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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8-20 as they pertain to the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
emitting or receiving light (synonymous with step for emitting or receiving light) in claim 1.
determining times of emitting or receiving light (synonymous with step for determining times of emitting or receiving light) in claim 1.
outputting an inertia signal (synonymous with step for outputting an inertia signal) in claim 1.
recording influence of the inertia signal to the driving assembly as an inertia correction information (synonymous with step for recording influence of the inertia signal to the driving mechanism as an inertia correction information) 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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7-20 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.
Claim limitations “emitting or receiving light”, “determining times of emitting or receiving light”, “outputting an inertia signal”, and “recording influence of the inertia signal to the driving assembly as an inertia correction information” of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding “emitting or receiving light”, the claim does not recite the corresponding structure and/or acts to perform this function - the specification recites that this function may be performed by the optical transceiver assembly. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this limitation to be met so long as anything may emit or receive light within the device.
Regarding “determining times of emitting or receiving light”, the claim does not recite the corresponding structure and/or acts to perform this function - the specification recites that this function may be performed by the optical transceiver assembly. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this limitation to be met so long as anything may determine times of emitting or receiving light within the device.
Regarding “outputting an inertia signal”, the claim does not recite the corresponding structure and/or acts to perform this function - the specification recites that this function may be performed by the optical transceiver assembly. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this limitation to be met so long as anything may output an inertia signal within the device.
Regarding “recording influence of the inertia signal to the driving assembly as an inertia correction information”, the claim does not recite the corresponding structure and/or acts to perform this function - the specification recites that this function may be performed by the optical transceiver assembly. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this limitation to be met so long as anything may record influence of the inertia signal to the driving assembly as an inertia correction information within the device.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Also, claims 2-4, 6, 7-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanbara US Patent 5,973,856 (hereinafter “Kanbara”) of record in view of Liu et. al US 20120093496 (hereinafter “Liu”), Hu et. al US 20170285443 (hereinafter “US 443”), and Wu et. al US 20210026103 (hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 1, a method for controlling an optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
controlling a driving assembly (Kanbara fig. 2 – 105, which includes fig. 7 – 13, 14, 16 as stated in col. 3 lines 45-55) by a driver integrated circuit (IC) (Kanbara fig. 7 – 23, see also col. 5 lines 50-59) electrically connected to the driving assembly (Kanbara fig. 7 – 13, 14, and 16 are electrically connected to 23 via 21) to drive a movable portion (Kanbara L2a and L3, see also col. 3 lines 29-44) moving relative to a fixed portion (Kanbara fig. 1 – camera body which houses 18, see also col. 3 lines 22-28), wherein the driving assembly (105 of 13, 14, 16) comprises a first driving portion (13 with 105) disposed on one side of the fixed portion and the movable portion (Kanbara fig. 1 – 13 is provided on one side of 1 and the camera body housing 18); and
outputting a first control signal (Kanbara fig. 5 – sawtooth waveform drive pulse) to the first driving portion (13 with 105) by the driver IC (Kanbara fig. 7 – 23 generates waveform in fig. 5, see also col. 5 lines 50-59), wherein the first control signal is periodic (Kanbara fig. 5) and comprises a first front signal and a first rear signal in a period (see annotated Kanbara fig. 5 below for the first front signal and first rear signal), trends of the first front signal and the first rear signal are different (see annotated Kanbara fig. 5 below), and durations of the first front signal and the first rear signal are different (see annotated Kanbara fig. 5 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
454
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the movable portion (L2a, L3) is used for connecting an optical element (Kanbara fig. 6 - L2a and L3 are lens units which house lenses), and the movable portion (L2a, L3) is movable relative to the fixed portion (Kanbara L2a and L3, see also col. 3 lines 29-44).
Kanbara does not teach the first driving portion comprises a first magnetic permeable element, a first coil, and a first magnetic element, the second driving portion comprises a second magnetic permeable element, a second coil, and a second magnetic element, wherein the first coil surrounds the first magnetic permeable element, the first magnetic element is disposed between two extending portions of the first magnetic permeable element, the second coil surrounds the second magnetic permeable element, and the second magnetic element is disposed between two extending portions of the second magnetic permeable element.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches the first driving portion (Liu fig. 2 – 2, 3, 4) comprises a first magnetic permeable element (Liu fig. 2 - 3), a first coil (Liu fig. 2 - 4), and a first magnetic element (Liu fig. 2 - 2), the second driving portion comprises a second magnetic permeable element, a second coil, and a second magnetic element (see annotated Liu fig. 2 below for the second driving portion, components are unlabeled in the figure but shown), wherein the first coil (4) surrounds the first magnetic permeable element (Liu fig. 2 – 4 surrounds 3), the first magnetic element (2) is disposed between two extending portions of the first magnetic permeable element (Liu fig. 2 – 2 disposed between 32 and 31), the second coil surrounds the second magnetic permeable element, and the second magnetic element is disposed between two extending portions of the second magnetic permeable element (see the annotated Liu fig. 2 below which shows the configuration of elements as claimed) for the purpose of generating a magnetic field to rotate the magnetic rotating member (Liu para. 0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second driving portions as claimed as taught by Liu in the optical element driving mechanism of Kanbara in order to generate a magnetic field to rotate the magnetic rotating member (Liu para. 0031).
