Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/401,454

FOCUS MOTOR WITH CLOSED-LOOP CONTROL METHOD AND CAMERA EQUIPMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 30, 2023
Examiner
TALLMAN, ROBERT E
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Chipsemi Semiconductor (Ningbo) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
613 granted / 753 resolved
+13.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
782
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§102
34.4%
-5.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 753 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/30/23 and 8/8/25 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima et. al. (US 8,290,731 B 2) in view of Kaneko (US 2004/0201443 A1). Regarding claim 1 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a focus motor, comprising: a mover bracket (321; col. 18, lines 55-63), a stator (301; col. 18, lines 55-63), a mover plate mounted on the mover bracket (322; col.18, lines 48-54), a first fixed plate and a second fixed plate mounted on the stator (312, 311; col. 18, lines 33-47), and a processing unit connected to the mover plate (331, 332, 333; col. 19, lines 13-24), the said first fixed plate, and the said second fixed plate: where the mover bracket is movable along the longitudinal direction (A: see annotated fig. 12 from Morishima below), the mover plate being oppositely set to both the first and the second fixed plates, and the lengths of the first and the second fixed plates ( B2) in the longitudinal direction are greater than the length of the mover plate (B1) in the same direction (B1, B2: see annotated fig. 12 from Morishima below; col; 19, lines 5-12). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A: longitudinal direction (focusing))][AltContent: connector] Morishima does not teach that the longitudinal direct is a focusing direction. Kaneko teaches (fig. 1, and 10) an auto focusing system where the longitudinal direct is a focusing direction (para. 0041, 0096, 0099). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the motor as taught by Morishima with the lens system as taught by Kaneko for the benefit of a focusing actuator with a high position detection. Regarding claim 2 Morishima as Kaneko modified by teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a focus motor, where a first capacitor is formed between the mover plate and the first fixed plate, and the second capacitor is formed between the mover plate and the second fixed plate, and the processing unit controls the movement of the mover bracket in the focus direction based on the capacitance of the first and second capacitors (col. 19, lines 13-24). Regarding claim 3 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a focus motor, where the facing areas between the mover plate and the first and second fixed plates change monotonically with the movement of the mover bracket (col. 19, lines 13-24). Regarding claim 4 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a focus motor, where when the facing area between the mover plate and the first fixed plate increases, the area facing the second fixed plate decreases (col. 18, lines 33-47). Regarding claim 5 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a focus motor, where when the facing area between the mover plate and the first fixed plate decreases, the area facing the second fixed plate increases (col. 18, lines 33-47). Regarding claim 6 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a focus motor, where shape of the first and shape of the second fixed plate together form a rectangle (col. 18, lines 33-47). Regarding claim 7 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a focus motor, where the changes in the facing areas between the mover plate and both the first and second fixed plates are equal as the mover bracket moves (col. 18, lines 33-47). Regarding claim 8 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a focus motor, where the shapes and sizes of the first and second fixed plates are the same (col. 18, lines 33-47). Regarding claim 9 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a focus motor, except where the stator is a base, and the first and second fixed plates are integrated with the base through embedded injection molding. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize injection molding for formation of the stator for the benefit of easier and cheaper manufacturing, furthermore it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) Regarding claim 10 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a closed-loop control method for a focus motor comprising a mover bracket (321; col. 18, lines 55-63), a stator (301; col. 18, lines 55-63), a mover plate mounted on the mover bracket (322; col.18, lines 48-54), a first fixed plate and a second fixed plate mounted on the stator (312, 311; col. 18, lines 33-47), and a processing unit connected to the mover plate (331, 332, 333; col. 19, lines 13-24), where the method is being implemented by the processing unit and comprises: after the rover bracket starts moving in the direction, acquiring a first capacitance signal from the first capacitor and a second capacitance signal from the second capacitor, determining whether the position of the mover bracket aligns with the target position based on the first capacitance signal and second capacitance signal: and if not aligning, controlling the mover bracket to move again in the direction until the position of the bracket aligns with the target position (col. 15, lines 22-45). Morishima does not teach that the direction is a focusing direction. Kaneko teaches (fig. 1, and 10) an auto focusing system where the movement direction is a focusing direction (para. 0041, 0096, 0099). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the motor as taught by Morishima with the lens system as taught by Kaneko for the benefit of a focusing actuator with a high position detection. Regarding claim 11 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a closed-loop control method, where the determining whether the position of the mover bracket aligns with the target position based on the first and second capacitance comprises: determining the target capacitance corresponding to the target position based on a pre- stored relationship between position and capacitance value, obtaining a first capacitance vane corresponding to the first capacitance signal, and a second capacitance value corresponding to the second capacitance signal: performing a preset calculation using the first capacitance value and the second capacitance value to obtain a result; determining whether the position of the mover bracket aligns with the target position by comparing the calculation result with the target capacitance value (col. 15, lines 22-45). Regarding claim 12 Morishima teaches (figs. 1,2, 12-19, and 21) a camera device, comprising: a mover bracket (321; col. 18, lines 55-63), a stator (301; col. 18, lines 55-63), a mover plate mounted on the mover bracket (322; col.18, lines 48-54), a first fixed plate and a second fixed plate mounted on the stator (312, 311; col. 18, lines 33-47), and a processing unit connected to the mover plate (331, 332, 333; col. 19, lines 13-24), the said first fixed plate, and the said second fixed plate: where the mover bracket is movable along the longitudinal direction (A: above in the rejection of claim 1), the mover plate being oppositely set to both the first and the second fixed plates, and the lengths of the first and the second fixed plates ( B2) in the longitudinal direction are greater than the length of the mover plate (B1) in the same direction (B1, B2: see annotated fig. 12 above in the rejection of claim 1). Morishima does not teach a lens, and a focus motor for driving the lens, and that the longitudinal direct is a focusing direction. Kaneko teaches (fig. 1, and 10) an auto focusing system with a lens (26, para. 0035), and a focus motor for driving the lens along a focusing direction (para. 0041, 0096, 0099). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the motor as taught by Morishima with the lens system as taught by Kaneko for the benefit of a focusing actuator with a high position detection. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further electrostatic motor systems that are similar to the present invention include Xu (US 2022/02299788 A1), Topliss et. al. (US 9,791,674 B1), Morishima (US 8,686,740 B2), Takahashi (US 9,350,222 B). Further Bauer (6,148,151) teaches a similar autofocusing system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m.. 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. /Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585097
OPTICAL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571986
HELIOSTAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566281
MICROLENS ARRAY FOR ACQUIRING MULTI-FOCUS PLENOPTIC IMAGE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560801
WAVELENGTH CONVERSION MODULE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554145
LIGHT DIFFRACTION ELEMENT UNIT, MULTISTAGE LIGHT DIFFRACTION DEVICE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR MULTISTAGE LIGHT DIFFRACTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+14.9%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 753 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