DETAILED ACTION
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 the amendment filed 2/17/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
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 1, 3-4, and 6-26 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term "the protrusion” (line 10) and "the protrusion” (line 11) are vague and renders the claims indefinite and lacks antecedent; claim 1 cited “at least one protrusion” (line 6) and “a part of the protrusion” (line 7), thus it is unclear, which specific the two of protrusions are being referred to; as the claim will be treated as “a second part of the protrusion” (line 10) and “a third part of the protrusion” (line 11).
Claims 3-4, and 6-26 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Therefore, proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20200033559) in view of MINAMISAWA et al. (US20190018258), Sugiura (US20220060610) and Owaki (US20190174623).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a driving mechanism for moving an optical element (Huang, figs.1-140, Huang’s claim 1, a driving mechanism for moving an optical element) that has an optical axis (Huang’s claim 1, a movable part for holding the optical element, wherein the optical element defines an optical axis), the driving mechanism comprising:
a fixed part (Huang, fig.94, paragraph [0295] fixed portion 7-100; paragraph [0296], The fixed portion 7-100 includes a case 7-110, a base 7-120, and a frame 7-130), having a plastic housing and a base (Huang, paragraph [0297], “Since the case 7-110 and the base 7-120 are respectively made of metal and non-metal material, such as plastic”), wherein the housing forms a slot (see fig.94, the case 7-110 forms a slot);
a movable part (a movable part; paragraph [0296] the movable portion 7-200), movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element (claim 1, a movable part for holding the optical element, wherein the optical element defines an optical axis, and the movable part is movable relative to the fixed part); and
a driving assembly (paragraph [0295], a driving assembly 7-500), configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part (claim 1, a driving assembly for driving the movable part to move relative to the fixed part; paragraph [0318] The driving assembly can drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion).
a circuit assembly affixed in the slot (see annotated image, Huang, fig.94, circuit assembly, affixed in the slot---the housing), wherein the reinforcing sheet is exposed to the inner side of the housing and faces the circuit assembly (see annotated image, Huang, fig.94, the reinforcing sheet is exposed to the inner side of the housing and faces the circuit assembly), but does not explicitly teach wherein the protrusion is located on the outer side of the circuit assembly, and a gap is formed between the protrusion and the slot.
However, MINAMISAWA teaches the analogous optical system (MINAMISAWA, abstract, “To draw a flexible printed circuit board in a small space with high flexibility in an optical unit”), and further teaches wherein the protrusion is located on the outer side of the circuit assembly, and a gap is formed between the protrusion and the slot (see annotated image, MINAMISAWA, Fig.8B. the protrusion is located on the outer side of the circuit assembly 820, and the gap is formed between the protrusion and the slot).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Huang to have the protrusion is located on the outer side of the circuit assembly, and a gap is formed between the protrusion and the slot as taught by MINAMISAWA for the purpose to provide an optical unit with shake correction function that enables swing or rotation of a movable member to which a flexible printed circuit board is connected, the flexible printed circuit board being drawn in a small space with high flexibility (MINAMISAWA, paragraph [0007]).
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein
a reinforcing sheet, comprising metal and embedded in the housing by insert molding, wherein the reinforcing sheet has a main body and at least one protrusion extending from the main body, and when viewed along the optical axis, a part of the protrusion does not overlap the main body.
However, Sugiura teaches the analogous driving mechanism (Sugiura, figs.1-8, abstract, this lens driving device is provided with: a stationary part; and a movable part configured to be capable of holding a lens part and movably connected to the stationary part), and further teaches and further teaches wherein
a reinforcing sheet (Sugiura, fig.5C, the 126 + the 124+the 127+the 125; comprising metal (paragraph [0065] “two terminal metal fittings 124 and 125 and two reinforcing plates 126 and 127”) and embedded in the housing (base 121 has been referred to as the housing) by insert molding (paragraph [0066] “metal fittings 124 and 125 and reinforcing plates 126 and 127 are formed of”; “a metal material such as a brass foil, and are formed integrally with base 121 by insert-molding”), wherein the reinforcing sheet has a main body (see Sugiura, fig.5, reinforcing plate 126 is a main body) and at least one protrusion (Sugiura, fig.5, metal fitting 124, and 126a) extending from the main body (Sugiura, fig.5, the 126), and when viewed along the optical axis (Sugiura, fig.5, z-axis), a part of the protrusion (Sugiura, fig.5, the 124, the 126a) does not overlap the main body (Sugiura fig.5, the 126).
