DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (U. S. Patent No. 5039899).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yamaguchi (e. g. see FIGS. 6 through 8) discloses a driving mechanism, comprising:
a fixed assembly (25, 32);
a movable part (34), configured to move relative to the fixed assembly (25, 32); and a driving module (43), configured to drive the movable part (34) to move relative to the fixed assembly (25, 32); wherein when viewed in a first axis (the direction shown by an arrow mark A), the driving module (43) is disposed between the fixed assembly (25, 32) and the movable part (34).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (U. S. Patent No. 5039899).
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi (e. g. see FIG. 8) discloses the driving module includes a first elastic member (26) and a piezoelectric assembly (22); the driving module (43) further includes a driving member (43) fixedly disposed on the first elastic member (26); the driving member (43) has a cylindrical structure; the piezoelectric assembly (22) is configured to drive the first elastic member (26) to deform ((18) The beam 24 is fixed to the elastic member 26 at one of the nodal points of flexural vibration. By adjusting the amplitude and phase of the voltage applied on the first piezoelectric body 22 and the second piezoelectric bodies 23a and 23b, it is possible to generate desired shape of substantially elliptical vibration on the elastic member 26. As the rigidity of the beam in the x direction is small, the vertical vibration is large, and the flexural vibration is not interfered with. As the rigidity in the y direction is large, the flexural vibration is effectively excited. In other words, the piezoelectric transducer 11 can be fixed without any restriction by the shape of the elastic member 26), so as to drive the driving member (43) to move relative to the fixed assembly (25, 32); the driving member (43) is configured to drive the movable part (34) to move relative to the fixed assembly (25, 32) along the first axis (an axis in the first direction, moving in the direction shown by an arrow mark A, a flexural vibration in the y direction, a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction).
Yamaguchi does not disclose the first elastic member is made of a first metal material; the first metal material includes stainless steel; the driving member is made of a second metal material; the second metal material includes tool steel; rigidity of the driving member is greater than rigidity of the first elastic member.
However, the disclosed usage “the first elastic member is made of a first metal material; the first metal material includes stainless steel; the driving member is made of a second metal material; the second metal material includes tool steel” would be an obvious matter of design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Launder, 42 CCPA 886, 222 F.2d 371, 105 USPQ 446 (1955); Flour City Architectural Metals v. Alpana Aluminum Products, Inc., 454 F. 2d 98, 172 USPQ 341 (8th Cir. 1972); National Connector Corp. v. Malco Manufacturing Co., 392 F.2d 766. 157 USPQ 401 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 393 U.S. 923, 159 USPQ 799 (1968).
It is well known in the art that stainless steel is famed for corrosion resistance and glowing finish and tool steel is exclusively used for machining and tool making. Stainless steel is generally less expensive than tool steel. Tool steels are costlier due to specialized alloying elements and labor-intensive, heat-treatment processes needed for high hardness and wear resistance. Stainless steel is produced at a larger scale, making it more cost-effective for general applications, though high-nickel grades can be pricey. Stainless Steel which is cheaper is best for corrosion resistance, aesthetics, and general-purpose applications. Tool Steel which is more expensive is required for high-stress applications like cutting tools, molds, and dies due to superior hardness. Cost factor exceptions is considered because while tool steel is generally higher, specific high-grade stainless steels can sometimes approach the cost of lower-end alloy tool steels. On average, tool steel is more specialized and costly per pound.
Therefore, “rigidity of the driving member is greater than rigidity of the first elastic member” would be met by the choice of materials such as stainless steel and tool steel for the purpose of providing highly effective driving mechanism at lower cost.
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230408790) discloses a drive unit comprising an ultrasonic motor that converts the oscillation of a piezoelectric element to linear movement; a contact part that contacts a resonating part; a support part that is connected to a moveable part and supports the contact part; and an impelling part which is coupled to the contact part and which impels the contact part toward the resonating part so that the contact part moves in accordance with the resonance of the resonating part and transmits impelling force to the moveable part via the support part.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, DEDEI HAMMOND can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
10 January 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837