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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims 1-3, 11, and 13-16, and the specification in the submissions dated 06/05/2026 in response to the office action mailed 03/09/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claims 9 and 10 is acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-8 and 11-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see paragraph 3 on page 7 of 15 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to the objection to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the Specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see paragraphs 5-6 on page 14 of 15 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of 15 through page 14 of 15 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Suzuki (US 2023/0341651 A1) and Lim (US 2020/0050084 A1).
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., US 2023/0341651 A1 (of record), and further in view of Lim et al., US 2020/0050084 A1 (of record).
As to claim 1, Suzuki teaches (Figs. 1A-10B) a driving mechanism for moving an optical element (101, para [0051], “a lens driving device 101,” Fig. 1), the driving mechanism comprising:
a fixed part (FB, para [0053], “a fixed member FB,” Fig. 2), including a housing (1S, para [0054], “the cover member 1 has a box-shaped outer shape defining a housing portion 1S,” Fig. 1A) and a base (7, para [0054], “the base member 7,” Fig. 1A) connected to each other (HS, para [0054], “the cover member 1 is bonded to the base member 7 with an adhesive, thereby forming a casing HS with the base member 7,” Fig. 1A), wherein the base has a first column (7BL, paras [0065]-[0066], “a surface (top surface) of the base member 7 on the subject side (Z1 side) is provided with two columnar portions 7B,” the left-hand tubular portion 7BL of the base member 7 is considered the first column, Fig. 6A), a second column (7BR, paras [0064] and [0066], “a surface (top surface) of the base member 7 on the subject side (Z1 side) is provided with two columnar portions 7B,” the right-hand tubular portion 7BR of the base member 7 is considered the second column, Fig. 6A), a first side (X1, para [0052], “X1 side of the lens driving device 101 corresponds to a front side (front-face side) of the lens driving device 101,” Fig. 1A), a second side (Y1, para [0052], “a Y1 side of the lens driving device 101 corresponds to a left-hand side of the lens driving device 101,” Fig. 1A), a third side (X2, para [0052], “X2 side of the lens driving device 101 corresponds to a back side (rear-face side) of the lens driving device 101,” Fig. 1A), and a fourth side (Y2, para [0052], “Y2 side of the lens driving device 101 corresponds to a right-hand side of the lens driving device 101,” Fig. 1A), the first and third sides are parallel to each other, and the second and fourth sides are parallel to each other (1A, para [0054], an outer peripheral wall portion 1A is rectangular, Fig. 1A);
a movable part (MB, para [0053], “the movable member MB,” Fig. 2), having a first recessed portion (2GL, para [0062], “a left-hand movable member-side groove 2GL,” Fig. 10A) and a second recessed portion (2GR, para [0062], “a right-hand movable member-side groove 2GR,” Fig. 10A), wherein the optical element is disposed on the movable part (2, para [0053], “the movable member MB includes a lens-retaining member 2,” Fig. 2);
a driving assembly (PD, para [0057], “the piezoelectric driving portion PD,” Fig. 2), driving the movable part to move relative to the fixed part (PD, para [0057], “the piezoelectric driving portion PD is configured to move the lens-retaining member 2 along the optical-axis direction,” Fig. 2);
a first guiding member, disposed between the first column and the first recessed portion, wherein the movable part is guided by the first guiding member when moving relative to the fixed part (5L, paras [0053] and [0062]-[0065], “the movable member MB is configured to be guided in an optical-axis direction by a guide mechanism GM,” a ball 5 is held between the movable member and the fixed member, “specifically, the guide mechanism GM includes… a left-hand guide portion GML… a left-hand ball 5L disposed between the left-hand movable member-side groove 2GL and the left-hand fixed member-side groove 7GL,” the balls 5L are considered the first guiding member, Fig. 2); and
a second guiding member, disposed between the second column and the second recessed portion (5RU, paras [0053] and [0062]-[0065], “the movable member MB is configured to be guided in an optical-axis direction by a guide mechanism GM,” a ball 5 is held between the movable member and the fixed member, “specifically, the guide mechanism GM includes… a right-hand guide portion GMR… a right-hand ball 5R disposed between the right-hand movable member-side groove 2GR and the right-hand fixed member-side groove 7GR. The right-hand ball 5R includes an upper right-hand ball 5RU,” the ball 5RU is considered the second guiding member, Fig. 2), wherein the second recessed portion has a first sidewall parallel to the first side of the base and in contact with the second guiding member (2BR, 7VRU, paras [0062] and [0083], the fixed member-side groove 7GR is divided into two recessed portions 7V which includes a right-hand upper recessed portion 7VRU and a right-hand lower recessed portion 7VRD, the right-hand upper ball 5RU is housed in the right-hand upper recessed portion 7VRU. As shown in the annotated figure 9B, the second recessed portion 2BR has a first sidewall that is parallel to the first side of the base X1, and as shown in figure 7B the first sidewall contacts the right-hand upper ball 5RU. Note: although figure 9B shows the left-hand tubular portion 2BL, the tubular portion 2B of the lens-retaining member 2 is symmetric about the X axis, thus the right-hand tubular portion 2BR has similar sidewalls to the left-hand tubular portion 2BL, Figs. 7A, 7B, and 9B).
PNG
media_image1.png
860
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suzuki does not teach the driving assembly includes a magnetic element disposed on the fixed part and a coil disposed on the movable part;
a magnetic permeable element, disposed on the movable part, wherein a magnetic attractive force is generated between the magnetic permeable element and the magnetic element in a direction perpendicular to the first and third sides.
Suzuki and Lim are related as camera modules having driving devices.
However, Lim teaches (Figs. 1-9) a driving mechanism (200, 300, para [0053], “a camera module includes a lens module 200, and driving unit 300 moving the lens module 200,” Figs. 1 and 2) wherein the driving assembly includes a magnetic element disposed on the fixed part (310, para [0065], “a magnet 310 may be mounted on one surface of the carrier 230,” Fig. 2) and a coil disposed on the movable part (320, para [0065], “the coil 320 may be disposed to face the magnet,” Fig. 2);
a magnetic permeable element (340, para[0072], “a yoke 340,” Fig. 2), disposed on the movable part (340, para[0072], “a yoke 340 is disposed on the other surface of the substrate 330,” Fig. 2), wherein a magnetic attractive force is generated between the magnetic permeable element and the magnetic element in a direction perpendicular to the first and third sides (340, para [0073], “the yoke 340 is formed of a material capable of generating attraction between the yoke 340 and the magnet 310… in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction,” figure 6 shows the yoke 340 opposite the magnet 310, thus the magnetic attractive force is in the downward direction of Fig. 6, considering the top and bottom sides are the first and third sides of the carrier 230 as shown in Fig. 6, the magnetic attractive force is perpendicular to the first and third sides, Figs. 2 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the magnetic driving mechanism of Lim, because tilt is prevented from occurring when a lens module is moved in an optical axis direction (para [0129]).
As to claim 2, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the driving mechanism wherein the movable part is movably received in the housing (HS, MB, para [0054], “the cover member 1 has a box-shaped outer shape defining a housing portion 1S. In the housing portion 1S, the movable member MB can be housed,” Fig. 2).
As to claim 3, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Suzuki further teaches the driving mechanism wherein the base has a polygonal structure (7, paras [0054] and [0069], “the cover member 1 has a box-shaped outer shape defining a housing portion 1S… the cover member 1 is bonded to the base member 7 with an adhesive, thereby forming a casing HS with the base member 7,” the base has an outer shape of a generally rectangular parallelepiped shape, Fig. 2).
As to claim 4, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Suzuki further teaches the driving mechanism wherein the first recessed portion has a first contact surface and a second contact surface in contact with the first guiding member, and the first contact surface is not parallel to the second contact surface (2GL, as shown in the annotated figure 9B below, the first recessed portion 2GL has first and second contact surfaces that are not parallel to each other, Fig. 9B).
PNG
media_image2.png
826
1003
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Suzuki further teaches the driving mechanism wherein the first and second contact surfaces are not parallel to the first and second sides of the base (2GL, as shown in the annotated figure 9B above, the first and second contact surfaces are not parallel to the first X1 and second Y1 sides of the base, Fig. 9B).
As to claim 6, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Suzuki further teaches the driving mechanism wherein the first recessed portion further has a third contact surface and a fourth contact surf ace in contact with the first guiding member, and the third contact surface is not parallel to the fourth contact surface (2GL, as shown in the annotated figure 9B above, the first recessed portion 2GL has third and fourth contact surfaces that are not parallel to each other, Fig. 9B).
As to claim 7, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Suzuki further teaches the driving mechanism wherein the first and second contact surfaces are in a different position from the third and fourth contact surfaces along an optical axis of the optical element (2GL, as shown in the annotated figure 9B above, the first and second contact surfaces are located further in the Z1 direction than the third and fourth contact surfaces, Fig. 9B).
As to claim 8, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Suzuki further teaches the driving mechanism wherein the first column has a first abutting surface and a second abutting surface in contact with the first guiding member (7VLU, para [0085], the annotated figure 8B below shows the first abutting surface located on the Y1 side of the left-hand upper recessed portion 7VLU, figure 7A shows a symmetric second abutting surface located on the Y2 side of the left-hand upper recessed portion 7VLU, figure 7B shows the upper left-hand ball 5LU housed in the left-hand upper recessed portion 7VLU, Figs 7A-8B), the first abutting surface is parallel to the second and fourth contact surfaces of the first recessed portion (7VLU, 2GL, figures 8B and 9B show the first abutting surface having similar surface angles in the Y1 direction as the second and fourth contact surfaces, Figs. 8B and 9B), the second abutting surface is parallel to the first and third contact surfaces of the first recessed portion (7VLU, 2GL, figures 8B and 9B show the second abutting surface having similar surface angles in the Y1 direction as the first and third contact surfaces, Figs. 8B and 9B).
The prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the first abutting surface is parallel to the second and fourth contact surfaces of the first recessed portion, and the first abutting surface is parallel to the second and fourth contact surfaces of the first recessed portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the first and second abutting surfaces such that they are parallel to the second and fourth contact surfaces and first and third contact surfaces, respectively, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the guiding mechanism as described enables the lens-retaining member 2 to smoothly move along the optical-axis direction (para [0086]).
PNG
media_image3.png
821
1023
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the driving mechanism, wherein the second recessed portion further has a second sidewall, a third sidewall, a fourth sidewall, and a fifth sidewall that are not in contact with the second guiding member and the second column, the second sidewall is connected between the first and third sidewalls, and the fourth sidewall is connected between the third and fifth sidewalls (2BR, 7VRU, paras [0062] and [0083], the fixed member-side groove 7GR is divided into two recessed portions 7V which includes a right-hand upper recessed portion 7VRU and a right-hand lower recessed portion 7VRD, the right-hand upper ball 5RU is housed in the right-hand upper recessed portion 7VRU, thus the right-hand upper ball 5RU is maintained in the right-hand upper recessed portion 7VRU and does not contact the right-hand lower recessed portion 7VRD. As shown in the annotated figure 9B above the second recessed portion 2GR has second, third, fourth and fifth sidewalls, the second, third, fourth and fifth sidewalls are not in contact with the right-hand upper ball 5RU because they are located adjacent to the right-hand lower recessed portion 7VRD which does not house the right-hand upper ball 5RU, Figs. 7A, 7B, and 9B).
As to claim 12, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Suzuki further teaches the driving mechanism, wherein the second column has a third abutting surface and a fourth abutting surface in contact with the second guiding member (7VRU, para [0083], the third abutting surface is located on the Y2 side of the right-hand upper recessed portion 7VRU, figure 7A shows a symmetric fourth abutting surface located on the Y1 side of the right-hand upper recessed portion 7VRU, figure 7B shows the upper right-hand ball 5RU housed in the right-hand upper recessed portion 7VRU, Figs 7A-8B), the third abutting surface is parallel to the first sidewall (7VLU, 2GL, figures 8B and 9B show the third abutting surface having a surface angle in the Y1 direction, Figs. 8B and 9B), and the fourth abutting surface is parallel to the third sidewall (7VLU, 2GL, figures 8B and 9B show the fourth abutting surface having a surface angle in the Y2 direction, Figs. 8B and 9B).
The prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the third abutting surface is parallel to the first sidewall, and the fourth abutting surface is parallel to the third sidewall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the third and fourth abutting surfaces such that they are parallel to the first and third sidewalls, respectively, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the guiding mechanism as described enables the lens-retaining member 2 to smoothly move along the optical-axis direction (para [0086]).
As to claim 13, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the first and second columns are located at opposite corners of the base.
Suzuki and Lim are related as camera modules having driving devices.
However, Lim teaches a driving mechanism (200, 300, para [0053], “a camera module includes a lens module 200, and driving unit 300 moving the lens module 200,” Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the first and second columns are located at opposite corners of the base (410, 420, para [0123], “the housing 400 is provided with a first guide protrusion 410 and a second guide protrusion 420,” Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki where the first and second columns are located at opposite corners of the base of Lim, because tilt is prevented from occurring when a lens module is moved in an optical axis direction (para [0129]).
As to claim 14, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein at least a part of the second column is received in the second recessed portion.
Suzuki and Lim are related as camera modules having driving devices.
However, Lim teaches a driving mechanism, wherein at least a part of the second column is received in the second recessed portion (410, 231, para [0123], the housing is provided with a first guide protrusion 410… and the lens module 200 is provided with a first guide groove 231 into which the first guide protrusion 410 is inserted,” Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki where at least a part of the second column is received in the second recessed portion of Lim, because tilt is prevented from occurring when a lens module is moved in an optical axis direction (para [0129]).
As to claim 16, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the magnetic permeable element is disposed on a first end surface of the movable part and located between the coil and the first end surface.
Suzuki and Lim are related as camera modules having driving devices.
However, Lim teaches a magnetic permeable element, wherein the magnetic permeable element is disposed on a first end surface of the movable part (340, para[0072], “a yoke 340 is disposed on the other surface of the substrate 330,” Fig. 2).
Suzuki in view of Lim discloses the claimed invention except for the magnetic permeable element located between the coil and the first end surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the magnetic permeable element such that it is located between the coil and the first end surface, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the magnet, coil, and magnetic permeable element of Lim, because tilt is prevented from occurring when a lens module is moved in an optical axis direction (para [0129]).
As to claim 23, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the magnetic permeable element has a main body and a plurality of extending portions, the main body extends along an optical axis of the optical element, and the extending portions extend from the main body in opposite directions.
Suzuki and Lim are related as camera modules having driving devices.
However, Lim teaches a driving mechanism, wherein the magnetic permeable element has a main body and a plurality of extending portions, the main body extends along an optical axis of the optical element, and the extending portions extend from the main body in opposite directions (340, as shown in the annotated figure 2 below the yoke 340 has a main body with portions extending along and perpendicular to the optical axis, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the magnetic permeable element of Lim, because tilt is prevented from occurring when a lens module is moved in an optical axis direction (para [0129]).
PNG
media_image4.png
502
595
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 24, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 23.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the magnetic permeable element has a cross-shaped structure.
Suzuki and Lim are related as camera modules having driving devices.
