Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/350,837

ROTARY RECIPROCATING DRIVE ACTUATOR

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jul 12, 2023
Examiner
WILSON, PAISLEY L
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Mitsumi Electric Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
389 granted / 671 resolved
-10.0% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
694
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 671 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 for the JP 2022-123510 application. 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 1-7 are 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. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims: Claim 1, line 18 – “the axial direction” Claim 1, line 26 – “the base part” (presumed as “the base portion”) Claims 3 and 4 – “the positioning fixation part” (presumed as “the positioning and fixing part”) Claims 4 and 6 – “the one wall portion” Claims 5 and 6 – “an axial direction” is presumed as “the axial direction” as being the same as that recited in claim 1 Claim 6 as amended recites in part “the surface portion is disposed on a core holding projection of the support surface portion, the core holding projection protruding in a direction orthogonal to an axial direction.” However, as shown in Figs. 4 and 14, for instance, core holding projections 58 protrude in a direction parallel to the axial direction (para. [0169] of PGPub.). Claims 2 and 7 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. 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. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2021/0184554), of record, in view of Mori et al. (US 2014/0132187). Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a rotary reciprocating drive actuator (Figs. 1-2), comprising: a movable body (120) including a shaft part (141) to which a magnet (161) is fixed at an outer circumference of the shaft part, the movable body (120) being configured to perform a reciprocating rotation about an axis (para. [0042]); a base portion (110) including a pair of wall portions (111a, 111b) for supporting the shaft part (141) via a bearing (151) such that the shaft part is rotatable (para. [0042]); a core assembly (200) including: a core body (210) comprising a plurality of magnetic poles (161a, 161b, or 211, 212) facing an outer circumference of the magnet (161) to sandwich the magnet (Figs. 1-5), a coil body (220) that is wound around the core body (210) and that is energized to generate a magnetic flux interacting with the magnet (161) to cause a reciprocating rotation of the movable body (120) (para. [0056]), a magnet position holding portion (240) that generates a magnetic attraction force between the magnet position holding portion and the magnet (161) to define a reference position of the reciprocating rotation (paras. [0055-0057]), and a bottom cover (250) disposed on an axial side of the shaft part with respect to the core assembly (200), and covers the core assembly from a side in an axial direction (Figs. 1-2); wherein the core assembly (200) is fixed via the bottom cover (250) to one (111a) of the pair of wall portions (Figs. 1-2); and a positioning and fixing part (e.g., 251) configured to position and fix the bottom cover (250) and the base part [portion] (110) in a direction parallel to the axial direction (Figs. 1-2; para. [0046]). Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose a top cover disposed on an opposite axial side of the shaft part and covering the core assembly in the axial direction; and a fixation target object. However, Mori discloses a rotary reciprocating drive actuator (Figs. 1-9), comprising: a bottom cover (8) and a top cover (2) which are disposed on opposite axial sides of the shaft part (e.g., 2P) with respect to the core assembly (1), and cover the core assembly from both sides in the axial direction (Figs. 1, 4, 8, 9); and a positioning and fixing part (e.g., 2P) configured to position and fix the bottom cover (8) and the base part (e.g., 2 or 40) to a fixation target object (7) in a direction parallel to the axial direction (Figs. 4, 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a top cover disposed on an opposite axial side of the shaft part and covering the core assembly in the axial direction; and a fixation target object, as in Mori, into the rotary reciprocating drive actuator of Takahashi to fully support and enclose the core assembly for protection, and to attach the core assembly to a U-shaped magnetic retainer for effective movement (Mori, paras. [0056, 0059]). Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses wherein a number of poles of the plurality of magnetic poles (161a, 161b, or 211, 212) is two (Figs. 1-5; paras. [0058, 0063]). Regarding claim 3, Takahashi discloses wherein the positioning fixation part (251) is disposed in or on a surface portion of the at least one of the base portion (110 ), the core body (210), or the core assembly (200) (Figs. 1-2). Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose the surface portion making surface contact with the fixation target object. However, Mori discloses the surface portion (e.g., lower surface of 2) making surface contact with the fixation target object (7) (Figs. 4, 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the surface portion making surface contact with the fixation target object, as in Mori, into the rotary reciprocating drive actuator of Takahashi for stability. Regarding claim 4, Takahashi discloses wherein: a mirror (121) disposed between the pair of wall portions (111a, 111b) is connected to the shaft part (141), and the one wall portion (111a) of the pair of wall portions includes the surface portion (Figs. 1-2). Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose the one wall portion is fixed to the fixation target object by the positioning fixation part. However, Mori discloses the one wall portion (e.g., wall of 2) is fixed to the fixation target object (7) by the positioning fixation part (e.g., 2P) (Figs. 4, 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the one wall portion is fixed to the fixation target object by the positioning fixation part, as in Mori, into the rotary reciprocating drive actuator of Takahashi for stability. Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses wherein the surface portion is disposed on an end face of the core assembly (200) in an axial direction (Figs. 1-2). Regarding claim 6, Takahashi discloses wherein: the core assembly (200) is attached to the one wall portion (111a) of the pair of wall portions of the base portion (110) via a support surface portion (e.g., outer surface of 111a) fixed to the core assembly (Figs. 1-2), and the surface portion is disposed on a core holding projection (e.g., 111a) of the support surface portion, the core holding projection protruding in a direction orthogonal to an axial direction (Figs. 1-2). Regarding claim 7, Takahashi discloses wherein the movable body (120) is a mirror (121) for reflecting scanning light (paras. [0091, 0096-0098]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on the primary reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, the new ground of rejection over Takahashi in view of Mori is considered appropriate in accordance with the amendments to the claims. 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 PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET. 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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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. /PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 12, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598960
DISPLAY PANEL, PREPARATION METHOD FOR DISPLAY PANEL, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12599001
DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING DISPLAY PANEL AND INFORMATION CODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585052
Dispersive Optical Elements, Devices, Systems and Methods Using the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566349
PIXEL UNIT, DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, DISPLAY PANEL, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560753
LIGHTING UNIT HAVING A CENTERING DEVICE FOR A LIGHT GUIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
58%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+35.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 671 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