DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-12, 14-15 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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-24 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-15, drawn to originally presented subject matter.
Group II, claim(s) 21-24 drawn to newly presented subject matter.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The newly presented claims do not contain subject matter that was originally presented and does not contain any shared special technical features.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-24 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 2 and 5 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the elastic member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the elastic member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekimoto US 2014/0232888 hereinafter referred to as Sekimoto.
In regards to claim 1, Sekimoto teaches:
“A camera device comprising: a moving portion including a lens”
Sekimoto teaches a camera module 50 in Figure 1. Sekimoto paragraph [0013] teaches the image pickup lens being driven in a direction of an optical axis and two axial directions perpendicular to the optical axis, the lens drive device including: a movable section including the image pickup lens.
“a fixed portion coupled to the moving portion”
Sekimoto paragraph [0027] and Figure 2 teach a substrate 7 on which the image pickup element 6 is placed, a sensor cover 8 that covers the image pickup element 6. These portions are not driven by the lens driving device and are fixed portions.
“a plate disposed between the moving portion and the fixed portion”
Sekimoto paragraph [0036] teaches The opening 8b is closed by the glass substrate 9 having an infrared cutoff function.
“and an adjuster configured to adjust movement of the moving portion”
Sekimoto paragraph [0027] teaches a lens drive device 5 for driving the image pickup lens 1 in a direction of an optical axis and two axial directions perpendicular to the optical axis.
“wherein the adjuster includes an adjusting member and a body”
Sekimoto Figure 2 illustrates the lens drive device 5 includes a cover 17 and a base 19. The Examiner interprets this as a body. Sekimoto Figure 4 teaches springs 12a, 12b and suspension wire 16 and OIS coil 18. These elements are adjusting members.
“and wherein the body includes a base, a first sidewall being-extended from the base and being in contact with the fixed portion, and a second side wall being extended from the base and being-in contact with the moving portion”
Sekimoto Figure 2 teaches a base 19. The top surface of base 19 contacts components in the lens drive unit 5 (the moving portion) and the lower face contacts the sensor cover 8 (fixed portion).
In regards to claim 13, Sekimoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches
“comprising: a control unit that controls the adjuster
Sekimoto paragraph [0031] teaches the lens holder 4 (and the image pickup lens 1) can be driven in the direction of the optical axis by control of the AF coil 14. This makes it possible to attain an automatic focusing function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights