DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1-3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osaka (WO2023/026964). The following rejection references English language equivalent (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0393664). Osaka teaches an optical element driving mechanism, comprising: a movable portion 10 used to connect an optical element 2; a fixed portion 20, wherein the movable portion movable relative to the fixed portion (¶¶34 and 99); and a driving assembly 1/51 used to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion in a first axis ((Z axis) see figs. 2-3 as well as ¶47 and ¶58).
Regarding claim 2, Osaka teaches a guiding assembly (see fig. 8), wherein the movable portion is movable in the first axis (Z) relative to the fixed portion via the guiding assembly, and the guiding assembly comprises: a first guiding assembly (27); and a second guiding assembly (31) in contact with and movable relative to the first guiding assembly, wherein a first contact surface of the first guiding assembly contacts a second contact surface of the second guiding assembly, wherein in a second axis (either X or Y), a maximum dimension of the first contact surface is different from a maximum dimension of the second contact surface (the width of 27 is greater than the width of 31), and the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (both X and Y are perpendicular to Z). The applicant is directed to review fig. 8.
Regarding claim 3, in the second axis, the maximum size of the first contact surface (27) is greater than the maximum size of the second contact surface (31). See fig. 8.
Regarding claim 19, the fixed portion has an outer frame and the outer frame has a top surface (surface shown in figs. 3-4, touched my line from numeral 20 in fig. 4) and a sidewall (shown in fig. 2) extending from the top surface, and the sidewall is not parallel to the top surface.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0121025). Wang teaches an optical element driving mechanism (fig. 2), comprising: a movable portion (MA, fig. 2) used to connect an optical element; a fixed portion (FA, fig. 2), wherein the movable portion movable relative to the fixed portion; and a driving assembly (DA, fig 2) used to drive the movable portion (108 and 110 of MA movable along axis Y) to move relative to the fixed portion in a first axis (Y).
Regarding claims 9-10, Wang discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a linkage assembly, wherein when the movable portion moves relative to the fixed portion, the optical element is driven to move via the linkage assembly, and the optical element is movable relative to the movable portion (1082); wherein the linkage assembly includes: a linkage element (holder 1081) having a protruding structure (on top of the holder 1081); and an opening structure (an opening on element 1082) corresponding to the linkage element; wherein the linkage assembly overlaps a sidewall of the fixed portion (figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fixed portion (FA)(figure 2) comprises an outer frame (102), the outer frame (102) has a top surface (TW)(figure 2) and a sidewall (SW)(figure 2) extending from the top surface, and the sidewall is not parallel to the top surface.
Regarding claim 20, Wang discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 18, wherein an angle between the sidewall (SW) and the top surface (TW) is less than 90 degrees; wherein the fixed portion (FA) comprises a base (112), and the base (112) has a receiving groove corresponding to a profile of the sidewall of the outer frame (102)(figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Osaka (WO2023/026964). The following rejection references English language equivalent (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0393664).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Osaka teaches the second guiding assembly further comprises: a first positioning portion 15 having a first positioning surface 15c, wherein the first positioning surface faces the first guiding assembly, and an angle (theta, marked in annotated fig. 8 below) formed between the first positioning surface and the second contact surface is between 15 degrees and 60 degrees. Alternatively, figure 8 suggests an angle (theta or alternate) between 15-60°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an angle between 15-60° for the purpose of using an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
419
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
¶
Regarding claim 6, the second guiding assembly further comprises a second positioning portion having a second positioning surface (see annotated fig. 8). The second positioning surface faces the first guiding assembly and the second positioning surface is not parallel and not perpendicular to the first positioning surface.
Regarding claim annotated fig. 8 shows that the angle between the first positioning surface and the second contact surface is different from an angle between the second positioning surface and the second contact surface, and the angle between the first positioning surface and the second contact surface is greater than the angle between the second positioning surface and the second contact surface.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka (WO2023/026964) in view of Konuma (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0204532). Osaka teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the optical element is movable relative to the movable portion. Konuma teaches the optical element (camera lens) is movable (via OIS 10) relative to the movable portion (focusing barrel 11). The applicant is directed to review fig. 7 as well as ¶¶ 47-48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Konuma for the purpose of shake correction.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0121025) in view of Hu (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0149143). Wang teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for a circuit assembly electrically connected to the driving assembly, wherein the circuit assembly comprises a first contact and a second contact, and the first contact and the second contact are respectively located on opposite sides of a coil of the driving assembly. Hu et al. is in same field of endeavor and teaches a circuit assembly electrically connected to the driving assembly, wherein the circuit assembly comprises a first contact and a second contact, and the first contact and the second contact are respectively located on opposite sides of a coil of the driving assembly, wherein the circuit assembly includes a plurality of segments embedded in the fixed portion, and the segments extend in different directions, wherein the segments comprise a first segment adjacent to the first contact and a second segment adjacent to the second contact, and in a third axis perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis (par.[0141], [0161], [0275]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of guiding assembly of Hu et al. to device of Wang et al. for purpose of accurately guiding the movable assembly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9-10 and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-8, 15-16 and 18-19 of copending Application No. 18/413430 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference application claims anticipate or render obvious the present application claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For applicant’s convenience a side by side comparison of the claims is presented below.
Application claim
Reference application (18413430) claim
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising: a movable portion used to connect an optical element; a fixed portion, wherein the movable portion movable relative to the fixed portion; and a driving assembly used to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion in a first axis.
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising: a movable portion used to connect an optical element; a fixed portion, wherein the movable portion movable relative to the fixed portion; and a driving assembly used to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion in a first axis, wherein the driving assembly is arranged along a second axis, and the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis.
9. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a linkage assembly, wherein when the movable portion moves relative to the fixed portion, the optical element is driven to move via the linkage assembly, and the optical element is movable relative to the movable portion.
7. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a linkage assembly, wherein when the movable portion moves relative to the fixed portion, the optical element is driven to move via the linkage assembly, and the optical element is movable relative to the movable portion.
10. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 9, wherein the linkage assembly includes: a linkage element having a protruding structure; and an opening structure corresponding to the linkage element.
8. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 7, wherein the linkage assembly includes: a linkage element having a protruding structure; and an opening structure corresponding to the linkage element.
17. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprises a circuit assembly electrically connected to the driving assembly, wherein the circuit assembly comprises a first contact and a second contact, and the first contact and the second contact are respectively located on opposite sides of a coil of the driving assembly.
15. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprises a circuit assembly electrically connected to the driving assembly, wherein the circuit assembly comprises a first contact and a second contact, and the first contact and the second contact are respectively located on opposite sides of a coil of the driving assembly.
18. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 17, wherein the circuit assembly includes a plurality of segments embedded in the fixed portion, and the segments extend in different directions.
16. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 15, wherein the circuit assembly includes a plurality of segments embedded in the fixed portion, and the segments extend in different directions.
19. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fixed portion comprises an outer frame, the outer frame has a top surface and a sidewall extending from the top surface, and the sidewall is not parallel to the top surface.
18. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fixed portion comprises an outer frame, the outer frame has a top surface and a sidewall extending from the top surface, and the sidewall is not parallel to the top surface.
20. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 19, wherein an angle between the sidewall and the top surface is less than 90 degrees.
19. The optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 18, wherein an angle between the sidewall and the top surface is less than 90 degrees.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 and 11-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hung (U.S. Publication No. 20220308421) is directed to an optical element driving mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852