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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/22/2026.
Cancellation of claims 3-5, filed 4/22/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to claims 1-2, filed 4/22/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the specification, filed 4/22/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claims 8-10, filed 4/22/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments, all previous objections to the claims, objections to the specification, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 5/8/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot because Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 4/22/2026, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 1/23/2026. Newly amended claims are argued below.
It is noted that Applicant’s argument, particularly that
“Park fails to disclose, teach, or suggest […] bridge parts extending […] inward […]”
– Remarks pg. 9,
is not persuasive or relevant, as Takimoto demonstrates that inward-extending bridge parts were already known in the art; see, e.g., the annotated FIG. 9A below. This specific argument only attacks Park as an individual reference while failing to properly consider the prior art in its entirety. Applicant is thus reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, and regarding Applicant’s Remarks that
“In contrast to Park, the specific geometry of the common leaf spring member recited in amended Claim 1 provides significant technical advantages that are neither taught nor suggested by the cited references
[…]
There is no motivation in Takimoto or Park to modify […] as Takimoto and Park do not recognize the space saving and stability issues addressed by the present application”
– Remarks pgs. 9-10,
Applicant appears to argue that the newly amended limitations are non-obvious because they provide certain “significant” advantages not considered in the prior art. Examiner disagrees, however, and instead finds the amended claims only to distinguish the invention over the prior art by some minor design modifications – i.e. some combination, duplication, shaping, and/or arrangement of structures already known in the prior art – without producing any particularly novel or unexpected result. Instead, the alleged advantages Applicant has identified
(“precisely define the connection positions […]
ensure stable electrical connection by forming a single electrical path […] separating the connection points […]
optimize the stress distribution […] without interfering with the elastic deformation of the main arms”
– Remarks pg. 10)
are ordinary results that would predictably follow from standard spatial reasoning and routine design considerations for the types of actuators at issue. Applicant is thus advised that simply recognizing logical benefits of otherwise obvious design modifications does not provide any proper basis for patentability – even if “Takimoto and Park do not recognize” such benefits.
Applicant is also advised their assertion that “There is no motivation in Takimoto or Park to modify […]” – based on such lack of recognition – is generally irrelevant to any findings of obviousness on which the rejections may be based. As a reminder to Applicant, the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See MPEP 2144(I).
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 1-2 and 6-10 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, lines 21-22 recites internally inconsistent geometry as follows
“the plurality of bridge parts extending perpendicularly and radially inward from the linear coupling part”.
Extending perpendicularly from a line(ar coupling part) necessarily implies parallel extensions. It is contradictory to then describe parallel extensions as being radial (i.e. as approaching the same center point/axis); these are incompatible descriptions in simple Euclidian/flat space. For examination purposes, the limitation shall be read as
“the plurality of bridge parts extending perpendicularly and inward from the linear coupling part”
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takimoto (US 20190101771 A1) in view of Osaka et al (US 20190011664, hereinafter “Osaka”) and Park (US 20170146773 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takimoto discloses (see FIGs. 7-8, ¶s 50-61, 72-80, 124-141, 255-265) an optical element driving apparatus (lens driving device 1), comprising:
a movable part (AF movable part 11 – of OIS movable part 10; see ¶ 56) configured to hold an optical element (¶ 59: “AF movable part 11 includes lens holder 110”);
a housing part (AF fixing part 12 – of OIS movable part 10; see ¶ 56) with a cylindrical shape configured to surround an outer periphery of the movable part (AF movable part 11) and house the movable part (AF movable part 11) (¶ 57: “AF movable part 11 is separated from AF fixing part 12 inside AF fixing part 12”), the housing part (AF fixing part 12) having a rectangular shape in plan view (¶ 73: “Magnet holder 12a [i.e. of AF fixing part 12; see ¶ 72] has a square cylindrical shape”; squares are rectangular);
a fixing part (OIS fixing part 20) disposed on one side in an optical axis (Z) direction with respect to the movable part (AF movable part 11) and the housing part (AF fixing part 12) (¶ 51: “OIS movable part 10 [i.e. with AF movable part 11 and AF fixing part 12; see ¶ 56] is disposed above OIS fixing part 20 on the +side… in the Z direction so as to be separated from the OIS fixing part 20”);
a plurality of leaf spring members (upper+lower leaf springs 13+14) configured to support the movable part (AF movable part 11) such that the movable part (AF movable part 11) is movable in the optical axis (Z) direction with respect to the housing part (AF fixing part 12) (¶s 57-58: “AF movable part 11 is coupled with AF fixing part 12 by upper elastic supporting part 13 and lower elastic supporting part 14 [...] and moves with respect to AF fixing part 12 in the Z direction”, ¶ 134:“Lower leaf spring 14 elastically supports AF movable part 11 with respect to AF fixing part 12”); and
a plurality of wire members (suspension wires 30A-D) configured to support the housing part (AF fixing part 12) such that the housing part (AF fixing part 12) is movable in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis with respect to the fixing part (OIS fixing part 20) (¶ 260: “OIS movable part 10 [i.e. with AF movable part 11 and AF fixing part 12; see ¶ 56] is supported by OIS fixing part 20 with suspension wires 30A to 30D in such a manner that OIS movable part 10 can sway in the plane orthogonal to the optical axis”),
wherein:
the plurality of wire members (suspension wires 30A-D) are configured such that a wire member (suspension wire 30A-D) is disposed at each of four corners of the housing part (AF fixing part 12) and connected to a common leaf spring member (upper leaf spring 13) among the plurality of leaf spring members (upper+lower leaf springs 13+14)(¶ 73: "Magnet holder 12a [i.e. of AF fixing part 12] includes arc grooves 120a recessed inward in the radial direction at four corners of the outer peripheral surface (see FIG. 6). Suspension wires 30A to 30D are disposed at arc grooves 120a."
¶s 255-256: “ends of (upper ends) of suspension wires 30A and 30B are respectively inserted into the pair of wire fixing parts 130a and 130b of upper spring element 13a [i.e. of upper leaf spring 13; see ¶ 124], and fixed by soldering”, “ends (upper ends) of suspension wires 30C and 30D are respectively inserted into the pair of wire fixing parts 130a and 130b of upper spring element 13b [i.e. of upper leaf spring 13; see ¶ 124], and fixed by soldering”), and
PNG
media_image1.png
432
1017
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 9A of Takimoto is annotated to highlight coupling and bridge parts.)]the common leaf spring member (upper leaf spring 13) includes, at each of the four corners of the housing part (AF fixing part 12), a coupling part and a bridge part, the bridge part extending radially inward from the coupling part (see annotated FIG. 9A below) to be individually connected (via 130a, 130b) to the wire member (suspension wire 30A-D).
Takimoto does not disclose wherein:
a wire group including two or more wire members is disposed at each of the four corners of the housing part and connected to a common leaf spring member
a linear coupling part extending linearly and a plurality of bridge parts, the plurality of bridge parts extending perpendicularly and radially inward from the linear coupling part to be individually connected to the two or more wire members.
Takimoto and Osaka commonly relate to lens driving devices for camera modules.
Osaka discloses (see FIGs. 7-8, FIG. 13 annotated below)
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 13 of Osaka is annotated to highlight coupling and bridge parts.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
628
956
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a linear coupling part extending linearly and a bridge part extending perpendicularly and radially inward from the linear coupling part
Takimoto and Park commonly relate to lens driving devices for camera modules.
Park discloses (see FIGs. 20-21, ¶ 317-320; note, per ¶ 317, this embodiment is based on a primary embodiment of FIGs. 1-17 and ¶s 85-309 – sharing many similar features/numerals. In particular, elastic supporting members 220-1’ to 220-8’ shown in FIGs. 20-21’s embodiment are analogous to elastic supporting members 220a to 220d shown in FIGs. 1-17’s embodiment)
a wire group including two or more wire members (elastic supporting members 220-(1’,2’), 220-(3’,4’), 220-(5’,6’), 220-(7’,8’)); note ¶ 309: “suspension wires may be used as the elastic supporting members 220a to 220d”) is disposed at each of the four corners of the housing part (housing 140 “may be provided in corners... with through recesses 751, into which the elastic supporting members 220a to 220d are inserted” – ¶ 170) and connected to a common leaf spring member (first circuit board 170, or alternatively, upper elastic member 150; see –
¶ 224: “first circuit board 170 is disposed on the upper elastic member 150”
¶ 242: “first circuit board 170 and the upper elastic member 150 may be integrally formed. For example, the first circuit board 170 may be omitted...”
¶ 191: “upper elastic member 150... [may] be a leaf spring”)
a plurality of bridge parts, the plurality of bridge parts to be individually connected to the two or more wire members (elastic supporting members 220-1’ to 220-8’).
(See also annotated FIG. 20 below)
PNG
media_image5.png
583
1052
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 20 of Park is annotated to highlight various features, with the bottom right corner of FIG. 20 magnified for refined labeling. Note the bridge parts labeled in the magnified portion can be considered as a whole/single piece (i.e. excluding the dashed line), or as individual parts (i.e. partitioned along the dashed line) so that each corresponds to a connecting part.)]
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 teachings of Takimoto and Osaka and provide linear coupling portions, in order to accommodate basic spatial/mechanical design considerations – e.g. to conform to an underlying or enclosing structure’s geometry, to provide space for other (e.g. damping, padding) structures, to redistribute contact or impact forces, etc.
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine teachings of Takimoto and Park and modify the distribution of wire members, in order to reduce the load on a given suspension wire or otherwise redistribute loads with proper consideration of forces and material/elastic properties (see also Park ¶s 314-316, 319), or to accommodate terminals and current paths for alternative circuit configurations/components.
Regarding claim 2, modified Takimoto discloses the optical element driving apparatus according to claim 1.
Park further discloses (see annotated FIG. 20 above) wherein:
the common leaf spring member (first circuit board 170) includes two extension parts connected to the housing part (housing 140) at each of the four corners of the housing part (housing 140) and extending along two sides of the housing part (housing 140) that are adjacent to each other, and
the coupling part is configured to couple the two extension parts to each other at each of the four corners of the housing part.
Osaka further discloses (see annotated FIG. 13 above) the coupling part being a linear coupling part.
Regarding claim 6, modified Takimoto discloses (see FIGs. 1-4, ¶s 40-47) a camera module (A), comprising:
the optical element driving apparatus (lens driving device 1) according to claim 1;
the optical element (“lens part”); and
an image-capturing part (not illustrated, per ¶ 47) configured to capture a subject image formed by the optical element (“lens part”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Takimoto discloses (see FIGs. 1-4, ¶s 40-47, 278) a camera-equipped apparatus (smartphone M) that is an information apparatus or a transport apparatus, the camera-equipped apparatus (smartphone M) comprising:
the camera module (A) according to claim 6; and
an image processing part (“control section” – ¶ 278) configured to process image information obtained by the camera module (A).
Regarding claim 8, modified Takimoto discloses the optical element driving apparatus according to claim 1.
Modified Takimoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of bridge parts have a same width and a same length as each other.
However, it should be noted that Park already provides each corner’s plurality of wire members and accompanying structures (e.g. bridge parts) in a bilaterally symmetric arrangement; see annotated FIG. 20 above. Note also that the enforcing such bilateral symmetry – i.e. when combining/modifying Takimoto with Park, as discussed in regards to claim 1 above – could easily lend itself to the claimed geometry, as such a constraint may directly produce mirror-symmetric bridge parts that have a same width and a same length as each other.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also provide the modified Takimoto (incorporating teachings of Park) with a plurality of bridge parts that have a same width and a same length as each other, this done in further support of the aforementioned reasons to combine the stated references – i.e. to reduce the load on a given suspension wire or otherwise redistribute loads with proper consideration of forces and material/elastic properties, or to accommodate terminals and current paths for alternative circuit configurations/components.
Regarding claim 9, modified Takimoto discloses the optical element driving apparatus according to claim 1.
Park further discloses (see annotated FIG. 20 above) wherein the coupling part extends along a direction in which the two or more wire members (elastic supporting members 220-1’ to 220-8’) are aligned.
Osaka further discloses (see annotated FIG. 13 above) the coupling part being a linear coupling part that extends linearly.
Regarding claim 10, modified Takimoto discloses the optical element driving apparatus according to claim 1.
Modified Takimoto does not directly disclose wherein each of the plurality of bridge parts has a constant width over a total length thereof. However, Examiner finds that this limitation may only ever distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art by a mere resizing/ reshaping of parts – i.e. of the bridge parts to be of uniform width.
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 provide Takimoto’s bridge parts with a constant width, in order to provide a more uniform profile that is naturally accompanied by more uniform and predictable spring/stress behavior, thereby reducing occurrence of localized stress, or merely to simplify the shaping/manufacturing of the part – since it has been held that changes in size or shape are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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
Prosecution Insights