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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first drive unit”, “second drive unit”, and “third drive unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, US 20210289111.
Claim 1: Lim discloses a lens-driving device comprising:
a fixed unit (Fig. 4: housing 100 does not move, thus is fixed. See ¶¶ 49 and 65-68.);
a first moving unit disposed in the fixed unit (First frame 210 is a moving unit that is disposed in the housing unit. Fig. 4 and ¶ 68.);
a second moving unit disposed in the first moving unit (Second frame 220 is a moving unit and is disposed in first frame 210. Fig. 4 and ¶ 69);
a third moving unit disposed in the second moving unit (Third frame 230 is a moving unit and is disposed in second frame 220. Fig. 4 and ¶ 70.);
a first drive unit configured to move the first moving unit in a first direction (First frame 210 is driven by a driving unit to move in a first direction, the optical axis direction. ¶ 68.);
a second drive unit configured to move the second moving unit in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction and the first direction (Second frame 220 is driven by a driving unit to move in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis. ¶ 69.); and
a third drive unit configured to move the third moving unit (Third frame 230 is driven to move in a third direction perpendicular to the optical axis. ¶ 70.).
Lim does not disclose that the first direction is perpendicular to an optical axis direction and the third moving unit moves in the optical axis direction. Claim 1 differs from Lim only in the directions that the three moving units move. The claimed first and second moving units move in directions perpendicular to the optical axis, while the third moving unit moves in the optical axis direction. In contrast, Lim’s first moving unit moves in the optical axis direction, while the second and third moving units move in directions perpendicular to the optical axis. Despite this difference in the direction that each moving unit moves, Lim’s camera module accomplishes the same result as the invention that is described in claim 1: the lens barrel is moved in the x-, y-, and z-axes by three nested and independently movable frames.
The difference between the claim and the Lim disclosure does not amount to a patentable distinction. Instead, this difference amounts to an obvious reversal of known prior art parts. “[T]o reverse the operation of the relatively moving parts in [a prior art reference] … would not amount to invention, mere reversal of such movement being an obvious expedient.”). In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.04(VI). It would have been obvious to the POSITA before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify Lim to operate in the manner that is recited in claim 1 by having its first and second units move in first and second directions intersecting the optical axis, while having the third moving unit move in the optical axis direction. Reversing the direction of movement of Lim’s parts in this manner would have been an obvious matter of design and engineering choice.
Claim 2: Lim discloses that when the first moving unit is moved by the first drive unit, the second moving unit and the third moving unit are configured to-move together with the first moving unit (Fig. 4 and its description).
Claim 3: Lim discloses that when the second moving unit is moved by the second drive unit, the third moving unit moves together with the second moving unit (Fig. 4 and its description).
Claim 4: Lim discloses that the third drive unit comprises a third coil and a third magnet interacting with each other, and wherein when the second moving unit and the third moving unit are moved by the second drive unit, a distance between facing surfaces of the third coil and the third magnet is changed (¶¶ 52, 55, 61, and 72-74).
Claim 5: Lim discloses a first ball disposed between the first moving unit and the fixed unit in the second direction (First ball bearing 640. ¶66.).
Claim 6: Lim discloses that the fixed unit comprises a groove, wherein the first moving unit comprises a first groove, wherein the first ball is disposed between the groove of the fixed unit and the first groove of the first moving unit, and wherein at least one of the groove of the fixed unit and the first groove of the first moving unit extends in the first direction longer than a diameter of the first ball (first ball bearing 640 is disposed in second guide grooves 212 on first frame 210. ¶68. The grooves extend longer than the diameter of the ball, as depicted in Fig. 4.).
Claim 7: Lim discloses that the first moving unit comprises a first portion disposed between the second moving unit and the fixed unit in the first direction, and
wherein a second ball is disposed between the first portion of the first moving unit and the second moving unit in the first direction (¶¶ 68-69).
Claim 8: Lim discloses that the first moving unit comprises a second groove formed on the first portion of the first moving unit, wherein the second moving unit comprises a first groove, wherein the second ball is disposed between the second groove of the first moving unit and the first groove of the second moving unit, and wherein at least one of the second groove of the first moving unit and the first groove of the second moving unit extends in the second direction longer than a diameter of the second ball (Second groove 214. ¶¶ 68-69.).
Claim 9: Lim discloses that the second moving unit comprises a first portion disposed between the third moving unit and the fixed unit in the second direction, and wherein a third ball is disposed between the first portion of the second moving unit and the third moving unit in the second direction (¶ 70.).
Claim 10: Lim discloses that the second moving unit comprises a second groove formed on the first portion of the second moving unit, wherein the third moving unit comprises a groove, wherein the third ball is disposed between the second groove of the second moving unit and the groove of the third moving unit, and wherein at least one of the second groove of the second moving unit and the groove of the third moving unit extends longer than a diameter of the third ball in the optical axis direction (¶¶ 68-70.).
Claim 11: Lim discloses the fixed unit comprises a substrate, wherein the first drive unit comprises a first magnet disposed on the first moving unit, and a first coil disposed on the substrate at a position corresponding to the first magnet, and wherein at least a portion of the first ball is overlapped with the first magnet in the first direction (This is shown in Figures 4, and 6-9. A portion of the first ball bearing 640 overlaps the magnet 320 in the first (vertical) direction, as shown in Fig. 9.).
Claim 12: Lim discloses that the fixed unit comprises a substrate, wherein the second drive unit comprises a second magnet disposed on the second moving unit, and a second coil disposed on the substrate at a position corresponding to the second magnet, and wherein at least a portion of the second ball is overlapped with the second magnet in the second direction (Fig. 4 and 6-9. See above.).
Claim 13: Lim discloses that the fixed unit comprises a substrate, wherein the third drive unit comprises a third magnet disposed on the third moving unit, and a third coil disposed on the substrate at a position corresponding to the third magnet, and wherein at least a portion of the third ball is overlapped with the third magnet in the first
direction (Fig. 4 and 6-9. See above.).
Claim 14: Lim discloses that the first drive unit comprises a first magnet disposed on the first moving unit, wherein a first yoke is disposed on the fixed unit, and
wherein an attractive force acts between the first magnet and the first yoke (¶74. The POSITA would understand that there exists attractive force between yoke 140 and the first magnet).
Claim 15: Lim fails to disclose that the second drive unit comprises a second magnet disposed on the second moving unit, wherein a second yoke is disposed in the first moving unit, and wherein an attractive force acts between the second magnet and the second yoke. Official notice is taken that this feature was well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this in Lim, the rationale being to provide increased attractive force for the second magnet, thereby improving movement of the second frame 220.
Claim 16: Lim fails to disclose that the second yoke comprises a first portion disposed on one side of the second magnet in the second direction, and a second portion disposed on another side of the second magnet in the second direction, and wherein the second magnet comprises a chamfer surface formed at an edge closest to each of the first portion and the second portion of the second yoke. Official notice is taken that this feature was well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this in Lim, the rationale being to provide increased attractive force for the second magnet, thereby improving movement of the second frame 220.
Claim 17: Lim fails to disclose that the third drive unit comprises a third magnet disposed on the third moving unit, wherein a third yoke is disposed in the second moving unit, and wherein an attractive force acts between the third magnet and the third yoke. Official notice is taken that this feature was well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this in Lim, the rationale being to provide increased attractive force for the second magnet, thereby improving movement of the second frame 230.
Claim 18: Lim fails to disclose that the third yoke comprises a first portion disposed on one side of the third magnet in the first direction, and a second portion disposed on another side of the third magnet in the first direction, and wherein the third magnet comprises a chamfer surface formed at an edge closest to each of the first portion and the second portion of the third yoke. Official notice is taken that this feature was well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this in Lim, the rationale being to provide increased attractive force for the second magnet, thereby improving movement of the second frame 230.
Claim 19: Lim discloses a camera device comprising: a printed circuit board;
an image sensor disposed on the printed circuit board; the lens-driving device of claim 1 disposed on the printed circuit board (Implicit in ¶¶ 48 and 64, which describes that the camera module is mounted to a device such as a mobile phone); and a lens coupled with the lens-driving device (Lens barrel 160. ¶65).
Claim 20: Lim discloses an optical device comprising: a main body; the camera device of claim 19 disposed on the main body (¶102); and a display disposed on the main body and configured to output at least one of an image and a video photographed by the camera device (The POSITA would understand that this is implicit in ¶¶ 48 and 64, which describes that the camera module is used in a device such as a mobile phone.).
Alternative Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, KR 10-2018-0110995 in view of Lim. Reference is made below to the English translation of Lee that is provided with this Office action.
Claim 1: Lee discloses a lens-driving device comprising:
a fixed unit (Fig. 4: cover 1100.);
a first moving unit disposed in the fixed unit (Fig. 4: housing 1310 is housed within cover 1100. Pg. 5 ¶ 3.);
a third moving unit disposed in the second moving unit (Fig. 4: bobbin 1210 is disposed within housing 1310. Pg. 5, final paragraph.);
a first drive unit configured to move the first moving unit in a first direction perpendicular to an optical axis direction (Drive units move the housing 1310 in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction. Pg. 8 ¶ 3.); and
a third drive unit configured to move the third moving unit in the optical axis direction (A drive unit moves the bobbin in the optical axis direction. Id.).
Lee does not disclose a second moving unit disposed in the first moving unit; or a second drive unit configured to move the second moving unit in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction and the first direction.
However, Lim discloses a first moving unit and a second moving unit disposed within the first moving unit, comprising a first drive unit configured to move the first moving unit in a first direction perpendicular to an optical axis direction and a second drive unit configured to move the second moving unit in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction and the first direction (Second frame 220 and third frame 230 both move in directions perpendicular to the optical axis. ¶¶ 69-70.).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with these teachings in Lim by replacing Lee’s housing 1310 with frames 220 and 230. Lee’s housing 1310 is a single device that is driven by two magnets to move in two directions that are perpendicular to the optical axis. See Lee pg. 8 ¶ 3. The Lim disclosure would have suggested to the POSITA to use Lim’s two-carrier solution in place of this housing, as Lim’s device would offer improved control and accuracy over movements because each axis of movement is individually controllable.
Claims 2-20: see rejection of claims 2-20 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights