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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 12/17/2025. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 have been amended. Claims 10-16 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The claims are rejected in view of newly cited Kleinert (EP-0918392-A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “the first and second parts of the linear bearing mechanism are disposed outside each of the pole piece housing and the magnet” which is not consistent with “a monolithic structure comprising a pole piece housing and a second part of the linear bearing mechanism” recited in claim 1. The second part cannot be monolithic with the pole piece housing and outside it.
Claim 14 recites “the second part of the linear bearing mechanism is greater, in length in a direction in which the axis of the magnet extends, than the pole piece housing” which is not consistent with “a monolithic structure comprising a pole piece housing and a second part of the linear bearing mechanism” recited in claim 1. It does not appear that the second part can be monolithic with the pole piece housing and also greater in length.
Claim 15 recites “the pole piece housing comprises an outer wall facing away from the side wall of the pole piece housing, and the second part of the linear bearing mechanism includes a surface continuously connected to the outer wall of the pole piece housing” which is not consistent with “a monolithic structure comprising a pole piece housing and a second part of the linear bearing mechanism” recited in claim 1. Claim 15 appears to recite the pole piece housing and the second part as separate and not monolithic.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kleinert (EP-0918392-A1).
As to claim 1, Kleinert shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4):
PNG
media_image1.png
721
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A voice coil motor comprising:
a magnet 50;
a coil 4;
a bobbin 10 configured to support a winding of the coil 4, the bobbin 10 being arranged coaxially with an axis 29 of the magnet 50 and radially outside of the magnet 5;
a bearing housing 1 comprising a first part of a linear bearing mechanism; and
a monolithic structure comprising a pole piece housing 2 and a second part 2P of the linear bearing mechanism;
wherein the pole piece housing 2 comprises a first end 2B, a second end 2A and a sidewall 2W, the sidewall 2W of the pole piece housing 2 is arranged coaxially with and radially outside of the bobbin 10; and
wherein the pole piece housing 2 and the bearing housing 1 are arranged to cause the first and second parts of the linear bearing mechanism to engage such that when a current is applied to the coil 4, the pole piece housing 2 moves relative to the bearing housing 1 (linear drive is a motor para [0031]; para [0032]; movement para [0043]).
As to claim 3/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) an electrical connector K configured to provide the current from an external source (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the lead K from the coil 4).
As to claim 11/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) the pole piece housing 2 is disposed in the bearing housing 1 (2P is inside 1).
As to claim 12/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) the first end 2B is a fully closed end.
As to claim 13/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) the pole piece housing 2 and the second part 2P of the linear bearing mechanism are integrally formed from a same material (shown in FIG. 4).
As to claim 16/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) wherein the first end of the pole piece housing 2 is attached to a first pole of the magnet 50 to provide a concentrated magnetic field, and
wherein the bearing housing 1 and an end of the bobbin 10 that faces away from the first end 2B of the pole piece housing 2 are fixed relative to a common structure 7, and the pole piece housing 2 is configured to move relative to the common structure 7 (movement para [0043]).
As to claim 2/16/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) a front pole piece 21 attached to a second pole of the magnet 50 to enhance the magnetic field (para [0040], is capable of performing the claimed function).
As to claim 4/16/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) the pole piece housing 2 further comprises a mounting portion H configured for connecting the pole piece housing 2 to an optic holder or an actuator rod (a hole H is capable of performing the claimed function).
As to claim 5/4/16/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) the common structure 7, bearing housing or bobbin comprises a mounting portion configured for fixing to a stationary holder (shape 70 of a coupling element 7 para [0037]).
As to claim 6/16/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) the bearing housing 1 further comprises a mounting portion 7 configured for fixing the bearing housing 1 to a motor holder (a coupling element 7 para [0037]).
As to claim 7/6/16/1, Kleinert further shows (FIG. 1, 2, 4 above) the common structure, bearing housing 1 or bobbin comprises a mounting portion 7 for connecting to an optic holder or actuator rod (a coupling element 7 para [0037]).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinert (EP-0918392-A1).
As to claim 8/6/16/1, Kleinert was discussed above with respect to claim 6 except for one or more bump stops configured to limit the range of motion of the voice coil motor.
Kleinert shows (FIG. 3):
PNG
media_image2.png
470
751
media_image2.png
Greyscale
one or more bump stops ST configured to limit the range of motion of the linear drive.
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 motor of Kleinert to have one or more bump stops ST configured to limit the range of motion of the voice coil motor as taught by Kleinert, for the advantageous benefit of preventing noisy or destructive contact between the bobbin 10 and the pole piece housing 2 as taught by Mushrush (col. 2:27 to 40).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinert (EP-0918392-A1) in view of Fu et al. (US 2001/0030123 A1 , hereinafter Fu) and Dimig et al. (US 2006/0225985 A1, hereinafter Dimig).
As to claim 9/1, Kleinert was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for
the pole piece housing is made of a soft iron material ;
the pole piece housing is coated with a hard, wear-resistant material.
As to the first bullet, Fu shows the yoke is soft steel (para[0034]).
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 motor of Kleinert to have the pole piece housing 6 is made of a soft iron material as taught by Fu, for the advantageous benefit of the pole piece housing 2 is formed from a material that conducts a magnetic flux as taught by Kleinert (para[0041]).
As to the second bullet, Dimig shows steel with a harder outer surface (para[0111]).
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 motor of Kleinert in view of Fu to have the pole piece housing is coated with a hard, wear-resistant material as taught by Dimig, for the advantageous benefit of the pole piece housing 2 is more resistant to wear as taught by Dimig (para[0111]).
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 ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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 MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights