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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first member; the vibration actuator provided in or on the first member; and a second member that is connected to the contact body and has a ground potential”, as described in claim 24, and “a wire that is inserted through the elongated member and is fixed to a part of the elongated member”, as described in claim 26, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 24, the applicant claims a first member and a second member. The examiner does not see any support for what or where the first member and second member are described. For examination purposes the examinator is treating the limitation to be met if the vibration actuator is taught.
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) 1-2, 4, 11-12, 15-18 and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi (PG Pub 20190115853).
Considering claim 1, Hayashi (Figures 4A + 7) teaches a vibration actuator comprising: a vibrator including (1011 + paragraph 0051); a piezoelectric material (1 + paragraph 0053), an electrode (3 + paragraph 0045) disposed on a first surface of the piezoelectric material, an elastic body (6 + paragraph 0047) disposed on a side of a second surface, opposite to the first surface, of the piezoelectric material; a contact body (8 + paragraph 0084) that is in contact with the elastic body and is movable relative to the vibrator (paragraph 0084); wherein the vibrator vibrates when a voltage is applied between the contact body and the electrode with the contact body at a ground potential (paragraphs 0084-0086).
Considering claim 2, Hayashi (Figure 7) teaches wherein the elastic body and the piezoelectric material are joined via a conductive bonding portion (4 + paragraph 0063).
Considering claim 4, Hayashi (Figure 4A) teaches wherein the conductive bonding portion contains conductive particles (4 + paragraph 0059).
Considering claim 11, Hayashi (Figure 4A) teaches wherein the elastic body is covered with a conductor (4 + paragraph 0063).
Considering claim 12, Hayashi (Figure 7) teaches wherein the elastic body includes a rectangular portion (paragraph 0071), and the vibrator is held by a vibrator holding member at four corners of the rectangular portion (11 + paragraph 0108).
Considering claim 15, Hayashi (Figure 7) teaches wherein the contact body is a stator (8 + paragraph 0084), and the vibrator is a mover (61 + paragraph 0084).
Considering claim 16, Hayashi (Figure 4A) teaches wherein the electrode includes a first electrode (2) and a second electrode (3 + paragraph 0051) that are adjacent to each other.
Considering claim 17, Hayashi (Figure 4A + 7) teaches wherein, when a first region and a second region are respectively defined as a region in which the first electrode (2 + paragraph 0051) is provided and a region in which the second electrode (3 + paragraph 0051) is provided in the piezoelectric material, the vibrator forms a first bending vibration mode in which the first region and the second region both extend or contract (paragraph 0086) and a second bending vibration mode in which the second region contracts and extends respectively when the first region extends and contracts (paragraphs 0051 + 0086).
Considering claim 18, Hayashi (Figures 4A + 7) teaches wherein an electrode (2 + paragraph 0045) of a ground potential is not provided on the first surface of the piezoelectric material.
Considering claim 20, Hayashi teaches wherein the piezoelectric material includes a lead zirconate titanate-based material (paragraph 0065).
Considering claim 21, Hayashi teaches wherein a content of lead in the piezoelectric material is less than 1000 ppm (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 22, Hayashi teaches wherein the piezoelectric material includes a barium titanate-based material (paragraph 0068).
Considering claim 23, Hayashi teaches wherein the piezoelectric material includes a barium calcium titanate zirconate material (paragraph 0068).
Considering claim 24, Hayashi (Figure 7) teaches an electronic apparatus comprising: a first member; the vibration actuator provided in or on the first member; and a second member that is connected to the contact body and has a ground potential (2 + paragraph 0045).
Considering claim 25, Hayashi (Figure 10) teaches the vibration actuator (1011 + paragraph 0051) in a driving unit (paragraphs 0107); and at least one of an optical element (16 + paragraph 0109) and an imaging element (paragraph 0107).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 3, 5-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (PG Pub 20190115853).
Considering claim 3, Hayashi teaches the conductive bonding portion is layered except for an average thickness of the conductive bonding portion is 1.5 microns or greater and 7 microns or less. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice have the conductive bonding portion is layered is 1.5 microns or greater and 7 microns or less, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering claim 5, Hayashi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an average particle diameter of the conductive particles is 1 micron or greater and 5 micron or less. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have an average particle diameter of the conductive particles is 1 micron or greater and 5 micron, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering claim 6, Hayashi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the conductive particles are contained in the conductive bonding portion with a volume fraction of 0.4% or greater and 2% or less. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the conductive particles are contained in the conductive bonding portion with a volume fraction of 0.4% or greater and 2% or less, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering claim 7, Hayashi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the contact body includes stainless steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the contact body includes stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 8, Hayashi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least one of a surface of the contact body and a surface of the elastic body is covered with a nitride. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include at least one of a surface of the contact body and a surface of the elastic body is covered with a nitride, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 9, Hayashi discloses the claimed invention except wherein the contact body includes aluminum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the contact body includes aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 10, Hayashi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a surface of the contact body is covered with an oxide of aluminum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a surface of the contact body is covered with an oxide of aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 19, Hayashi discloses the claimed invention except wherein a plurality of the vibrators are in contact with the contact body that is common to all of the vibrators, and the contact body and the plurality of vibrators move relative to each other due to vibrations of the plurality of vibrators. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of the vibrators are in contact with the contact body that is common to all of the vibrators, and the contact body and the plurality of vibrators move relative to each other due to vibrations of the plurality of vibrators, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (PG Pub 20190115853) and in view of Furuta (PG Pub 20190334458).
Considering 13, Hayashi teaches the elastic body as described above.
However, Hayashi does not teach a support portion protruding from an end portion of the rectangular portion, and the vibrator is held by the vibrator holding member via the support portion.
Furuta (Figure 4B) teaches a support portion (6 + paragraph 0028) protruding from an end portion of the rectangular portion, and the vibrator is held by the vibrator holding member via the support portion (paragraphs 0028-0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a support portion protruding from an end portion of the rectangular portion, and the vibrator is held by the vibrator holding member via the support portion into Hayashi’s device for the benefit of designing the device with versatility.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (PG Pub 20190115853) and in view of Watanabe (PG Pub 20190379305).
Considering claim 14, Hayashi teaches the elastic body as described above.
However, Hayashi does not teach wherein the elastic body has an annular shape.
Watanabe (Figure 1A) teaches wherein the elastic body has an annular shape (3 + paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the elastic body has an annular shape into Hayashi’s device for the benefit of improving the driving efficiency of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is 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. Considering claim 26, the prior art does not teach a wire-driven actuator comprising: a wire that is inserted through the elongated member and is fixed to a part of the elongated member wherein the elongated member bends due to driving of the wire in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dedei K Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights