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
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/29/2026.
Amendments to claims 1-7, 9, 11-20, filed 1/29/2026, is/are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the specification and to the drawings are acknowledged and accepted.
As a result of the amendments, all prior claim objections are now withdrawn. However, the specification and drawings remain objected to due to issues that remain since the previous office action, or from those that are newly introduced by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have all been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 14 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges Hu2 of the previous office action – Hu1 of the current office action – has first and second bonding elements (conductive connecting component 17, welding pad 152) that overlap in a direction perpendicular to the first coil surface. Applicant believes that amended claim 1, requiring no overlap, overcomes the prior art for this reason. Examiner disagrees because, as plainly shown in FIG. 1A of Hu(2/1) (of the previous/current office action), the elements in question do not occupy any volume of space with any vertical component (the vertical axis being perpendicular to the first coil surface) in common with each other. There is simply zero overlap in this vertical/perpendicular direction, contrary to what Applicant appears to have argued here. Hu(2/1)’s teachings are thus entirely adequate to address the amended claim feature at issue.
On pg. 15 of the Remarks, Applicant then argues that Hu2 does not disclose the thickness of the first driving coil is less than a thickness of the second bonding element. However, Examiner does not rely on Hu(2/1) for this newly amended feature. See the updated rejection below.
On pg. 16, Applicant finally argues that Fang’s “leading wire [solder wire 26] is in direct contact with the second bonding element [packaging layer 27]”. Applicant then perplexingly concludes that Fang fails to disclose the first bonding element separated from the leading wire by the second bonding element, as claimed in amended claim 1. However, this is a non-sequitur, as contact between the second bonding element and leading wire has absolutely no bearings on the separation between the first bonding element and leading wire. Indeed, both qualities can coincide – as Applicant has even shown in their own invention (see FIG. 4 of the active application). Fang similarly provides an arrangement where the first bonding element (adhesive layer 250) is separated from the leading wire (solder wire 26) by the second bonding element (packaging layer 27), as shown in their FIG. 2E and as noted in the updated rejection below. Examiner thus finds Applicant’s arguments here to be unpersuasive.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 44, line 4; ¶ 45, line 7; “applied on” should read “applied to"
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, in the amended ¶ 42, lines 5-7 reciting
“the movable portion 1200 may be at least partially disposed… (e.g., portions 1211 and 1212)” – apparently corrected in response to drawing objection 4.A of the previous office action – do not appear to be supported by the corrected drawing (FIG. 1D). Consequently, the corresponding features claimed in claim 10 appear also to remain unsupported by the drawings.
The drawings are further objected to because the first-fourth magnetic forces illustrated in the corrected FIG. 1D are in direct conflict with the description now provided by the specification. For example, in the amended ¶ 45, lines 8-9 now read
“the direction of the first magnetic force 1351 may be the direction from the first magnetic element 1311 to the first magnetically permeable element 1510”,
as amended in an apparent response to drawing objection 4.B of the previous office action. However, this excerpt directly conflicts with the corrected FIG. 1D showing the reverse orientation.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130258506 A1) in view of Hu and Chen (US 20200075211 A1, hereinafter “Hu1”) and Fang et al (TW 201826488 A, hereinafter “Fang”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶s 34-36) an optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a movable portion (driven object, or lens module, 13) used for connecting an optical element (“driven object 13 can be a lens module”);
a fixed portion (comprising casing 11 and base 12), wherein the movable portion (lens module 13) is movable relative to the fixed portion (casing+base 11+12); and
a driving assembly (electromagnetic driving module 15) used for driving the movable portion (lens module 13) to move relative to the fixed portion (casing+base 11+12), comprising a plurality of driving coils (coils 152), wherein the driving coils (coils 152) comprise a first driving coil (coil 152), and the first driving coil comprises a first coil surface, and a second coil surface;
Lee does not disclose:
the first driving coil comprises a leading wire;
a circuit element comprising a conductive pad, wherein the leading wire connects to the conductive pad;
a first bonding element covering a first coil surface facing faces the circuit element; and
a second bonding element covering a second coil surface and covering at least a portion of the leading wire,
wherein:
in a direction perpendicular to the first coil surface, the first bonding element does not overlap the second bonding element;
in the direction perpendicular to the first coil surface, a thickness of the first driving coil is less than a thickness of the second bonding element; and
the first bonding element is separated from the leading wire by the second bonding element.
Lee and Hu1 commonly relate to electromagnetic driving devices.
Hu1 discloses (FIG. 1A, annotated below, ¶s 5-7 regarding a conventional driving device)
a first bonding element (conductive connecting component 17) covering a first coil surface facing faces the circuit element (flexible circuit board 12); and
a second bonding element (welding pad 152) covering a second coil surface,
wherein:
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1A of Hu1 is annotated to highlight various features)]
PNG
media_image1.png
581
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in a direction perpendicular to the first coil surface (i.e. FIG. 1A’s vertical direction), the first bonding element (conductive connecting component 17) does not overlap the second bonding element (welding pad 152);
Lee and Fang commonly relate to magnetic circuits.
Fang discloses (see FIGs. 2(E,F), ¶s 77-81)
the first driving coil (electronic component 25) comprises a leading wire (bonding/solder wire 26)
a circuit element (first circuit layer 21) comprising a conductive pad (first conductive trace 211), wherein the leading wire (solder wire 26) connects to the conductive pad (first conductive trace 211);
a second bonding element (packaging/encapsulation layer 27) covering at least a portion of the leading wire (solder wire 26),
in the direction perpendicular to the first coil surface (i.e. FIG. 2E’s vertical direction), a thickness of the first driving coil (electronic component 25) is less than a thickness of the second bonding element (packaging layer 27); and
the first bonding element (adhesive layer 250) is separated from the leading wire (solder wire 26) by the second bonding element (packaging layer 27).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee with the conventional designs disclosed by Hu1, in order to realize magnetic driving configurations that are already known to operate reliably and effectively (Hu1 ¶ 4).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Lee with designs aspects of Fang, in order to provide electrical connections between the coil and the circuit components (Fang ¶ 78) and packaging that facilitates device minimization (Fang ¶ 4).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hu1 and Fang, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1.
Lee also discloses (see FIGs. 2, 7; ¶s 34-45) the further comprising a guiding assembly (guide mechanism/pin 17) and another assembly (anti-tilt mechanism 14); wherein:
the driving assembly (electromagnetic driving module 15) further comprises a plurality of magnetic elements (magnetic members 151);
the guiding assembly (guide pin 17) comprises at least one guiding element (guide pin 17); and
the guiding assembly (guide pin 17) is magnetically permeable (¶ 42: “magnetic-conductive”).
Lee, in the first embodiment (FIGs. 2-7) cited above, does not immediately disclose that the other assembly is a magnetically permeable assembly; wherein:
the magnetically permeable assembly comprises at least one magnetically permeable element;
the magnetically permeable assembly is magnetically permeable.
However, regarding a third embodiment (FIGs. 14-19), Lee discloses that the other assembly (anti-tilt mechanism 14) is a magnetically permeable assembly; wherein:
the magnetically permeable assembly (anti-tilt mechanism 14) comprises at least one magnetically permeable element;
the magnetically permeable assembly (anti-tilt mechanism 14) is magnetically permeable.
(See ¶ 54, describing how friction guide pin 18 replaces rolling member 143 of the anti-tilt mechanism, and how – similarly to guide pin 17 cited above – it includes magnetic(ally permeable/conductive) materials. Note: for simplicity, Lee’s magnetically permeable element shall be mapped to the rolling member 143 for the remainder of this action.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings and embodiments of Lee by providing the rolling members with magnetically permeable materials, in order to tailor/improve the guiding, magnetic anti-tilting, and frictional aspects of the driving mechanism (Lee ¶s 42-43, 54).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2.
Lee, in the first embodiment cited above, further discloses (see FIGs. 2,7) wherein:
a sum of a number of the guiding elements (i.e. one guide pin 17) and a number of the magnetically permeable elements (i.e. one rolling member 143) is identical to a number of the magnetic elements (i.e. two magnetic members 151); and
the sum of the number of the guiding elements (i.e. one guide pin 17) and the number of the magnetically permeable elements (i.e. one rolling member 143) is equal to a number of the driving coils (i.e. two coils 152).
(Note also that, in ¶ 40, Lee discusses increasing the number of magnets 151 and coils 152; naturally the number of guiding elements may scale commensurately to accommodate such design variants, as Lee explicitly touts the benefits of the arrangement’s symmetry.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hu1 and Fang, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Hu (US 20130064535 A1, hereinafter “Hu2”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 3.
Lee, in the first embodiment cited above, further discloses (see FIGs. 2,7) wherein:
the at least one guiding element (guide pin 17) comprises a first guiding element (guide pin 17);
the at least one magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143) comprises a first magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143);
the fixed portion (casing+base 11+12) comprises a bottom (base 12);
the bottom (base 12) is polygonal (i.e. square-shaped);
the bottom comprises (base 12) a first corner, a second corner, a third corner, and a fourth corner;
the first corner and the third corner are opposite;
the second corner and the fourth corner are opposite;
the first guiding element (guide pin 17) is disposed on the first corner;
(Regarding items D-G above, see annotated FIGs. 7+13’s left panel below.)
PNG
media_image3.png
602
1247
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIGs. 7 and 13 of Lee, corresponding to Lee’s first and second embodiments, are annotated to highlight various features. First through fourth corners are numerically labeled for each figure. )]
Modified Lee does not disclose wherein:
the at least one guiding element also comprises a second guiding element;
the at least one magnetically permeable element also comprises a second magnetically permeable element;
the first magnetically permeable element is disposed on the second corner;
the second guiding element is disposed on the third corner; and
the second magnetically permeable element is disposed on the fourth corner.
Lee, in a second embodiment (FIGs. 8-13), discloses wherein:
the at least one magnetically permeable element comprises a first magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143) and a second magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143);
the first magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143) is disposed on the second corner;
the second magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143) is disposed on the fourth corner.
(See annotated FIG. 7+13’s right panel above)
Lee and Hu2 commonly relate to electromagnetic driving devices with anti-tilt features.
Hu2 discloses wherein (see FIGs. 2 and 5A, FIG. 5A annotated below, and ¶s 26-35):
the at least one guiding element comprises a first guiding element (guiding rod 141) and a second guiding element (guiding rod 141’);
the second guiding element (guiding rod 141’) is disposed on the third corner (i.e. of lens support 121);
PNG
media_image5.png
565
866
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 5A of Hu2 is annotated to highlight the two guiding rods 141 and 141’. First and third corners are numerically labeled)]
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine design aspects of Lee’s embodiments, in order to reduce motional tilt (Lee ¶ 50) – or more generally, to provide a more symmetric design and distribution of constraining/driving forces that would accommodate a greater number of magnets/coils (as Lee briefly mentions in ¶ 40).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with the teachings of Hu2, again to support a symmetric device design and facilitate effective driving and anti-tilt features.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hu1, Fang, and Hu2, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hong (CN 104079138 A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 4.
Lee, in the first embodiment cited above, further discloses (see above annotated FIG. 7+13’s left panel) wherein:
the first guiding element (guide pin 17) and the second guiding element (guide pin 17) are columnar (as all pins generally are);
the first guiding element (guide pin 17) and the second guiding element (guide pin 17) extend in a first direction (i.e. along the optical axis, and out of the page in annotated FIGs. 7+13 above);
a normal vector of the first magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143) is perpendicular to the first direction (perpendicular to the optical axis); and
a normal vector of the second magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143) is perpendicular to the first direction (perpendicular to the optical axis).
Modified Lee does not disclose that the first magnetically permeable element and the second magnetically permeable element are plate-shaped.
Lee and Hong commonly relate to electromagnetic driving devices.
Hong discloses (see FIGs. 5-6, ¶s 53-55) that the first magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive baffle 112) and the second magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive baffle 112) are plate-shaped.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Lee with Hong’s plate-shaped structures, in order to accommodate the geometries of the device’s interior structure and fields, and enhance magnetic field efficiency, structural strength, and stability (Hong ¶s 54-55).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 5.
Lee, in the first embodiment cited above, further discloses (see above annotated FIG. 7+13’s left panel) wherein: the first guiding element (guide pin 17) and the second guiding element (guide pin 17) are in direct contact with the movable portion (lens module 13).
Hong further discloses (see FIGs. 4-6, ¶s 54) wherein: the first magnetically permeable element (magnetic baffle 12) and the second magnetically permeable element (magnetic baffle 12) are separated from the movable portion (movable component 2).
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hu1, Fang, Hu2, and Hong, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Guo and Lai (TW M406878 U, hereinafter “Guo”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 6
Lee in the first embodiment cited above, further discloses (see newly annotated FIG. 7 below) wherein:
the magnetic elements (magnetic members 151) comprise a first magnetic element (magnetic member 151);
the first magnetic element (magnetic member 151) corresponds to the first driving coil (coil 152);
the first magnetic element (magnetic member 151) comprises a first surface and a second surface;
the first surface faces the first magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143);
PNG
media_image7.png
802
1007
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 7 of Lee is again annotated to identify the surfaces of Lee’s magnetic member 151 First-fourth surfaces are labeled in the inset while fifth and sixth surfaces face in and out of the page)]the second surface faces the first driving coil (coil 152);
Modified Lee does not disclose:
the optical element driving mechanism further comprises a third magnetically permeable element disposed on the first magnetic element;
the first surface is exposed from the third magnetically permeable element; and
the second surface is exposed from the third magnetically permeable element.
Lee and Guo commonly relate to electromagnetic driving devices.
Guo discloses (see annotated FIG. 2A below, and pgs. 1-2 of the translated Description):
the optical element driving mechanism further (voice coil motor 3) comprises a third magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive member 22) disposed on the first magnetic element (magnetic column 20);
the first surface is exposed (first end 210) from the third magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive member 22);
the second surface (second side 208) is exposed from the third magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive member 22).
PNG
media_image9.png
702
927
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 2A of Guo is annotated to highlight various features)]
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Lee with Guo’s magnetic conductive member as a third magnetically permeable element, in order to reduce the generation of ineffective magnetic lines (Guo Description pg. 1) for improved stability and electromagnetic thrust.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 7.
Guo further discloses (see annotated FIG. 2A above) wherein the first magnetic element (first end 210) and the first magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive member 22) at least partially overlap each other when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the second surface (second side 208).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 8.
Guo further discloses (see annotated FIG. 2A above) wherein:
the first magnetic element (magnetic column 20) further comprises a third surface (second end 212), a fourth surface (first side 206), a fifth surface (top 202), and a sixth surface (bottom 204);
the third surface (second end 212) is opposite to the first surface (first end 210);
the fourth surface (first side 206) is opposite to the second surface (second side 208);
the fifth surface (top 202) is adjacent to the first surface (first end 210), the second surface (second side 208), the third surface (second end 212), and the fourth surface (first side 206);
the sixth surface (bottom 204) is adjacent to the first surface (first end 210), the second surface (second side 208), the third surface (second end 212), and the fourth surface (first side 206);
the fifth surface (top 202) is opposite to the sixth surface (bottom 204);
the third magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive member 22) is disposed on the fourth surface (first side 206);
the third magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive member 22) is disposed on the fifth surface (top 202); and
the third magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive member 22) is disposed on the sixth surface (bottom 204).
Modified Lee does not disclose that the third magnetically permeable element is disposed on the third surface. However, Examiner finds that this lone discrepancy between the prior art and the claimed invention may only amount to a mere change in shape – i.e. of the third magnetically permeable element disclosed by Guo, so that it covers the third surface.
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Lee incorporating Guo’s third magnetically permeable element, in order to further reshape/reduce undesirable magnetic field lines – since it has been held that changes in shape are generally within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 9.
Lee, in the first embodiment cited above, further discloses (see annotated FIG. 7 above) wherein at least a portion of the movable portion (driven object, or lens module, 13) has the first magnetic element (magnetic member 151) mounted into it. (See also ¶ 39: “…magnetic member 151 which is exteriorly mounted to the lens module 13”)
Guo further discloses wherein the third magnetically permeable element (magnetic conductive member 22) partially encloses the first magnetic element (magnetic column 20).
Modified Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the movable portion is disposed between the third magnetically permeable element and the first magnetic element. However, Examiner finds that any possible discrepancy between the claimed invention and the above-cited prior art may only amount to a mere rearrangement of parts, as the combined art essentially suggests there simply being two main design options – i.e. where the mounting portion of the movable portion is disposed around the third magnetically permeable element and the first magnetic element, or between them as claimed.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Lee incorporating Guo by arranging the portion of the movable portion between the third magnetically permeable element and the first magnetic element to maintain engagement between the magnetic element and movable portion – since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hu1, Fang, Hu2, Hong, and Guo, as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 10.
Hu1 also discloses (see FIG. 1A, annotated above, ¶s 5-7) wherein:
the driving coils (flexible coil plate 15) are disposed on the circuit element (flexible circuit board 12) through the first bonding element (conductive connecting component 17);
the driving coils (flexible coil plate 15) are disposed on the circuit element (flexible circuit board 12) through the second bonding element (welding pad 152);
the first bonding element (conductive connecting component 17) is in direct contact with the second bonding element (welding pad 152); and
the first bonding element (conductive connecting component 17)and the second bonding element (welding pad 152) comprise different materials.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 11.
Hu1 further discloses (see FIG. 1A, annotated above) wherein:
the circuit element (flexible circuit board 12) comprises an opening;
the first bonding element (conductive connecting component 17) is not disposed on the opening; and
the second bonding element (welding pad 152) is not disposed on the opening.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 12.
Hu1 further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1A above) wherein:
the first driving coil (flexible coil plate 15) further comprises a third coil surface and a fourth coil surface;
the second coil surface is adjacent to the first coil surface;
the first bonding element (conductive connecting component 17) covers at least a portion of the first coil surface;
the second bonding element (welding pad 152) covers at least a portion of the second coil surface;
the third coil surface is opposite to the first coil surface; and
the second coil surface is opposite to the fourth coil surface.
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 13.
Hu1 further discloses wherein:
the first bonding element (conductive connecting component 17) and the second bonding element (welding pad 152) are not disposed on the third coil surface; and
the first bonding element (conductive connecting component 17) and the second bonding element (welding pad 152) are not disposed on the fourth coil surface.
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 14.
Fang further discloses (see FIGs. 2(E,F), ¶s 77-81) wherein: the second bonding element (packaging layer 27) covers at least a portion of the conductive pad (first conductive trace 211).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 15.
Fang further discloses (see FIG. 2E) wherein: the first bonding element (adhesive layer 250) does not cover the conductive pad (first conductive trace 211).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 16.
Lee, in the first embodiment cited above, further discloses (see FIGs. 2-7, ¶s 39-40) wherein:
the magnetic elements (magnetic members 151) further comprise a second magnetic element (magnetic member 151), a third magnetic element (magnetic member 151), and a fourth magnetic element (magnetic member 151) disposed on the movable portion (lens module 13);
the driving coils (coils 152) further comprise a second driving coil (coil 152), a third driving coil (coil 152) and a fourth driving coil (coil 152) disposed on the fixed portion (casing+base 11+12);
the second magnetic element (magnetic member 151) corresponds to the second driving coil (coil 152);
the third magnetic element (magnetic member 151) corresponds to the third driving coil (coil 152); and
the fourth magnetic element (magnetic member 151) corresponds to the fourth driving coil (coil 152).
(Note, in ¶ 40, Lee both enables an extension of the number of magnetic members/coils 151/152 to four or more, while also extolling the benefits of their symmetrical arrangement)
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hu1, Fang, Hu2, Hong, and Guo as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Park (US 20240205544 Al).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 17.
Lee, in the first embodiment cited above, further discloses (see FIGs. 2-7, ¶s 39-40) wherein:
a first magnetic force is generated between the first magnetic element (magnetic member 151) and the first magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143) and applied to the movable portion (lens module 13);
a second magnetic force is generated between the second magnetic element (magnetic member 151) and the first guiding element (guide pin 17) and applied to the movable portion (lens module 13).
(Examiner notes that two magnetic dipoles anywhere in the universe will always experience some mutual magnetic force)
Lee, in the second embodiment cited above, further discloses wherein: a third magnetic force is generated between the third magnetic element (magnetic member 151) and the second magnetically permeable element (rolling member 143) and applied to the movable portion (lens module 13). (As established in annotated FIG. 7+13 and in regards to claim 4 above, Lee’s second embodiment enables the second magnetically permeable element. Examiner notes again that any two dipoles will always experience some mutual magnetic force.)
Hu2 further discloses wherein: a fourth magnetic force is generated between the fourth magnetic element and the second guiding element (guiding rod 141’) and applied to the movable portion (lens support 121). (As established in annotated FIG. 5A and in regards to claim 4 above, Lee’s second embodiment enables the second guiding element. Examiner notes again that any two dipoles will always experience some mutual magnetic force)
Modified Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the first magnetic force, the second magnetic force, the third magnetic force, and the fourth magnetic force have different directions.
Lee and Park commonly relate to electromagnetic driving devices.
Park discloses (see FIG. 17E, ¶s 302-304) wherein: the first magnetic force (FR1), the second magnetic force (FR2), the third magnetic force (FR3), and the fourth magnetic force (FR4) have different directions (i.e. +Y, -X, -Y, +X, respectively).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Lee and Park, in order to simplify control algorithms during image stabilization and facilitate reduction in size of the camera device (Park ¶ 22).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 18.
Park further discloses (see FIG. 17E) wherein:
directions of the first magnetic force (FR1) and the third magnetic force (FR3) are opposite (i.e. ± Y); and
directions of the second magnetic force (FR2) and the fourth magnetic force (FR4) are opposite (i.e. ± X).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lee discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 19.
Park further discloses (see FIG. 17E) wherein:
the first magnetic force (FR1) generates a first torque to the movable portion (lens support 121);
the second magnetic force (FR2) generates a second torque to the movable portion (lens support 121);
the third magnetic force (FR3) generates a third torque to the movable portion (lens support 121);
the fourth magnetic force (FR4) generates a fourth torque to the movable portion (lens support 121); and
directions of the first torque, the second torque, the third torque, and the fourth torque are identical (i.e. all torques point into the page, in the -Z direction).
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights