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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: nowhere in the specification is the “second surface” defined with respect to which surface of which element it is; rendering the amendment of paragraph 70 unclear with respect to the “second surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (USPG Pub No. 2013/0343738), hereinafter “Ryu”.
Regarding claim 21, Ryu discloses an optical element driving mechanism (see Fig. 1), comprising: a frame (630 with 690) (Paragraph 81); a holder (500) connected to an optical element (510) with an optical axis, wherein the holder is movable relative to the frame (Paragraphs 81, 82); and a drive assembly driving the holder to move relative to the frame (see Fig. 4, Paragraph 81), wherein the drive assembly comprises: a first coil (640); a first magnetic element (650 - upper) corresponding to the first coil (640); and a second magnetic element (650 - lower) not in direct contact with the first magnetic element (650) (see Fig. 4), wherein the first magnetic element (650) has a first surface facing the first coil (640) and a second surface facing the second magnetic element (650), and the first surface is not parallel with the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein the optical element driving mechanism further comprises an intermediate element (660) located between the first magnetic element and the second magnetic element (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), and the intermediate element (660) comprises an intermediate element surface that is parallel to the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein when viewed along a direction perpendicular to the second surface, the intermediate element does not overlap with at least part of the first magnetic element and the second magnetic element (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein the first magnetic element, the intermediate element, and the second magnetic element are sequentially arranged along the direction perpendicular to the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein the drive assembly further comprises a second coil (640), and the second magnetic element (650) corresponds to the second coil (see Figs. 4, 5, 7 – 8 magnets; 4 coils).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (USPG Pub No. 2013/0343738) in view of Hou et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0041601), hereinafter “Hou”.
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses an optical element driving mechanism (see Fig. 1), comprising: a frame (630 with 690) (Paragraph 81); a holder (500) connected to an optical element (510) with an optical axis, wherein the holder is movable relative to the frame (Paragraphs 81, 82); and a drive assembly driving the holder to move relative to the frame (see Fig. 4, Paragraph 81), wherein the drive assembly comprises: a first coil (640); a first magnetic element (650 - upper) corresponding to the first coil (640); and a second magnetic element (650 - lower) not in direct contact with the first magnetic element (650) (see Fig. 4), wherein the first magnetic element (650) has a first surface facing the first coil (640) and a second surface facing the second magnetic element (650), and the first surface is not parallel with the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein the optical element driving mechanism further comprises an intermediate element (660) located between the first magnetic element and the second magnetic element (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), and the intermediate element (660) comprises an intermediate element surface that is parallel to the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), and wherein when viewed along a direction perpendicular to the second surface, the intermediate element does not overlap with at least part of the first magnetic element and the second magnetic element (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein the first magnetic element, the intermediate element, and the second magnetic element are sequentially arranged along the direction perpendicular to the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), along the direction perpendicular to the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7). Ryu discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a recess is located between the first magnetic element and second magnetic element, and wherein the recess and the intermediate element do not overlap when viewed along the direction perpendicular. In the same field on endeavor, Hou discloses wherein a recess is located between the first magnetic element (515) and second magnetic element (515) (see Figs. 14A, 14B), and wherein the recess and the intermediate element do not overlap when viewed along the direction perpendicular (see Figs. 14A, 14B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the driving mechanism of Ryu with wherein a recess is located between the first magnetic element and second magnetic element, and wherein the recess and the intermediate element do not overlap when viewed along the direction perpendicular of Hou for the purpose of providing a more compact mechanism that requires less power (Paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 2, Ryu further discloses wherein when viewed from the optical axis, the first magnetic element (650) and the second magnetic element (650) at least partially overlap each other (see Figs. 4, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 3, Ryu further discloses wherein when viewed from a direction that is perpendicular to the optical axis, the first magnetic element (650) and the first coil (640) at least partially overlap each other (see Figs. 4, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu further discloses wherein when viewed from a direction that is perpendicular to the optical axis, the second magnetic element (650) and the first coil (640) at least partially overlap each other (see Figs. 4, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu further discloses wherein the drive assembly further comprises a second coil (640), and the second magnetic element (650) corresponds to the second coil (see Figs. 4, 5, 7 – 8 magnets; 4 coils).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu further discloses wherein when viewed from the optical axis, the second magnetic element and the second coil at least partially overlap each other (see Figs. 4, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 11, Ryu further discloses wherein the first coil (640) is affixed to the holder (Paragraphs 93-95).
Regarding claim 12, Ryu further discloses wherein the first coil (640) has an upper portion and a lower portion, a distance between a center of the upper portion and a center of the lower portion is different from a thickness of the first magnetic element (650) (see Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 13, Ryu further discloses wherein the distance between the center of the upper portion and the center of the lower portion is greater than the thickness of the first magnetic element (650) (see Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 14, Ryu further discloses wherein when viewed from a direction that is perpendicular to the optical axis, the first magnetic element (650) is located between the center of the upper portion and the center of the lower portion (see Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 15, Ryu further discloses wherein the first surface is a side surface of the first magnetic element (650), and the second surface is a bottom surface of the first magnetic element (650) (see Figs. 4, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 16, Ryu further discloses wherein a first electromagnetic force is generated between the first coil (640) and the first magnetic element (650), a second electromagnetic force (650) is generated between the first coil (640) and the second magnetic element (650), and the first electromagnetic force and the second electromagnetic force drive the holder to move relative to the frame along the optical axis (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Ryu further discloses wherein a thickness of the first magnetic element (650) is different from a vertical distance between the first magnetic element (650) and the second magnetic element (650) (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Ryu further discloses wherein the thickness of the first magnetic element (650) is greater than the vertical distance between the first magnetic element (650) and the second magnetic element (650) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Ryu further discloses further comprising a magnetically conductive element (660) located between the first magnetic element (650) and the second magnetic element (65) (Paragraph 115).
