Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/611,088

SMA ACTUATOR WITH POSITION SENSORS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 05, 2019
Examiner
PHAN, MINH Q
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Cambridge Mechatronics Limited
OA Round
8 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
626 granted / 827 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
858
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 827 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First of all, applicant alleges that the Office equates Topliss’s gyroscope (27) of as being the recited magnetic sensor for sensing a position or orientation of the whole moveable component relative to the static component, however said allegation is erroneous. In the office action, the Examiner states that Topliss’s discloses a gyroscope as a means for sensing the orientation/position of the movable element (para. 82, ll. 1-2), however the Examiner does not rely on Topliss to teach the magnetic sensor as recited in the claim. Instead, the Examiner relies on the reference Im to disclose the magnetic sensor (1141c) for sensing a position or orientation of the whole moveable component relative to the static component (para. 125). Secondly, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Im teaches a well-known the magnetic sensor. i.e. a Hall sensor (1141c), for sensing a position or orientation of the whole moveable component relative to the static component (para. 125), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the Hall sensor within Topliss’s actuator to improve the accuracy in position and/or orientation detection of the movable component. Therefore, the incorporation of a well-known position sensor would have been within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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, 4, 10-11, 24-28, 34, 44-45 and 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topliss (US Pub. No. 2013/0002933) in view of Im et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0224665). Regarding claims 1, 4, 10-11, 24-28, 44-45 and 47-48, Topliss teaches an actuator comprising: a moveable component (11) and a static component (12), where the moveable component is moveable relative to the static component; a first shape memory alloy (SMA) actuator wire having a first portion coupled to the moveable component and a second portion coupled to the static component, wherein the contraction of the first SME actuator caused the moveable component to move; a second shape memory alloy (SMA) actuator wire having a first portion coupled to the moveable component and a second portion coupled to the static component, wherein contraction of the second SME actuator wire causes the moveable component to move, and wherein contraction of the first SME actuator wire causes expansion of the second SME actuator wire and contraction of the second SMA actuator wire causes expansion of the first SME actuator wire (Fig. 3, para. 34-35); at least one sensor (27) for sensing a position or orientation of the moveable component (para. 82-83); at least one resistance measurement circuit for measuring a resistance of the first SMA actuator wire and the second SMA actuator wire to determine a position or orientation of the moveable component relative to the static component (para. 65-70); a control module for: receiving data from the at least one sensor; and generating control signal to control power delivered to the first SMA actuator wire and the second SMA actuator wire based on the received data, to adjust the position of the moveable component relative to the static component (para. 69) [claims 10]; wherein the control module receives additional data from the at least one resistance measurement circuit, and generates the control signal using the additional data (para. 69) [claim 11]; where the moveable component moves at least one optical element of an image capturing device (para. 3) [claim 24]; where the movement of the moveable component provides auto-focusing for the image capture device (para. 86) [claim 25]; where the movement of the moveable component provides optical image stabilization for the image capture device (para. 85) [claim 26]; wherein the actuator comprises a further six SMA actuator wires (Fig. 3) [claims 27-28]. Topliss does not specifically teach at least one magnetic sensor for sensing a position or orientation of the whole movable component relative to the static component; and at least one magnetic field source [claim 4]; wherein at least one magnetic sensor comprises at least one Hall effect sensor [claim 44]; wherein the at least one magnetic sensor does not measure a resistance of the first and the second SMA wires [claim 45]; wherein the at least one sensor is configured to directly sense the position or orientation of the movable component relative to the static component [claim 47]; and wherein that least one magnetic sensor comprises three magnetic sensors for sensing the position or orientation of the movable component relative to the static component in three dimension [claim 48]. Im teaches an actuator comprising: at least one magnetic sensor (1141c) for sensing a position or orientation of the whole movable component relative to the static component and at least one magnetic field source; wherein at least one magnetic sensor comprises at least one Hall effect sensor (para. 125) [claim 44]; wherein the at least one magnetic sensor does not measure a resistance of the first and the second SMA wires [claim 45]; wherein the at least one sensor is configured to directly sense the position or orientation of the movable component relative to the static component [claim 47]; and wherein that least one magnetic sensor comprises three magnetic sensors for sensing the position or orientation of the movable component relative to the static component in three dimension (the position sensors 1141c, 1143c, 1243c are configured to sense a position in three dimensions) [claim 48]. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least one magnetic sensor as taught by Im within said actuator in order to accurately detect a current position of the moveable component relative to the static component. Regarding claim 34, Topliss teaches a method for controlling an actuator, the method comprising: receiving a required position for a moveable component of the actuator, where the moveable component is moveable relative to a static component of the actuator by a first shape memory alloy (SMA) actuator wire and by a second shape memory alloy (SMA) actuator wire, wherein contraction of the first SMA actuator wire causes the moveable component to move and expansion of the second SMA actuator wire, and wherein contraction of the second SMA actuator wire causes the moveable component to move and expansion of the first SMA actuator wire (para. 34-35); receiving data from at last one resistance measurement circuit for measuring a resistance of the first SMA wire and the second SMA actuator wire to determine a position or orientation of the moveable component relative to the static component (para. 65-70); generating control signals to control power delivered to the first SMA actuator wire and the second SMA actuator wire base on the data received from the at least one resistance measurement circuit, to adjust the position of the moveable component relative to the static component. (para. 69). Topliss does not specifically teach a step of receiving data from at least one magnetic sensors for sensing a current position or orientation of the whole moveable component relative to the static component. Im teaches a method for controlling an actuator, the method comprising: receiving data from at least one magnetic sensors for sensing a current position or orientation of the whole moveable component relative to the static component (para. 122-125). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least one magnetic sensor as taught by Im within said method for controlling an actuator in order to obtain a more accurate driving of the movable component relative to the static component. Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topliss in view of Im, and further in view Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0176132). Regarding claim 7, Topliss, as modified by Im, teaches all the claimed limitations except for the at least one magnetic sensor comprises a further magnetic sensor for compensating for the effect of external magnetic fields. Chen teaches a magnetic sensing unit comprises a magnetic sensor for compensating for the effect of external magnetic fields (para. 7). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an additional external magnetic field sensor as taught in order to facilitate an accurate detection of a current position of the moveable component relative to the static component. Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topliss in view of Im, and further in view Hu et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0315551). Regarding claim 8, Topliss, in view of Im, teaches all the claimed limitations except for the at least one sensor comprises at least one magnetic tunnel junction, however magnetic tunnel junction is a well-known magnetic sensor as evident by Hu (para. 4). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a magnetic tunnel junction for said magnetic sensor to detect a current position of the moveable component. Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topliss in view Im, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 106443949A and its English Translation). Regarding claim 9, Topliss, as modified by Im, teaches all the claimed limitations except for the at least one sensor comprises a quadrupole magnet and at least one Hall effect element. Wang teaches a position sensor comprises a quadrupole magnet and at least one Hall effect element (pg. 5, 6th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a sensor as taught by Wang for Topliss’s position sensor in order to accurately detect a current position of the moveable component. Claims 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topliss in view of Im, and further in view of Okada (US Pub. No. 2018/0352167). Regarding claims 14 and 16-17, Topliss, as modified by Im, teaches all the claimed limitations except for a storage for storing a look up table of a plurality of positions of the moveable component, for each position, at least one associated sensor value; where the look up table is populated using data collected during one or more of: an actuator manufacturing process, a calibration process, and an initialization process performed whenever the actuator is initialized [claim 16]; wherein the look up table is modified using data collected from the at least one magnetic sensor during use of the actuator [claim 17]. Okada teaches an actuator comprises a storage for storing a look up table of a plurality of positions of the moveable component, for each position, at least one associated sensor value (para. 61); where the look up table is populated using data collected during one or more of: an actuator manufacturing process, a calibration process, and an initialization process performed whenever the actuator is initialized; wherein the look up table is modified using data collected from the at least one sensor during use of the actuator (it’s implied that the look up table is populated during a calibration process/use process). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a look up table as taught by Okada for said actuator in order to accurately detect the current position of the moveable component. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH Q PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3898. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm. 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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. MINH Q. PHAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2852 /MINH Q PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 05, 2019
Application Filed
Apr 07, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 11, 2022
Response Filed
Oct 25, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 25, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 25, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 27, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
May 02, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 05, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 09, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 20, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 24, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
May 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 30, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 30, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 03, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 20, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 27, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 04, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601955
DRIVING DEVICE, OPTICAL ELEMENT DRIVING DEVICE, CAMERA MODULE, AND CAMERA-EQUIPPED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595876
SIX-AXIS AGILE SHOOTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591176
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TREATING A RELIEF PRECURSOR WITH LIQUID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585083
LENS APPARATUS, IMAGE PICKUP APPARATUS, METHOD OF CONTROLLING LENS APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578365
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING A VOLTAGE DROP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (-5.2%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 827 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month