Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/190,702

OPTICAL ELEMENT DRIVING MECHANISM

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 27, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, THONG Q
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
TDK Taiwan Corp.
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
811 granted / 1200 resolved
At TC average
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1239
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
§112
32.2%
-7.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1200 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 Amendment The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 02/17/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification. Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 9-20 and canceled claim 2. Response to Arguments The amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 02/17/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 9-12, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions: A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has canceled claim 2 and has not added any claim into the application, thus as amended, the pending claims are claims 1 and 3-20 which claims are examined in the present office action. B) Regarding the Claim Interpretation set forth in the office action of 01/02/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 02/17/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 9, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the Claim Interpretation set forth in the mentioned office action. C) Regarding the rejections of claims 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, set forth in the office action of 01/02/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 02/17/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 9, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, set forth in the mentioned office action. D) Regarding the rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US Patent No. 10,951,799), and the rejection of claims 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al in view of Watanabe et al (US Patent No. 8,488,262) set forth in the office action of 01/02/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 02/17/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 9, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sue et al (US Publication No. 2021/0041714). Suet al discloses a lens moving apparatus for use in a camera module. a) Regarding present claim 1, the lens moving apparatus as described in paragraphs [0034]-[0087]and shown in figs. 1-10 comprises the following features: a1) a movable portion (3, 70) for supporting/connecting a lens wherein the movable portion (3, 70) comprises a main body (70) and four pressing portions (76, 77) each extends from the main body in a firs direction (-Z); a2) a fixed portion (5) having a case (41) and a base (42) arranged along a main axis (+Z, -Z) and the main axis extends in the first direction (-Z) wherein the movable portion (3, 70) is movable relative to the fixed portion (5) along a main axis; a3) a driving assembly having magnets and coils and their supporting elements for driving the movable portion (3, 70) to move relative to the fixed portion (5); and a4) each of the pressing portions (76, 77) is protruded from a top surface of the base (42), see figs. 1, 3 and 8-9. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sue et al in view of Watanabe et al (US Patent No. 8,488,262, of record). It is noted that Sue et al does not disclose the material used to make the pressing portions (76, 77) is a soft material. However, a movable portion supporting a lens wherein the main body of the movable portion is made by resin, i.e., a soft material, is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the lens driving device provided by Watanabe et al. In particular, Watanabe et al discloses a lens driving device having a fixed portion (4), a movable portion (3) for supporting a lens (2), and a driving assembly (7, 13) for driving the movable portion (3) with respect to the fixed portion (4) wherein the main body of the movable portion (3) is made by resin, see column 3 on lines 20-22. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lens moving apparatus provided by Sue et al by using soft material such as resin to make the bobbin (110) and the pressing portions (111a) formed on the bobbin thereof as suggested by Watanabe et al for the purpose of obtaining a light product which is required less power for movement. Regarding to arrangements of the pressing portions in a counterclockwise as recited in the claim, such arrangements are read from the lens driving apparatus provided by Sue et al, see fig. 3, for example. Allowable Subject Matter 10. Claims 4-20 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. 11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The optical element driving mechanism having a fixed portion having a case and a base arranged along a main axis, a movable portion having a main body, four pressing portions and six upper stopping portions with each portions extending from the main body, and a driving assembly for moving the movable portion with respect to the fixed portion as recited in the dependent claim 4 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Patent Nos. 10,951,799 and 7,630,151 and the US Publication No. 2021/0041714 by the limitations regarding the structure of the pressing portions, the upper stopping portions and their structural relationships with respect to the base as recited in the features thereof “the first pressing portion of the case” (claim 1 on lines 10-11) and “the first upper … the first direction (claim 4 on lines 2-8). Conclusion 12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00. 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, STEPHONE B. 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. /THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 17, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601895
IMAGING LENS SYSTEM AND IMAGING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601927
TELESCOPE WITH ANTI-SHAKE MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596267
CAMERA ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585047
ANTI-REFLECTION STRUCTURE, BASE MATERIAL WITH ANTI-REFLECTION STRUCTURE, CAMERA MODULE AND INFORMATION TERMINAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585101
OBSERVATION HOLDER, OBSERVATION APPARATUS, OBSERVATION CHIP, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING OBSERVATION CHIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+12.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1200 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