Sugiura also teaches (in paragraph [0069], Reinforcing plates 126 and 127 are disposed on sides of base 121 along the Y direction. Reinforcing plates 126 and 127 include yoke attachment parts 126 a and 127 a. An adhesive is applied to yoke attachment parts 126 a and 127 a when yoke 122 is attached to base 121. Since the bonding strength when yoke 122 is attached to base 121 improves by an anchor effect, falling impact resistance improves).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcing plate of Huang to have part of the protrusion as taught by Sugiura so when viewed along the optical axis a part of the protrusion does not overlap the main body for the purpose of falling impact resistance improves (Sugiura paragraph [0069]).
Huang does not explicitly teaches wherein having a plastic housing.
However, Owaki teaches the analogous driving mechanism (Owaki, figs.2-3, abstract, a camera apparatus), and further teaches wherein the fixed part has a plastic housing (Owaki, paragraph [0062], “the housing 10 is a structure obtained by bring an upper and lower pair of a front case 20 and a rear case 21 into contact with each other and coupling them. The front case 20 and the rear case 21 are molded in an approximately rectangular parallelepiped shape with resin such as engineering plastic”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of housing of Huang to have plastic housing as taught by Owaki for the purpose of shielding of unnecessary electromagnetic waves (Owaki, paragraph [0062]).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
726
1169
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
698
1194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
668
1098
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Huang further teaches wherein when viewed in a horizontal direction (-Y) (see annotated image, Huang, fig.95, -Y axis) perpendicular to the optical axis (fig.95, z-axis), a part of the circuit assembly (see annotated image, Huang fig.95, circuit assembly) does not overlap the reinforcing sheet (see annotated image, Huang fig.95, reinforcing sheet).
Regarding claim 6 combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Huang further teaches wherein a part of the housing forms an embedded portion (Huang, fig.96, the 7-710) that extends into a through hole of the reinforcing sheet (Huang, fig.96, the hole 7-621).
Regarding claim 7, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 6 and Huang further teaches wherein the embedded portion (Huang, fig.96, the 7-710) protrudes from the through hole of the reinforcing sheet (Huang fig.96, the hole 7-621).
Regarding claim 8, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 6 and Huang further teaches wherein the embedded portion (Huang fig.96, the 7-710) forms a depressed structure inside the through hole (see fig.96, the hole 7-621 is a depressed structure inside the through hole).
Regarding claim 17, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and Huang further teaches wherein the base (Huang fig.97, base 7-120) has a protruding barrier (see Huang, fig.97, the base 7-120 have a protruding barrier) contacting and restricting the movable part (fig.97, 7-220) in a limit position (paragraph [0298], can restrict the range of motion of the frame 7-130, so as to prevent the frame 7-130 from deforming due to impact).
Regarding claim 18, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 17 and Huang further teaches wherein the housing (fig.98, the 7-110) has a sidewall (see fig.98, has a sidewall) and a protruding structure (see annotated image, Huang fig.98, protruding structure) extends from the sidewall toward the interior of the housing (the 7-110), and the slot (fig.98, 7-115; paragraph [0298], depression 7-115) is formed between the sidewall (see annotated image, Huang, fig.98, the sidewall) and the protruding structure (see annotated image, Huang fig.98, the protruding structure), wherein the protruding barrier (see annotated image, Huang fig.98, the protruding barrier) and the protruding structure at least partially overlap when viewed along the optical axis (fig.98, Z-axis).
PNG
media_image5.png
715
1280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 18 and further teaches wherein the protruding barrier has a first segment, a second segment, and a third segment connected between the first and second segments (see annotated image, Huang fig.98, the protruding barrier has a first segment, a second segment, and a third segment connected between the first and second segments), wherein the third segment forms a depressed structure in the protruding barrier (see annotated image, Huang fig.98, the third segment forms a depressed structure in the protruding barrier).
Regarding claim 20, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 19 and further Huang teaches wherein the movable part (Huang fig.94, hole 7-113,7-220) has a projecting portion (paragraph [0299], an external light can pass through the optical hole 7-113, the optical member 7-30, and the optical hole 7-123 in sequence and reach the image sensor in the electronic device 7-20, so as to form an image on the image sensor), and the third segment (see annotated image, Huang fig.98, the third segment) contacts the projecting portion when the movable part (fig.94, the 7-113) is in a limit position (Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and wherein is in a limit position. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”; also, Huang teaches in fig.40, paragraph [0236], the frame 4-240 may restrict the movement of the movable portion 4-100, and prevent the position-sensing element 4-410 or the electronic element 4-420 from being directly damaged by the impact of the movable portion 4-100).
Regarding claim 21, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 19 and Huang further teaches wherein the distance between the third segment and the movable part is different from the distance between the first segment and the movable part (see annotated image, Huang, fig.98, is capable of has a distance between the third segment and the movable part 7-220, is different from the distance between the first segment and the movable part---due to thickness of third segment and the first segment is different along the z-axis).
Regarding claim 22, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 17 and Huang further teaches wherein the sidewall, the reinforcing sheet, the circuit assembly, and the protruding barrier are sequentially arranged in a horizontal direction that is perpendicular to the optical axis (see annotated image, Huang fig.95, the sidewall, the reinforcing sheet, the circuit assembly, and the protruding barrier are sequentially arranged in a horizontal direction that is perpendicular to the optical axis Z).
Regarding claim 23, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and Huang further teaches wherein further comprising an electronic element (Huang, the 7-710) disposed on the circuit assembly (paragraph [0313] electronic member 7-710, a sensor 7-720, and a sensing object 7-730. The electronic member 7-710 and the sensor 7-720 can be disposed on the circuit board 7-600) and angled relative to the optical axis (paragraph [0314] The sensor 7-720 can detect the relative movement between the sensing object 7-720 and the sensor 7-730 to obtain the relative position between the fixed portion 7-100 and the movable portion 7-200---means the electronic element be angled relative to the optical axis).
Regarding claim 24, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 23 and Huang further teaches wherein the driving assembly has a coil (fig.96, coil 7-510) and a magnetic element (fig.95, 7-520; paragraph [0303], driving member 7-520 can be a magnetic member (such as a magnet)), and the housing forms two columns (see fig.95, the 7-130 forms at least two columns), wherein the coil (fig.96, paragraph [0303], driving member 7-510 can be a coil module) is disposed on the movable part (fig.96, 7-210; paragraph [0303], the optical member holder 7-210 and the optical member 7-30 disposed thereon can move along the Z-axis), and the magnetic element (fig.95, the 7-520) is disposed between the two columns (see Huang fig.95, the magnetic element 7-520 is disposed between the two columns).
Regarding claim 25, combi combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 24 and Huang further teaches wherein further comprising an upper spring sheet (Huang, fig.95, 7-300; paragraph [0301] elastic member 7-300) connecting the movable part (fig.95, the 7-220) to the housing (the 7-130), wherein the upper spring sheet (the 7-300) surrounds the columns (fig.95, the columns in the 7-130).
Regarding claim 26, combination Huang- MINAMISAWA- Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 25 and Huang further teaches wherein the magnetic element (fig.95, the 7-520) and the upper spring sheet (fig.95, the 7-300) partially overlap when viewed along the optical axis (fig.95, the z-axis).
Claims 4, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20200033559) in view of MINAMISAWA et al. (US20190018258), Sugiura (US20220060610) and Owaki (US20190174623), and further in view of Hung et al. (US20220308421).
Regarding claim 4, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the circuit assembly and the reinforcing sheet are electrically independent from each other.
However, Hung teaches the analogous driving mechanism (Hung, figs.1-12, abstract, an optical element driving mechanism, which includes a movable part, a fixed assembly, and a driving assembly), and further teaches wherein the circuit assembly (Hung, paragraph [0091] the first circuit assembly 120, the second circuit assembly 130 and the third circuit assembly 140) and the reinforcing sheet (Hung, fig.12, paragraph [0091], the reinforcement assembly EA) are electrically independent from each other (Hung, fig.12, paragraph [0091], the reinforcement assembly EA is electrically independent from the first circuit assembly 120, the second circuit assembly 130 and the third circuit assembly 140).
Also, Hung teaches (in paragraph [0092], “as shown in FIG. 12, in this embodiment, the base 112 has an inner side surface 112S3, and a part of the first circuit assembly 120 and/or the second circuit assembly 130 is exposed from the inner side surface 112S3. Based on this structural design, the thickness of the first side wall SW1 along the second axis AX2 (the X-axis) can be reduced to achieve the purpose of miniaturizing the optical element driving mechanism 100A”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit assembly and the reinforcing sheet of Huang to have electrically independent from each other as taught by Hung for the purpose of miniaturizing the optical element driving mechanism (Hung, paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 9, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 6 and Huang further teaches wherein the housing has a sidewall (see Huang fig.94, the housing 7-110 has a sidewall) and a protruding structure (see annotated image, Huang fig.94, the protruding structure) extends from the sidewall toward the interior of the housing (see annotated image, Huang fig.94, protruding structure has toward the interior of the housing 7-110).
But Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the slot is formed between the sidewall and the protruding structure, and the reinforcing sheet faces the protruding structure.
However, Hung teaches the analogous driving mechanism (Hung, figs.1-12, abstract, an optical element driving mechanism, which includes a movable part, a fixed assembly, and a driving assembly), and further teaches wherein the slot (see annotated image, Hung, fig.12, the slot) is formed between the sidewall and the protruding structure, and the reinforcing sheet faces the protruding structure.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot of Huang that is formed between the sidewall and the protruding structure, and the reinforcing sheet faces the protruding structure as taught by Hung for the purpose of miniaturizing the optical element driving mechanism (Hung, paragraph [0092]).
PNG
media_image6.png
692
1158
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki discloses the invention as described in Claim 9 and Huang further teaches wherein the sidewall, the reinforcing sheet, the circuit assembly, and the protruding structure are sequentially arranged in a horizontal direction that is perpendicular to the optical axis (see annotated image, Huang, fig.94, the sidewall, the reinforcing sheet, the circuit assembly, and the protruding structure are sequentially arranged in a horizontal direction -Y that is perpendicular to the optical axis Z).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20200033559) in view of MINAMISAWA et al. (US20190018258), Sugiura (US20220060610), Owaki (US20190174623) and Hung et al. (US20220308421), and further in view of Hu et al. (US20180335601).
Regarding claim 10, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki-Hung discloses the invention as described in Claim 9, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the reinforcing sheet forms a sloped surface embedded in the sidewall.
However, Hu teaches the analogous driving mechanism (Hu, abstract, a driving mechanism includes a frame, a carrying base, and a drive module...), and further teaches wherein the reinforcing sheet (Hu, fig.6, paragraph [0340] reinforcing portions 6-243) forms a sloped surface (Hu, paragraph [0340], The reinforcing portion 6-243 may be a trapezoidal, and has an upper surface 6-2431 and two inclined surfaces 6-2432) embedded in the sidewall (see annotated image, Hu, fig.6, the sidewall).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcing sheet of Huang to form a sloped surface embedded in the sidewall as taught by Hu for the purpose to enhance the strength of the carrying base (Hu, paragraph [0339]).
PNG
media_image7.png
702
956
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US20200033559) in view of MINAMISAWA et al. (US20190018258), Sugiura (US20220060610), Owaki (US20190174623) and Hung et al. (US20220308421), and further in view of Shin (US20230371170).
Regarding claim 12, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki-Hung discloses the invention as described in Claim 9, Huang does not explicitly teaches wherein further comprising a glue disposed in the recess and between the circuit assembly and the reinforcing sheet.
However, Shin teaches the analogous driving mechanism (Shin, figs.1-11, abstract, a camera module according to an embodiment includes a reinforcing plate; a substrate disposed on the reinforcing plate; a lens driving unit disposed on the substrate.), and further teaches wherein
wherein further comprising a glue (Shin, paragraph [0004], adhesion) disposed in the recess (Shin, paragraph [0009] plurality of holes) and between the circuit assembly and the reinforcing sheet (Shin, paragraph [0004], “adhesion between a circuit pattern layer of a substrate and a reinforcing plate”; paragraph [0009], “an adhesive layer disposed between the reinforcing plate and the substrate, wherein the substrate includes a first cover layer including a plurality of holes; and a circuit pattern layer disposed on the first cover layer; wherein the adhesive layer is adhered to the circuit pattern layer through the plurality of holes”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recess of Huang to have a glue disposed in the recess and between the circuit assembly and the reinforcing sheet as taught by Shin for the purpose of/to improving shielding performance of EMI noise and reducing electrical resistance between a ground of a substrate and a reinforcing plate, and an optical device including the same (Shin, paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki-Hung-Shin discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Huang further teaches wherein the protruding structure comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion connected between the first and second portions, wherein the third portion forms a depressed structure toward the outer side of the housing (see annotated image, Huang fig.94, the protruding structure comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion connected between the first and second portions, wherein the third portion forms a depressed structure toward the outer side of the housing).
Regarding claim 14, combination Huang-MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki-Hung-Shin discloses the invention as described in Claim 13 and Huang further teaches wherein further comprising a light-curable glue disposed on the first portion for adhering the circuit assembly to the housing (Huang, paragraph [0341] circuit by a single process, e.g. soldering, welding or conductive glue, so Huang is capable of comprising a light-curable glue disposed on the first portion for adhering the circuit assembly to the housing).
Regarding claim 15, combination Huang- MINAMISAWA- Sugiura-Owaki-Hung-Shin discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Huang further teaches wherein the glue comprises thermal glue (Huang, paragraph [0341] circuit by a single process, e.g. soldering, welding or conductive glue--it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07; further the materials are well known in the art and a skilled person in the art may ascertain claimed glue material without any difficulty; 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 design choice.).
Regarding claim 16, combination Huang- MINAMISAWA-Sugiura-Owaki-Hung-Shin discloses the invention as described in Claim 13 and Huang further teaches wherein the movable part (Huang fig.94, hole 7-113,7-220) has a projecting portion (paragraph [0299], “an external light can pass through the optical hole 7-113, the optical member 7-30, and the optical hole 7-123 in sequence and reach the image sensor in the electronic device 7-20, so as to form an image on the image sensor”), and the third portion (see annotated image, Huang, fig.94, the third portion) contacts the projecting portion when the movable part (fig.94, the 7-113) is in a limit position, thereby restricting the movable part in the limit position (Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and wherein is in a limit position, thereby restricting the movable part in the limit position. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”; also, Huang teaches in fig.40, paragraph [0236], “the frame 4-240 may restrict the movement of the movable portion 4-100, and prevent the position-sensing element 4-410 or the electronic element 4-420 from being directly damaged by the impact of the movable portion 4-100”).
Response to argument
Previous claim 1 provisional rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No.16/522,563 and Application No.18/764,566 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
Further, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references or portions of the reference being used in the current rejections.
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
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 extension fee 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 KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights