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 Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 1, the cancellation of Claim 5, and the addition of claims 9-11, filed 12/22/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
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 applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suzuki et al., (hereafter Suzuki) (US 12,267,572) in further view of Yamamoto et al., (Yamamoto hereafter) (US 2004/0207936 A1) and Cho et al. (hereinafter Cho) (US 2016/0344919 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Suzuki teaches an optical element driving device comprising: a driving part (60, Figure 7) including a piezoelectric element (642, Figure 17) configured to drive a holding part (30, Figure 5) configured to hold an optical element (32 and 33, Figure 1); a substrate including a circuit (140, Figure 21B; see also column 15, lines 32-36) including an inductor (150A and 150B, Figure 27) configured to increase an input voltage (column 18, lines 1-4) to the piezoelectric element (642, Figure 17); and a cover member (11, 12, 111, and 114, Figure 7) comprising a metal (12, is a metal plate, Figure 7; see column 6, lines 28-32) and including an opening (11 has an opening, Figure 7; see column 5, lines 13-17) and a flange part (112, Figure 7) extending at an outer periphery of the opening, the cover member (11, 12, 111, and 114, Figure 7) being configured to cover the inductor (150A and 150B, Figure 27) in a state where the inductor (150A and 150B, Figure 27) is housed in the opening (11 has an opening, Figure 7; see column 5, lines 13-17) and the flange part (112, Figure 7) is disposed on the substrate (140, Figure 21B).
Suzuki fails to teach a housing part configured to house the holding part inside such that the holding part is movable; the housing part includes an insertion part where the lid part is inserted from outside of the housing part.
Suzuki and Yamamoto both teach a lens driving apparatus.
Yamamoto teaches a housing part (51, Figure 1) configured to house the holding part (3, Figure 1) inside such that the holding part (3, Figure 1) is movable (3 is a moving lens holder, Figure 1; see also ¶[0052]); the housing part (51, Figure 1) includes an insertion part (¶[0052]) where the lid part (52, Figure 1) is inserted from outside of the housing part (51, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suzuki having the optical element driving device with the teachings of Yamamoto having a housing part configured to house the holding part inside such that the holding part is movable; the housing part includes an insertion part where the lid part is inserted from outside of the housing part for the purpose of support and protection of the inner elements of the optical element driving device.
Suzuki in view of Yamamoto fail to teach a substrate including a circuit and a metal layer, the circuit including an inductor, and the metal layer being disposed to face the inductor.
Suzuki, Yamamoto and Cho teach a lens driving apparatus.
Cho teaches a substrate (400, Figure 5) including a circuit (¶[0099]) and a metal layer (406, Figure 5), the circuit (¶[0099]) including an inductor (310, Figure 5), and the metal layer (406, Figure 5) being disposed to face the inductor (310, Figure 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suzuki in view of Yamamoto having the optical element driving device with the teachings of Cho having a substrate including a circuit and a metal layer, the circuit including an inductor, and the metal layer being disposed to face the inductor for the purpose of reduction of substrate thickness and manufacturing costs, ¶[0099].
With respect to Claim 2, Suzuki further teaches wherein the metal layer (140 includes a circuit, which has metal components, Figure 21B) is formed to include a region (where 140, 150A and 150B are located) where the inductor (150A and 150B, Figure 27) is disposed in plan view.
With respect to Claim 3, Suzuki further teaches wherein the metal layer (140 includes a circuit, which has metal components, Figure 21B) is formed to overlap the flange part (112, Figure 7) in plan view.
With respect to Claim 4, Suzuki further teaches wherein the metal layer (140 includes a circuit, which has metal components, Figure 21B) is a ground layer or a power source (power supply, column 4, lines 64-66) layer configured to supply a power source (power supply, column 4, lines 64-66) in the circuit (140 includes a circuit, Figure 21B; see also column 15, lines 32-36).
With respect to Claim 7, Suzuki further discloses a camera module (1, Figure 1) comprising: the optical element driving device according to claim 1; and an image capturing part (40, Figure 1) configured to capture a subject image (inherent on how an image capturing part functions; see column 4, lines 52-54) by using the optical element (32 and 33, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 8, Suzuki further teaches a camera-mounted device (image capture control part, 200, includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, or the like, and processes image information, column 5, lines 1-5) that is an information device (column 5, lines 1-5) or a transport device, the camera-mounted device comprising: the camera module (1, Figure 1) according to claim 7; and an image processing part (column 5, lines 1-5) configured to process image information (column 5, lines 1-5) obtained by the camera module (1, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 9, Suzuki in view of Yamamoto teach the optical element driving device according to claim 1, the flange part (112, Figure 7, of Suzuki) and the substrate (140, Figure 21B, of Suzuki).
Suzuki in view of Yamamoto fail to teach wherein the flange part is fixed by being sandwiched between facing portions of the housing part and the substrate.
Cho teaches wherein the flange part (600, Figure 4) is fixed by being sandwiched between facing portions of the housing part (180, Figure 4) and substrate (400, Figure 5) (see annotated partial Figure 1, below).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suzuki in view of Yamamoto having the optical element driving device with the teachings of Cho having the flange part fixed by being sandwiched between facing portions of the housing part and the substrate for the purpose of stability and protection of the substrate and other elements.
With respect to Claim 10, Suzuki in view of Yamamoto teach the optical element driving device according to claim 9.
Suzuki in view of Yamamoto fail to teach wherein the housing part and the substrate are adhered to each other in a position where the flange part is not sandwiched between the housing part and the substrate.
Cho teaches wherein the housing part (180, Figure 4) and the substrate (400, Figure 5) are adhered to each other (see Figure 1) in a position where the flange part (600, Figure 4) is not sandwiched (see Figure 1) between the housing part (180, Figure 4) and the substrate (400, Figure 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suzuki in view of Yamamoto having the optical element driving device with the teachings of Cho having the housing part and the substrate are adhered to each other in a position where the flange part is not sandwiched between the housing part and the substrate for the purpose of stability and protection of the substrate and other elements.
With respect to Claim 11, Suzuki teaches the optical element driving device according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to teach wherein the lid part is fitted to the insertion part.
Yamamoto teaches wherein the lid part (52, Figure 1) is fitted to the insertion part (¶[0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suzuki having the optical element driving device with the teachings of Yamamoto having the lid part is fitted to the insertion part for the purpose of stability of the lid.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suzuki (US 12,267,572) (Suzuki ’72 hereafter) in view of Yamamoto (US 2004/0207936 A1) and Cho et al., (Cho hereafter) (US 2016/0344919 A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Suzuki et al., (hereafter Suzuki ‘11) (US 2024/0045311 A1).
With respect to Claim 6, Suzuki ‘72 in view of Yamamoto teach the optical element driving device according to claim 1, the cover member (11, 12, 111, and 114, Figure 7, of Suzuki ’72) comprises a lamination structure (151, Figure 27, of Suzuki ’72) on which at least an iron layer (151 is made of iron, column 19, lines 45-47, of Suzuki ’72).
Suzuki ‘72 in view of Yamamoto fail to teach wherein the cover member comprises a lamination structure on which at least an iron layer, a copper layer and a nickel layer are stacked, and wherein the copper layer is thicker than the nickel layer.
Suzuki ’11 teaches an optical element driving device (title and abstract) wherein the cover member (60A and 60B, Figure 3) comprises a lamination structure (¶[0131) on which at least an iron layer, a copper layer and a nickel layer are stacked (¶[0131), and wherein the copper layer is thicker than the nickel layer (¶[0131).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suzuki ‘72 in view of Yamamoto having the optical element driving device with the teachings of Suzuki ’11 having the cover member comprises a lamination structure on which at least an iron layer, a copper layer and a nickel layer are stacked, and wherein the copper layer is thicker than the nickel layer for the purpose of the prevention of rusting, (¶[0131).
Conclusion
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.
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