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 amendment to Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 21-25, and 27-30, the cancelation of Claim(s) 26, filed 12/30/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9 of 13, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to Claim 30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Objection of Claim 30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9 of 13 through Page 12 of 13, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9 of 13 through Page 12 of 13, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC § 102 and claim(s) 2-5 under and 35 USC § 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 applicant’s amendment(s) to the independent claim.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al., (hereafter Park) (US 2022/0053110 A1)
With respect to Claim 1, Park discloses an optical element driving mechanism, comprising: a movable portion (110, Figure 1) used for connecting an optical element; a fixed portion (210, Figure 1) comprising a bottom, wherein the movable portion (110, Figure 1) is movable relative to the fixed portion (210, Figure 1), and the bottom comprises a first recess (one of 112a, Figure 3A) and a second recess (second of 112a, Figure 3A), wherein the first recess (one of 112a, Figure 3A) comprises a first contact surface (see annotated Figure 3A) and a second contact surface (see annotated Figure 3A), and the second recess (second of 112a, Figure 3A) comprises a third contact surface (same as first contact surface, but with the second recess); a driving assembly (AF operation unit, not shown, ¶[0115]) used for driving (¶[0115]-[0117]) the movable portion (110, Figure 1) to move relative to the fixed portion (210, Figure 1); and a guiding assembly (all of 111, Figure 3A) disposed on the fixed portion (210, Figure 1), comprising: a first guiding element (one of 111, Figure 3A) disposed in the first recess (one of 112a, Figure 3A) and in direct contact with the first contact surface (see annotated Figure 3A) and the second contact surface (see annotated Figure 3A); and a second guiding element (one of 111, Figure 3A) disposed in the second recess (second of 112a, Figure 3A) and in direct contact (see Figure 3A) with the third contact surface (see annotated Figure 3A).
PNG
media_image1.png
841
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Park (US 2022/0053110 A1) in view of Ho (US 2020/0249424A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Park teaches the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1.
Park fails to teach a first magnetic permeable element disposed on the fixed portion; a second magnetic permeable element disposed on the fixed portion; a third magnetic element disposed on the movable portion; a fourth magnetic element disposed on the movable portion; and a guiding assembly disposed on the fixed portion.
Fifth Embodiment of Ho teaches a first magnetic permeable element (first accommodating element 5-22A, Figure 49, may include magnetic permeable material, ¶[0178]) disposed on the fixed portion (5-M, Figure 48); a second magnetic permeable element (5-24A, Figure 49) disposed on the fixed portion (5-M, Figure 48); a third magnetic element (5-42B, Figure 53) disposed on the movable portion (5-M, Figure 47); a fourth magnetic element (5-44B, Figure 53) disposed on the movable portion (5-M, Figure 47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Park having the optical element driving mechanism with the teachings of the Fifth Embodiment of Ho having magnetic permeable elements disposed on the fixed and moving portions for the purpose of the prevention of the magnetic elements being attracted out from other elements, ¶[0179].
Park in view of the Fifth Embodiment of Ho fail to teach a third magnetic permeable element disposed on the fixed portion.
Alternate Fifth Embodiment of Ho teaches a third magnetic permeable element (some embodiments, additional magnetic permeable elements (not shown) may be disposed at the side of the magnetic element, ¶[0179]) disposed on the fixed portion (5-M, Figure 48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of the Park in view of the Fifth Embodiment of Ho having the optical element driving mechanism with the teachings of the Alternate Fifth Embodiment of Ho having the third magnetic permeable element for the purpose of the prevention of the magnetic elements being attracted out from other elements, ¶[0179].
With respect to Claim 3, Park further teaches wherein the driving assembly comprises: a first magnetic element (180, Figure 1A) disposed on the movable portion (110, Figure 1A); a second magnetic element (185, Figure 1A) disposed on the movable portion (110, Figure 1A); a first driving coil (120, Figure 1A) disposed on the fixed portion (210, Figure 1A) and corresponding to the first magnetic element (180, Figure 1A); and a second driving coil (230, Figure 1A) disposed on the fixed portion (210, Figure 1A) and corresponding to the second magnetic element (185, Figure 1A).
With respect to Claim 4, Park teaches the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 3.
Park fails to teach wherein: the first magnetic element corresponds to the first guiding element; the second magnetic element corresponds to the second guiding element; the first magnetic element corresponds to the first magnetic permeable element; the third magnetic element corresponds to the second magnetic permeable element.
Fifth Embodiment of Ho teaches the first magnetic element (5-42A, Figure 53) corresponds to the first guiding element (one of 5-26, Figure 55); the second magnetic element (5-44A, Figure 53) corresponds to the second guiding element (one of 5-26, Figure 55); the first magnetic element (5-42A, Figure 53) corresponds to the first magnetic permeable element (5-22A, Figure 49); the third magnetic element (5-42B, Figure 53) corresponds to the second magnetic permeable element (5-24A, Figure 49).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of the Park having the optical element driving mechanism with the teachings of the Fifth Embodiment of Ho having the first magnetic element corresponds to the first guiding element; the second magnetic element corresponds to the second guiding element; the first magnetic element corresponds to the first magnetic permeable element; the third magnetic element corresponds to the second magnetic permeable element for the purpose of the prevention of the magnetic elements being attracted out from other elements, ¶[0179].
Park in view of the Fifth Embodiment of Ho fail to teach the fourth magnetic element corresponds to the third magnetic permeable element.
Alternate Fifth Embodiment of Ho teach the fourth magnetic element (5-44B, Figure 53) corresponds to the third magnetic permeable element (additional magnetic permeable elements (not shown) may be disposed at the side of the magnetic element, ¶[0179]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Park in view of the Fifth Embodiment of Ho having the optical element driving mechanism with the teachings of the Alternate Fifth Embodiment of Ho having the fourth magnetic element corresponds to the third magnetic permeable element for the purpose of the prevention of the magnetic elements being attracted out from other elements, ¶[0179].
With respect to Claim 5, Park teaches the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 4.
Park fails to teach wherein the first magnetic element and the first guiding element generates a first force to the movable portion; the second magnetic element and the second guiding element generates a second force to the movable portion; the first magnetic element and the first magnetic permeable element generates a third force to the movable portion; the third magnetic element and the second magnetic permeable element generates a fourth force to the movable portion.
Fifth Embodiment of Ho teaches wherein: the first magnetic element (5-42A, Figure 53) and the first guiding element (one of 5-26, Figure 55) generates a first force (electromagnetic force, ¶[0158]) to the movable portion (5-M, Figure 47); the second magnetic element (5-44A, Figure 53) and the second guiding element (one of 5-26, Figure 55) generates a second force (electromagnetic force, ¶[0158]) to the movable portion (5-M, Figure 47); the first magnetic element (5-42A, Figure 53) and the first magnetic permeable element (5-22A, Figure 49) generates a third force (electromagnetic force, ¶[0158]) to the movable portion (5-M, Figure 47); the third magnetic element (5-42B, Figure 53) and the second magnetic permeable element (5-24A, Figure 49) generates a fourth force (electromagnetic force, ¶[0158]) to the movable portion (5-M, Figure 47); the fourth magnetic element (5-44B, Figure 53).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of the Park having the optical element driving mechanism with the teachings of the Fifth Embodiment of Ho having the first magnetic element and the first guiding element generates a first force to the movable portion; the second magnetic element and the second guiding element generates a second force to the movable portion; the first magnetic element and the first magnetic permeable element generates a third force to the movable portion; the third magnetic element and the second magnetic permeable element generates a fourth force to the movable portion for the purpose of the prevention of the magnetic elements being attracted out from other elements, ¶[0179].
Park in view of the Fifth Embodiment of Ho fails to teach the fourth magnetic element and the third magnetic permeable element generates a fifth force to the movable portion.
Alternate Fifth Embodiment of Ho teach the fourth magnetic element (additional magnetic permeable elements (not shown) may be disposed at the side of the magnetic element, ¶[0179]) and the third magnetic permeable element (additional magnetic permeable elements (not shown) may be disposed at the side of the magnetic element, ¶[0179]) generates a fifth force (electromagnetic force, ¶[0158]) to the movable portion (5-M, Figure 47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Park in view of the Fifth Embodiment of Ho having the optical element driving mechanism with the teachings of the Alternate Fifth Embodiment of Ho having the fourth magnetic element and the third magnetic permeable element generates a fifth force to the movable portion for the purpose of the prevention of the magnetic elements being attracted out from other elements, ¶[0179].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 21-25 and 27-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to Claim 6, the prior art fails to teach “wherein: the first force, the second force, the third force, the fourth force, and the fifth force generates a resultant force to the movable portion; the resultant force is greater than zero in a first direction; the resultant force is greater than zero in a second direction; the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular; a direction of the first force is not parallel and not perpendicular to the first direction; the direction of the first force is not parallel and not perpendicular to the second direction; a direction of the second force is not parallel and not perpendicular to the first direction; the direction of the second force is not parallel and not perpendicular to the second direction.”
With respect to claims 7-10 and 21-30, these claims depend on claim 6 and are allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights