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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in Remarks, filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 9 of 12 through 10 of 12, Applicant argues “Tsai et al. does not teach or suggest the feature of "at least one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body is located in a through-hole in at least one of the support and the fixed body" as recited in Applicant's claim 1” and “First, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's claimed invention would not have reasonably interpreted the bottom plate-shaped portion 9-111 of Tsai et al. as corresponding to Applicant's claimed first magnetic body. The bottom plate-shaped portion 9-111 of Tsai et al. is merely a structural metal component. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's claimed invention would have understood that all metal components are not inherently magnetic. In fact, Tsai et al. specifically teaches including a magnetic permeability member 9-700 to generate magnetic attraction with the at least one magnet 9-310 thus implicitly indicating that the bottom plate-shaped portion 9-111 of Tsai et al. is made of a metal which does not possess magnetic permeability.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner stated the limitation of Tsai for the first magnetic body was the area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4, not 9-111 in totality. The limitation was for a magnetic body, which 9-310 is a magnet, only (see ¶[0037]). Neither the Specification nor the claim has defined the structural limitation(s) of “first magnetic body”. Therefore, Examiner is interpreting the limitation of the “first magnetic body” of Tsai as being found in Figure 4, elements 9-110 and 9-111, specifically the area where 9-310 fits into 9-111. Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function as a magnetic body. See MPEP § 2112.01.
On Page 10 of 12, Applicant argues “the at least one magnet 9-310 of Tsai et al. is not retained within the through holes 9-113 of the bottom plate-shaped portion 9-111 of Tsai et al. as the Examiner is indicating. Instead, as is clearly shown in Figs. 5 and 8 of Tsai et al., the at least one magnet 9-310 is retained within the accommodating recesses 9-212 defined in the first movable portion 9-200 of Tsai et al. Conversely, it is the at least one coil 9-320, the position sensor 9-330, and the controller 9-340 of Tsai et al. which are housed within the through holes 9-113 of the bottom plate-shaped portion 9-111 of Tsai et al.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language does not mention the limitation is retained or any synonym thereof (Applicant argues “the at least one magnet is retained within the through holes of the bottom plate-shaped portion.”) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “at least one magnet is retained within the through holes of the bottom plate-shaped portion”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On Page 11 of 12, Applicant argues “In anticipation of the Examiner considering rejecting Applicant's claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious over Tsai et al., Applicant notes that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention would not have had any reason or motivation to modify Tsai et al. to include a first magnetic body and to locate at least one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body in a through-hole in the first movable portion 9-200 and the fixed portion 9-100 because nowhere in Tsai et al. is there any teaching or suggestion of any reason or motivation to explain why providing such an arrangement would have been beneficial or otherwise desirable. As the Examiner is aware, "[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." (In re Kahn, 441 F. 3d 977, 988 (CA Fed. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007))”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. An "obvious to try" rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Applicant’s anticipation that the Examiner will reject with a 35 USC § 102 rejection is incorrect foresight without the application being amended to include limitations where Tsai could be obvious over another art. Prior rejection stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-4, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al., (hereafter Tsai) (US 2021/0072530 A1), of record.
With respect to Claim 1, Tsai discloses an optical assembly comprising: a holder (9-500, Figure 2) on which an optical element (9-30, Figure 2) that reflects light traveling to one side in a first direction to one side in a second direction intersecting with the first direction is mounted; a support (9-200, Figure 4) that supports the holder (9-500, Figure 4); a fixed body (9-110, Figure 4) that supports the support (9-200, Figure 4); a first swing mechanism (9-520, Figure 4) that swings the support (9-200, Figure 4) about a first swing axis (annotated Figure 4) with respect to the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4); a first magnet (one of 9-310, Figure 4) on any one of the holder (9-500, Figure 4), the support (9-200, Figure 4), and the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4); and a first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where one of 9-310 fits, Figure 4) on any other one of the holder (9-500, Figure 4), the support (9-200, Figure 4), and the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4); wherein at least portions of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) overlap each other (annotated Figure 4) when viewed from any one of the first direction, the second direction (annotated Figure 4), and a third direction intersecting with each of the first direction and the second direction (annotated Figure 4); and at least one of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) is located in a through-hole (see Figure 4) in at least one of the support (9-200, Figure 4) and the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 2, Tsai further discloses wherein at least portions of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) overlap each other (annotated Figure 4) when viewed from a support direction in which the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4) supports the support (9-200, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 3, Tsai further discloses wherein the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) is on one of the support (9-200, Figure 4) and the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4); and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) is on another one of the support (9-200, Figure 4) and the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 4, Tsai further discloses wherein at least one of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) and the first swing mechanism (9-520, Figure 4) are on different surfaces (see Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 9, Tsai further discloses further comprising: an attachment plate (9-130, Figure 4) that is located on an opening side of a second end with respect to one of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) in the through-hole and to which one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) is attached; wherein one of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) is located in the through-hole; and the through-hole includes: an opening at a first end located on the other side of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4); and an opening at the second end located farther than the opening at the first end with respect to the other of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 11, Tsai further discloses wherein the through-hole is located in the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 12, Tsai further discloses wherein the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) is located on the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 14, Tsai further discloses a yoke (9-320, Figure 4) movable to contact (¶[0037]) with the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) on a side opposite to a side where the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) is located with respect to the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 17, Tsai further discloses further comprising: a second magnet (second of 9-310, Figure 4) on any one of the holder (9-500, Figure 4), the support (9-200, Figure 4), and the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4); and a second magnetic body (area of 9-111 where second of 9-310 fits, Figure 4) on another one of the holder (there is one of 9-500 on each side of 9-520, see Figure 4), the support (9-200, Figure 4), and the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4); wherein at least portions of the second magnet (second of 9-310, Figure 4) and the second magnetic body (area of 9-111 where second of 9-310 fits, Figure 4) overlap each other (annotated Figure 4) when viewed from any one of the first direction, the second direction (annotated Figure 4), and the third direction; and at least one of the second magnet (second of 9-310, Figure 4) and the second magnetic body (area of 9-111 where second of 9-310 fits, Figure 4) is located in a through-hole in at least one of the support (9-200, Figure 4) and the fixed body (9-110, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 18, Tsai further discloses wherein a through-hole (opening on 9-111, Figure 4) accommodating one of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) includes: an opening at a first end located on the other side of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4); and an opening at a second end located farther than the opening at the first end with respect to the other of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4); the through-hole in which one of the second magnet (second of 9-310, Figure 4) and the second magnetic body (area of 9-111 where second of 9-310 fits, Figure 4) is located includes: an opening at a third end located on the other side of the second magnet (second of 9-310, Figure 4) and the second magnetic body (area of 9-111 where second of 9-310 fits, Figure 4); and an opening at a fourth end located farther than the opening at the third end with respect to the other of the second magnet (second of 9-310, Figure 4) and the second magnetic body (area of 9-111 where second of 9-310 fits, Figure 4); and a distance between one of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) and the opening at the first end of the through- hole is equal to a distance between one of the second magnet (second of 9-310, Figure 4) and the second magnetic body (area of 9-111 where second of 9-310 fits, Figure 4) and the opening at the third end of the through-hole.
With respect to Claim 19, Tsai further discloses wherein the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the second magnet (second of 9-310, Figure 4) are symmetrical (see 9-310 in Figure 4; they are the same element in different locations) with respect to a direction orthogonal (annotated Figure 4) to the first swing axis (annotated Figure 4) when viewed from the first direction; and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) and the second magnetic body (area of 9-111 where second of 9-310 fits, Figure 4) are symmetrical (see area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits in Figure 4; they are the same element in different locations) with respect to the direction orthogonal (annotated Figure 4) to the first swing axis (annotated Figure 4) when viewed from the first direction (annotated Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 20, Tsai further discloses further comprising a second swing mechanism (9-610, Figure 4) that swings the holder (9-500, Figure 4) about a second swing axis (annotated Figure 4) intersecting with the first swing axis (annotated Figure 4) with respect to the support (9-200, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 21, Tsai further discloses the smartphone (¶[0003]) comprising the optical assembly according to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 2021/0072530 A1), of record
With respect to Claim 5, Tsai teaches the optical assembly according to claim 1, wherein one of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) is in the through-hole (9-310 fits in an open area of 9-111, Figure 4); the through-hole includes: an opening at a first end located on another side of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4); and an opening at a second end located farther than the opening at the first end with respect to the other of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4).
Tsai discloses the claimed invention except for a distance between one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body in the through-hole and the opening at the first end is smaller than a distance between one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body in the through-hole and the opening at the second end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a distance between one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body in the through-hole and the opening at the first end is smaller than a distance between one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body in the through-hole and the opening at the second end, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have a distance between one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body in the through-hole and the opening at the first end is smaller than a distance between one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body in the through-hole and the opening at the second end for the purpose of having the magnet set in the through-hole with little to no movement. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
With respect to Claim 6, Tsai further teaches the optical assembly according to claim 5, wherein in the through-hole (9-310 fits in an open area of 9-111, Figure 4), a gap (the gap exists due to 9-310 fitting into the opening (gap) on the area of 9-111, Figure 4) is provided between one of the first magnet (one of 9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where one of 9-310 fits, Figure 4) and an opening at the second end.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 2021/0072530 A1), of record, in further view of Ho et al., (hereafter Ho) (US 2020/0249424 A1).
With respect to Claim 7, Tsai teaches the optical assembly according to claim 1 and the through-hole.
Tsai fails to teach an adhesive.
Ho teaches at driving mechanism (title and abstract) comprising an adhesive (adhesive may be disposed in the space 5-S to affix magnetic elements, ¶[0180]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsai having the optical assembly with the teachings of Ho having the adhesive layer to affix magnetic elements for the purpose of better stability of the magnetic elements.
With respect to Claim 8, Tsai teaches the optical assembly according to claim 1, one of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) and an opening at a second end in the through-hole; wherein one of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) is in the through-hole; and the through-hole includes: an opening at a first end located on the other side of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4); and an opening at the second end located farther than the opening at the first end with respect to the other of the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4).
Tsai fails to teach an adhesive layer.
Ho teaches at driving mechanism (title and abstract) comprising an adhesive (adhesive may be disposed in the space 5-S to affix magnetic elements, ¶[0180]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsai having the optical assembly with the teachings of Ho having the adhesive layer to affix magnetic elements for the purpose of better stability of the magnetic elements.
With respect to Claim 10, Tsai teaches the optical assembly according to claim 9, the first magnet (9-310, Figure 4) and the first magnetic body (area of 9-111 where 9-310 fits, Figure 4) and the attachment plate (9-130, Figure 4) in the through-hole.
Tsai fails to teach an adhesive layer.
Ho teaches at driving mechanism (title and abstract) comprising an adhesive (adhesive may be disposed in the space 5-S to affix magnetic elements, ¶[0180]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tsai having the optical assembly with the teachings of Ho having the adhesive layer to affix magnetic elements for the purpose of better stability of the magnetic elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15, and 16 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.
With respect to Claim 13, the prior art fails to disclose “an inner diameter of the opening of the first end in the through-hole is smaller than a length of one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body along a hole radial direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction in which the through-hole extends; and an inner diameter of the opening at the second end in the through-hole is larger than a length of one of the first magnet and the first magnetic body along the hole radial direction.”
With respect to Claim 15, the prior art fails to disclose “an inner diameter of the through-hole is larger than a length of the first magnet along the hole radial direction and is smaller than a length of the yoke along the hole radial direction.”
With respect to claim 16, this claim depends on claim 15 and is allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights