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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 7, 2023 and November 14, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “an image processing portion which processes image information obtained by the camera module” in claim 8.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 & 2) as being anticipated by Kato et al. international patent document WO2021/106755, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Kato discloses an optical element driving device (title e.g. figure 1-4 reflector driving device 101) comprising: a movable portion (e.g. mirror holding member 2) in which an optical element (e.g. mirror 1) is holdable (abstract “reflector holding member capable of holding a mirror”); a fixed portion (e.g. support member SP) which accommodates the movable portion; and a drive unit (e.g. drive mechanism MD) which operates the movable portion relative to the fixed portion (abstract “drive mechanism (MD) that oscillates the mirror holding member (2) relative to the support member (SP)”), wherein the drive unit includes a magnet (e.g. third magnetic field generating member 5C paragraph [0038] “5 C is a two-pole magnet”) arranged on the movable portion and coils (e.g. first, second & third coils 6A, 6B & 6C) arranged on the fixed portion (e.g. SP), and the fixed portion includes a base (e.g. lower support member LSP) and a bobbin (e.g. protruding portion 7p on first & second yoke 7A & 7B) to which at least one of the coils (e.g. 6A & 6B) is attached and which is fixed to the base (e.g. LSP).
Regarding claim 2 Kato discloses the optical element driving device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kato further discloses it is further comprising a substrate (e.g. central portion 7m) which is fixed to the base (e.g. LSP), wherein the coils (e.g. 6A, 6B & 6C) include a first coil (e.g. 6C) arranged on the substrate (e.g. 7m) and a second coil (e.g. 6A & 6B) attached to the bobbin (e.g. 7p on 7A & 7B).
Regarding claim 3 Kato discloses the optical element driving device according to claim 2, as set forth above. Kato further discloses wherein: the base (e.g. LSP) includes at least one sidewall portion (e.g. 7A &7B) and a bottom wall portion (e.g. LSP) connected to the sidewall portion; the bobbin is fixed to the sidewall portion (e.g. 7p on 7A & 7B); and the substrate (e.g. 7f) is fixed to the bottom wall portion (e.g. LSP).
Regarding claim 4 Kato discloses the optical element driving device according to claim 2, as set forth above. Kato further discloses wherein: the base (e.g. LSP) includes a pair of sidewall portions opposed to each other (e.g. 7A & 7B); bobbins (e.g. 7p on 7A & 7B), which include the bobbin, are provided on the pair of sidewall portions (e.g. 7A & 7B), respectively; and the second coils (e.g. 6A & 6B) respectively provided on the bobbins (see figure 5) are connected by a power feeding member extending from one sidewall portion of the pair of sidewall portions to the other sidewall portion of the pair of sidewall portions (implicit given paragraphs [0044 & 0086-87] discussion of current supplied to the coils 6A & 6B from wiring board 4).
Regarding claim 7 Kato further discloses a camera module (paragraphs [0001 & 0009] e.g. see figure 2) comprising: the optical element driving device according to claim 1 (inter alia paragraph [0009] “a camera module in a portable device with a camera on which the reflector driving device 101 is mounted”); a lens portion (e.g. lens unit LU); and an imaging portion (e.g. imaging element IS) which captures a subject image formed as an image by the lens portion (axiomatic see paragraph [0013]).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. international patent document WO2021/106755, of record.
Regarding claim 5 Kato discloses the optical element driving device according to claim 4, as set forth above. Kato further discloses wherein: the bobbin (e.g. 7p on 7A & 7B) is provided with an electrode terminal for connecting the second coil (implicit given paragraphs [0044 & 0086-87] discussion of current supplied to the coils 6A & 6B).
Kato does not disclose the electrode terminal is structured in such a way as to extend from the bobbin toward the substrate.
Kato discloses the claimed invention except for details on the relative direction of the electrodes. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to orient the electrodes as claimed since applicant has not disclosed that the electrode orientation solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there are only two possibilities, i.e. extending towards or away from the substrate. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). One would be motivated to choose a particular orientation to have the shortest distance or straight connections. Therefore, it would have been obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the electrode terminal is structured in such a way as to extend from the bobbin toward the substrate for the purpose of having a short connection to power without any sharp bends and since there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. international patent document WO2021/106755, of record, in view of Cheng et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0213493.
Regarding claim 6 Kato discloses the optical element driving device according to claim 4, as set forth above. Kato further discloses it is further comprising a biasing portion (e.g. return member RM) which is provided over a range from the one sidewall portion to the other sidewall portion at an end portion of the base (see figures 2 & 5), and biases the movable portion (inter alia paragraph [0095] “return member RM that returns the mirror holding member 2 to the initial state”).
Kato does not disclose wherein the biasing portion includes the power feeding member.
Cheng teaches a similar optical element driving device (e.g. figure 2 optical system 1-100) including a movable portion (e.g. 1-MA), a fixed portion (e.g. fixed assembly 1-FA), a drive unit (e.g. driving module 1-DM) using a coils (e.g. driving coils 1-CL, 1-CL2, 1-CL3 & 1-CL4) and magnets (e.g. magnetic elements 1-MG1, 1-MG2, 1-MG3 & 1-MG4), and bias elements (e.g. figure 28 eight conductive elements 2-1061 to 2-1064 and 2-1101 to 2-1104 may be resilient metal spring sheets); and further teaches the biasing portion includes the power feeding member (paragraph [0127] “the eight conductive elements 2-1061 to 2-1064 and 2-1101 to 2-1104 may be resilient metal spring sheets that electrically connect to the circuit boards 2-1141 to 2-1144 of the four driving assemblies” for the purpose of reducing the number of elements in the assembly. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical element driving device as disclosed by Kato to have the biasing portion includes the power feeding member as taught by Cheng for the purpose of reducing the number of elements in the assembly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. international patent document WO2021/106755, of record, in view of Wang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0230262.
Regarding claim 8 Kato further discloses a camera-mounted apparatus being an information device or a transportation device (paragraphs [0001 & 0009] e.g. see figure 2), the camera-mounted apparatus comprising: the camera module according to claim 7 (as set forth above).
Kato does not disclose an image processing portion which processes image information obtained by the camera module.
Wang teaches a similar camera-mounted apparatus (e.g. figure 1, 4-6 & 309 camera module 20-1) including an optical element driving device (e.g. 1-B1200) a lens unit (e.g. 1-B1100) and an image sensor (e.g. 1-B1300); and further discloses an image processing portion (e.g. processing unit 20-3) which processes image information obtained by the camera module (inter alia paragraph [1040] e.g. see figure 310 step S20-2) for the purpose of constructing a 3D image (inter alia paragraph [1032]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the camera-mounted apparatus as disclosed by Kato to have an image processing portion which processes image information obtained by the camera module as taught by Wang for the purpose of constructing a 3D image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ikegame US Patent Application Publication 2004/0085604; in regards to an optical element driving device (see figure 9 e.g. 11) including coils (e.g. 26 & 27), magnets (e.g. 41 & 43) and biasing elements (e.g. springs 23) that are used to feed power to the coils (paragraph [0073]) for the purpose of eliminating the necessity of flexible cables or the like for forming power feeders to the coils, thereby avoiding affection on the supporting and driving operations for the moving body (paragraph [0075]) and simplifying construction (paragraph [0076]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 November 19, 2025