DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/02/24 comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statements.
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 Hsu et al. (US 20210223504).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches an optical component (optical system 3-1000, fig. 21), comprising, a movable part (first movable part 3-M1), connecting an optical element (first optical element 3-1; fig. 2, ¶276, line 1); a fixed part (immovable part 3-I; fig. 21, ¶279, line 3) , including a housing (case 3-10 and base 3-100), wherein the movable part (3-M1) is movable relative to the fixed part (3-I); and a driving assembly (first drive mechanism 3-D1), driving the movable part (3-M1) to move relative to the fixed part (3-I).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20210223504) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (WO 2022031066).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu teaches the optical component (optical system 3-1000, fig. 21 and fig. 31) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the movable part (3-M1 includes holder 3-70 and frame 3-80) includes a first magnetic element (first magnetic element 3-111 shown in fig. 31) and a second magnetic element (second magnetic element 3-121). Hsu does not specifically teach the optical component further comprises a sensing element, and the first magnetic element corresponds to the sensing element; wherein the volume of the first magnetic element is different from the volume of the second magnetic element; the volume of the first magnetic element is greater than the volume of the second magnetic element. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches the optical component (fig. 39), wherein the optical component (fig. 39) further comprises a sensing element (sensing magnet 1450), and the first magnetic (1450) element corresponds to the sensing element (sensing magnet 1450); wherein the volume of the first magnetic element (1450) is different from the volume of the second magnetic element (second driving magnet 1420; ¶820, the sensing magnet 1450 can be formed with a smaller size than the second driving magnet 1420); the volume of the first magnetic element (1450) is greater than the volume of the second magnetic element (second driving magnet 1420; ¶820, the sensing magnet 1450 can be formed with a smaller size than the second driving magnet 1420). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the optical component of Hsu with the optical component further comprises a sensing element, and the first magnetic element corresponds to the sensing element; wherein the volume of the first magnetic element is different from the volume of the second magnetic element; the volume of the first magnetic element is greater than the volume of the second magnetic element of Park, for the purpose of the influence of the sensing magnet on the optical can be minimized (¶820).
Regarding claim 3, Hsu in view of Park teaches the invention as set forth above and Hsu further teaches the fixed part has a main axis (immovable part 3-I; fig. 21, ¶279, line 3); the housing (3-10 and 3-100) has an elongated structure (3-10 and 3-100; an elongated structure means having a shape that is longer in one direction than in other directions, like a bar.), including a top plate (3-10 and 3-11;¶288, the case 3-10 is made of a plastic material and the case structural strengthening element 3-11 is made of a magnetically-permeable material); the top plate is made of magnetically permeable material (3-10 and 3-11;¶288, the case 3-10 is made of a plastic material and the case structural strengthening element 3-11 is made of a magnetically-permeable material) and has an extension direction that is perpendicular to the main axis (shown in fig. 22, 3-11); the magnetic pole direction of the first magnetic element (3-111) is arranged along the main axis (the first magnetic element and its corresponding coil may be arranged in a direction parallel to the main axis in ¶591 and ¶628 and ¶634 supports understanding magnetic pole direction as the line between the N-pole and S-pole centers.).
Allowable Subject Matter
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not disclose the claimed optical component specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the top plate includes: a first opening, corresponding to the first magnetic element; and a second opening, corresponding to the second magnetic element; wherein: the area of the first opening is different from the area of the second opening; the shape of the first opening corresponds to the shape of the first magnetic element, and is larger than the shape of the first magnetic element, while the shape of the second opening corresponds to and is larger than the shape of the second magnetic element.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, is object to for the same reason as claim 4.
Specifically, with respect to claim 6, is object to for the same reason as claim 5.
Specifically, with respect to claim 7, is object to for the same reason as claim 5.
Specifically, with respect to claim 8, is object to for the same reason as claim 5.
Specifically, with respect to claim 9, is object to for the same reason as claim 5.
Specifically, with respect to claim 10, is object to for the same reason as claim 4.
Specifically, with respect to claim 11, is object to for the same reason as claim 10.
Specifically, with respect to claim 12, is object to for the same reason as claim 11.
Specifically, with respect to claim 13, is object to for the same reason as claim 12.
Specifically, with respect to claim 14, is object to for the same reason as claim 12.
Specifically, with respect to claim 15, is object to for the same reason as claim 12.
Specifically, with respect to claim 16, is object to for the same reason as claim 15.
Specifically, with respect to claim 17, is object to for the same reason as claim 12.
Specifically, with respect to claim 18, is object to for the same reason as claim 17.
Specifically, with respect to claim 19, is object to for the same reason as claim 17.
Specifically, with respect to claim 20, is object to for the same reason as claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 05/15/26
Prosecution Insights