However, Lim teaches the driving mechanism, wherein the magnetic permeable element has a shaped structure (340, the yoke has a rectangular shape, Fig. 2).
The prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the magnetic permeable element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cross-shaped magnetic permeable element, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the direction of the magnetic attractive force generated between the magnetic permeable element and the magnetic element does not rely on shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the cross-shaped permeable element of Lim, because tilt is prevented from occurring when a lens module is moved in an optical axis direction (para [0129]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., US 2023/0341651 A1 (of record), in view of Lim et al., US 2020/0050084 A1 (of record), and further in view of Kodama et al., US 2025/0164854 A1 (of record).
As to claim 15, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the first and second guiding members are longitudinal rods.
Suzuki and Kodama are related as lens driving devices.
However, Kodama teaches a driving mechanism (101, para [0029], “lens driving apparatus 101, a lens body LS,” Fig. 1), wherein the first and second guiding members are longitudinal rods (4, para [0030], “a guide shaft 4… the movable member MB is configured to be guided in an optical axis direction by a guide mechanism GM,” Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki where the first and second guiding members are longitudinal rods of Kodama, because doing so allows the movable member to be guided in an optical axis direction (para [0030]).
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., US 2023/0341651 A1 (of record), in view of Lim et al., US 2020/0050084 A1 (of record), and further in view of Lin et al., US 2021/0302690 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lin).
As to claim 17, Suzuki in view of Lim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16,
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the movable part has a first protrusion and a second protrusion projecting from the first end surface, the coil surrounds the first and second protrusions, and the first protrusion has a first lateral surface adjacent to the first end surface and angled relative to the first and second sides of the base.
Suzuki and Lin are related as optical driving mechanisms.
However, Lin teaches (Figs. 1-10) a driving mechanism (1-100, para [0194], “optical element driving mechanism 1-100,” Figs. 1-3), wherein the movable part has a first protrusion and a second protrusion projecting from the first end surface (1-1088, para [0221], the three installation portions 1-1088 can be protruding structures, the outermost protrusions are considered the first and second protrusions, Fig. 9), the coil surrounds the first and second protrusions (1-CL11, para [0219], first driving coil 1-CL11, Fig. 9), and the first protrusion has a first lateral surface adjacent to the first end surface and angled relative to the first and second sides of the base (1-1088, para [0221], the protrusion portions 1-1088 protrude along the first direction 1-D1 from the first side surface 1-1085, as shown in the annotated figure 9 below the first protrusion has a first lateral surface angled at 90° relative to the first and second sides of the base, Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the protrusions of Lin, because doing so increases the stability of the optical element driving mechanism (para [0235]).
PNG
media_image5.png
550
963
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, Suzuki in view of Lim and further in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the movable part has a plurality of winding posts, and the winding posts protrude from the movable part in an extending direction that is parallel to the first lateral surface.
Suzuki and Lin are related as optical driving mechanisms.
However, Lin teaches the driving mechanism, wherein the movable part has a plurality of winding posts, and the winding posts protrude from the movable part in an extending direction that is parallel to the first lateral surface (1-1082, para [0217], the moving assembly 1-MA1 has winding structures 1-1082, Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the winding posts of Lin, because doing so increases the stability of the optical element driving mechanism (para [0235]).
As to claim 19, Suzuki in view of Lim and further in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the second protrusion has a second lateral surface adjacent to the first end surface and parallel to the second side of the base, and the magnetic permeable element is positioned between the first and second lateral surfaces.
Suzuki and Lin are related as optical driving mechanisms.
However, Lin teaches the driving mechanism, wherein the second protrusion has a second lateral surface adjacent to the first end surface and parallel to the second side of the base (para [0221], the three installation portions 1-1088 can be protruding structures, as shown in the annotated figure 9 below the second protrusion has a second lateral surface, Fig. 9), and the magnetic permeable element is positioned between the first and second lateral surfaces (5-1041, 5-1042, para [0397], “the frame 5-104 (the magnetically permeable element) includes a first magnetically permeable portion 5-1041, a second magnetically permeable portion 5-1042,” Fig. 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the magnetic permeable element of Lin, because doing so increases the stability of the optical element driving mechanism (para [0235]).