Regarding claim 20, Ryu further discloses wherein when viewed from the optical axis, the first magnetic element, the magnetically conductive element, and the second magnetic element at least partially overlap each other (see Figs. 4, 5, 7).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (USPG Pub No. 2013/0343738) in view of Hou (USPG Pub No. 2019/0041601) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0121055), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 7, Ryu and Hou disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify further comprising a circuit board, wherein the second coil is in the circuit board. In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses further comprising a circuit board (231/250), wherein the second coil (230) is in the circuit board (231/250) (see Fig. 9, Paragraph 228). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the driving mechanism of Ryu and Hou with further comprising a circuit board, wherein the second coil is in the circuit board of Lee for the purpose of providing an improvement in performance of an optical element driving mechanism (Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu and Hou disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the second coil has an inner portion and an outer portion, and a distance between the outer portion and the second magnetic element is different from a distance between the inner portion and the second magnetic element. In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein the second coil (230) has an inner portion and an outer portion, and a distance between the outer portion and the second magnetic element (130) is different from a distance between the inner portion and the second magnetic element (see Figs. 6-9, Paragraphs 230, 231). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the driving mechanism of Ryu and Hou with wherein the second coil has an inner portion and an outer portion, and a distance between the outer portion and the second magnetic element is different from a distance between the inner portion and the second magnetic element of Lee for the purpose of providing an improvement in performance of an optical element driving mechanism (Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 9, Ryu, Hou and Lee teach the optical element driving mechanism set forth above for claim 8, Lee further discloses wherein the distance between the outer portion and the second magnetic element (130) is greater than the distance between the inner portion and the second magnetic element (130) (see Figs. 1, 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the optical element driving mechanism of Ryu and Hou with the teachings of Lee for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Ryu, Hou and Lee teach the optical element driving mechanism set forth above for claim 8, Lee further discloses further comprising a housing, wherein the outer portion is closer to the housing than the inner portion (see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the optical element driving mechanism of Ryu and Hou with the teachings of Lee for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (USPG Pub No. 2013/0343738) in view of Hu et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0072744), hereinafter “Hu”.
The applied reference has a common assignee 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.
Regarding claim 22, Ryu discloses an optical element driving mechanism (see Fig. 1), comprising: a frame (630 with 690) (Paragraph 81); a holder (500) connected to an optical element (510) with an optical axis, wherein the holder is movable relative to the frame (Paragraphs 81, 82); and a drive assembly driving the holder to move relative to the frame (see Fig. 4, Paragraph 81), wherein the drive assembly comprises: a first coil (640); a first magnetic element (650 - upper) corresponding to the first coil (640); and a second magnetic element (650 - lower) not in direct contact with the first magnetic element (650) (see Fig. 4), wherein the first magnetic element (650) has a first surface facing the first coil (640) and a second surface facing the second magnetic element (650), and the first surface is not parallel with the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein the optical element driving mechanism further comprises an intermediate element (660) located between the first magnetic element and the second magnetic element (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), and the intermediate element (660) comprises an intermediate element surface that is parallel to the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein when viewed along a direction perpendicular to the second surface, the intermediate element does not overlap with at least part of the first magnetic element and the second magnetic element (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein the first magnetic element, the intermediate element, and the second magnetic element are sequentially arranged along the direction perpendicular to the second surface (see Figs. 4, 5, 7), wherein the intermediate element protrudes in a direction from the first coil (see Figs. 4, 5, 7). Ryu discloses the claimed invention except for a direction away. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The direction of a protrusion of the intermediate element is a structural modification that does not produce a new and unexpected result. In addition, in the same field of endeavor, Hu discloses protrudes a direction away (see Fig. 6 – element 1302). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the driving mechanism of Ryu with protrudes a direction away of Hu for the purpose of providing positioning and support (Paragraph 75).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Ryu discloses an optical element driving mechanism as is shown in Fig. 1. Figs. 2, 4, 5 and 7, along with the corresponding disclosure, teach an arrangement of a first magnet (650) and an iron piece (660), wherein the first magnet (650) is mounted on an upper side and lower side of the iron piece (660) (see Paragraph 109), herein interpreted as a first magnetic element (650 – upper), an intermediate element (660), and a second magnetic element (650 – lower).
The first surface of the first magnetic element (650 – upper) faces coil (640), and the second surface is the surface of the first magnetic element (650 – upper) that interfaces or is adjacent to the intermediate element (660) and that directionally faces the second magnetic element (650 – lower) (see Fig. 5), wherein the first surface is not parallel with the second surface. Thus, the elements are arranged in sequential (vertical) order in the z-axis, which is an axis perpendicular to the second surface. The specification and the claims do not provided any language that further differentiates the “second surface” of the current invention from the surface presented in Ryu. Therefore, the direction and arrangement in which the elements are placed in relation to one another, reads on Ryu. With respect to a recess, Hou cures the deficiencies of Ryu.
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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/6/2026