less in a case where the second magnetic flux density is set to 1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 18, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 17, however, Miyoshi fails to disclose wherein a degree of the decrease is 20% or less. Miyoshi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a degree of the decrease is 20% or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the degree of the decrease to 20% or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi in view of Okamura et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0293073), hereinafter referenced as Okamura . Regarding claim 20, Miyoshi discloses the shake correction device according to claim 19, however, Miyoshi fails to disclose wherein the second coil member has different shapes at a first end part close to the imaging element and a second end part far from the imaging element. Okamura is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Okamura teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of achieving the size reduction of the apparatus without narrowing down the range of movement of the moving part would have prompted a predictable variation of Miyoshi by applying Okamura’s known principal of providing a coil member has different shapes at a first end part close to the imaging element and a second end part far from the imaging element (figure 17 exhibits a coil member 41 with an end closest to the imaging elements being smaller than then end farthest from the image sensor as disclosed at paragraph 90 and also figure 16 which shows the location of magnets 21 and 22 relative to the image sensor). In view of the motivations such as achieving the size reduction of the apparatus without narrowing down the range of movement of the moving part one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Miyoshi. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 21, Miyoshi in view of Okamura discloses the shake correction device according to claim 20, in addition, Miyoshi discloses wherein the second end part has a width narrower than a width of the first end part (figure 17 exhibits a coil member 41 with an end closest to the imaging elements being smaller than then end farthest from the image sensor as disclosed at paragraph 90 and also figure 16 which shows the location of magnets 21 and 22 relative to the image sensor). Citation of Pertinent Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ohashi (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0258489) discloses an imaging device. Kimura (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0258489) discloses an imaging device . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00. 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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. JASON A. FLOHRE Patent Examiner Art Unit 2637 /JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/090,348 Page 2 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/090,348 Page 3 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/090,348 Page 4 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/090,348 Page 5 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/090,348 Page 6 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/090,348 Page 7 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/090,348 Page 8 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/090,348 Page 9 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/090,348 Page 10 Art Unit: 2637
Prosecution Insights