PNG
media_image2.png
414
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kanbara and Liu do not teach emitting or receiving light; determining times of emitting or receiving light.
In the same field of endeavor, US 443 teaches emitting or receiving light (US 443 para. 0053);
determining times of emitting or receiving light (US 443 para. 0053 – RC transmits image information from IM to F or F to IM depending on when image information is captured by IM) for the purpose of saving space within the device (US 443 para. 0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have emitting or receiving light as taught by US 443 in the optical element driving mechanism of Kanbara and Liu in order to save space within the device (US 443 para. 0053).
Finally, Kanbara, Liu, and US 443 do not teach outputting an inertia signal; and recording influence of the inertia signal to the driving assembly as an inertia correction information.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches outputting an inertia signal (Wu para. 0110); and
recording influence of the inertia signal to the driving assembly as an inertia correction information (Wu para. 0126) for the purpose of compensating the influence of environments with different inertia to the optical element driving system (Wu para. 0126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inertia signal and inertia correction information as taught by Wu in the optical element driving mechanism of Kanbara, Liu, and US 443 in order to compensate the influence of environments with different inertia to the optical element driving system (Wu para. 0126).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanbara, Liu, US 443, and Wu as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Noguchi et. al US Patent 7,479,985 (hereinafter “Noguchi”).
Regarding claim 2, Kanbara, Liu, US 443, and Wu teach the method as claimed in claim 1, and Kanbara further teaches further comprising:
wherein the driving assembly (13, 14, 16 which include 105) is controlled by the driver IC (23) to drive the movable portion (L2a, L3) moving relative to the fixed portion (camera body housing 18) in a controlled range (Kanbara col. 3 lines 29-39).
Kanbara, Liu, US 443, and Wu do not specify a stopping assembly creating a limited range.
In the same field of endeavor, Noguchi teaches limiting the movable portion (Noguchi fig. 11 - 205) to move relative to the fixed portion (Noguchi fig. 11 – 201) in a limited range (Noguchi fig. 11 – 205 is limited to movement within the bounds of 201) by a stopping protrusion (see annotated Noguchi fig. 11 below for the stopping protrusion) extending from a surface of the fixed portion (Noguchi fig. 11 – labeled stopping protrusion extends from 201), wherein the surface faces the movable portion (Noguchi fig. 11 – stopping protrusion of 201 faces 205 as shown below);
PNG
media_image3.png
499
915
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the controlled range (Noguchi fig. 11 – 205 bounded by protrusion of 201) is smaller than the limited range (see annotated Noguchi fig. 11 below for the limited range and controlled range) for the purpose of allowing the second lens tube to be movable in the optical axis for zooming (Noguchi col. 8 lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a stopping assembly limiting the range of movement for the movable portion as taught by Noguchi in the optical element driving mechanism of Kanbara, Liu, US 443, and Wu in order to allow the second lens tube to be movable in the optical axis for zooming (Noguchi col. 8 lines 16-20).
PNG
media_image4.png
578
942
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanbara, Liu, US 443, Wu, and Noguchi as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Hu et. al US 20200249421 (hereinafter “US 421”) of record.
Regarding claim 3, Kanbara, Liu, US 443, Wu, and Noguchi teach the method as claimed in claim 2.
Kanbara, Liu, US 443, Wu, and Noguchi do not teach measuring the movement of the movable portion relative to the fixed portion recording a movement correlation of the movable portion relative to the fixed portion and the first control signal as a first predetermined information; and recording the first predetermined information in the driver IC.
In the same field of endeavor, US 421 teaches measuring the movement of the movable portion (US 421 fig. 41 - 1830) relative to the fixed portion (US 421 fig. 41 – 1810, 1820);
recording the movement correlation of a movable portion (1830) relative to the fixed portion (1810, 1820) and the first control signal as a first predetermined information (US 421 para. 0006); and
recording the first predetermined information in the driver IC (US 421 para. 0006 and 0279) for the purpose of calculating the amount of movement of the holder (US 421 para. 0279). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an external apparatus recording movement information in order to calculate the amount of movement of the holder (US 421 para. 0279).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8-20 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:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach “the method as claimed in claim 3, further comprising: sensing the movement of the movable portion relative to the fixed portion by a sensing assembly electrically connected to the driving assembly, wherein the sensing assembly comprises a sensing element disposed on the fixed portion, a second reference element disposed on the movable portion, and a balance element disposed on the movable portion, wherein the sensing element overlaps the second reference element in a first direction, and the second reference element and the balance element are disposed on opposite sides of the movable portion along the first direction;
providing a central process unit electrically connected to the driver IC;
outputting a sensing signal to the central process unit by the sensing assembly; and analyzing and recording the sensing signal by the central process unit;
wherein the sensing signal is not outputted to the driver IC” in combination with all the limitations of claims 1-3.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murakami US 20170371127, teaches a sensing assembly similar to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872