As to claim 20, Suzuki in view of Lim and further in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the driving assembly includes a plurality of magnets disposed on the fixed part and a plurality of coils disposed on the movable part, and the coils are respectively disposed on the first end surface and a second end surface of the movable part, wherein a plurality of third protrusions are formed on the second end surface, one of the coils surrounds the third protrusions, and one of the third protrusions has a third lateral surface that is angled relative to the first and second sides of the base.
Suzuki and Lin are related as optical driving mechanisms.
However, Lin teaches a driving mechanism (1-100, para [0194], “optical element driving mechanism 1-100,” Figs. 1-3), wherein the driving assembly includes a plurality of magnets disposed on the fixed part (1-ME11, 1-ME12, para [0201], “the first magnetic element 1-ME11 and the second magnetic element 1-ME12 are disposed on the frame 1-104,” Fig. 2) and a plurality of coils disposed on the movable part (1-CL11, 1-CL12, para [0202], the first driving coil 1-CL11 and the second driving coil 1-CL12 may be wound coils and be disposed on… the lens holder 1-108,” Fig. 2), and the coils are respectively disposed on the first end surface and a second end surface of the movable part (1-CL11, 1-CL12, para [0202], the first driving coil 1-CL11 and the second driving coil 1-CL12 may be wound coils and be disposed on opposite sides of the lens holder 1-108,” Figs. 2 and 7), wherein a plurality of third protrusions are formed on the second end surface (1-1081, 1-1088, para [0221], as shown in figures 5 and 7 the installation structure 1-1081, which includes the protrusions 1-1088, are symmetric on the first and second surfaces, thus the protrusions on the second surface are a plurality of third protrusions, Figs. 5-9), one of the coils surrounds the third protrusions (1-CL12, as shown in figure 7 the second driving coil 1-CL12 surrounds the third protrusions similar to the first driving coil 1-CL11 as shown in figure 9, Figs. 7 and 9), and one of the third protrusions has a third lateral surface that is angled relative to the first and second sides of the base (1-1088, as shown in the annotated figure 5 below the third protrusion has a first lateral surface angled at 90° relative to the first and second sides of the base, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the third protrusions of Lin, because doing so increases the stability of the optical element driving mechanism (para [0235]).
PNG
media_image6.png
753
1138
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 21, Suzuki in view of Lim and further in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 20.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the first and third lateral surfaces are parallel to each other.
Suzuki and Lin are related as optical driving mechanisms.
However, Lin teaches a driving mechanism, wherein the first and third lateral surfaces are parallel to each other (1-1088, as shown in the annotated figure 5 above the first and third lateral sides are parallel, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the protrusions of Lin, because doing so increases the stability of the optical element driving mechanism (para [0235]).
As to claim 22, Suzuki in view of Lim and further in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 20.
Suzuki does not teach the driving mechanism, wherein the first and third lateral surfaces have an included angle of less than 10 degrees.
Suzuki and Lin are related as optical driving mechanisms.
However, Lin teaches a driving mechanism, wherein the first and third lateral surfaces have an included angle (1-1088, as shown in the annotated figure 5 above the first and third lateral sides have included angles, Fig. 5).
The prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the first and third protrusions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first and third protrusions with an included angle of less than 10 degrees, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the protrusions connecting the driver coils to the moving structure do not rely on the shape of the lateral sides.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving mechanism of Suzuki with the lateral sides of the protrusions having included angles of less than 10 degrees of Lin, because doing so increases the stability of the optical element driving mechanism (para [0235]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/J.A.J./JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
09/15/2026
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights