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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2023/202510 A1, national stage publication EP 4478601 A1 is being used as a high-quality English equivalent) in view of Nakamura (JP 2011-217447 A1, cited by applicant as foreign citation 1 of the IDS filed on 02/13/2025).
With regard to claims 1 and 6-8: Zhang discloses a camera-mounted device that is an information device (an electronic device 001 which is equipped with a camera module 03, see Figures 1 and 2, per ¶0050 the device shown in the Figures is a mobile phone); the device comprising a camera module and an image processing part configured to process image information obtained by the camera module (processor 02 is discussed in ¶0050-0051). The camera module includes an optical element driving device (a piezoelectric-motor driven lens system, see ¶0051-0053) and an image capturing part configured to capture a subject image using an optical element (an image sensor is not drawn but explicitly disclosed in ¶0052). The optical element driving part includes a holding part (mobile carrier 22) which is capable of holding an optical element (lens assembly 10, see ¶0055); a base part 21 that accommodates the holding part such that the holding part is movable in an optical-path direction of the optical element (see ¶0055-0056); and a driving device 23 which is configured to drive the holding part (see ¶0056). The driving device of Zhang comprises a piezoelectric element 42 that vibrates under application of a voltage (see ¶0061, ¶0079, and ¶0110); a resonance part (41 which has driving part 323) that resonates with a vibration of the piezoelectric element and moves a moving member in contact with the resonance part (note that ¶0081 mentions as incorporating features to amplify movement of the driving part and ¶0082-0083 make reference for vibration “nodes” which indicates resonant operation). The piezoelectric element is disposed as being attached to the resonance part by the application of conductive resin (see ¶0089 disclosing use of a conductive epoxy resin).
Zhang does not disclose the inclusion of an accommodating portion on the resonance part, the accommodating portion being capable of accommodating the conductive resin.
Nakamura is directed towards a resonant piezoelectric actuator, and teaches the inclusion of an accommodating portion which accommodates the conductive adhesive during assembly. This accommodating portion, in combination with a surrounding region of non-conductive adhesive, prevents the conductive adhesive from spreading excessively and potentially causing a short circuit (see ¶0061).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the driving device of Zhang to have an accommodating portion formed on the resonance part, the portion being capable of accommodating the conductive adhesive during assembly and curing of the resin, in order to prevent the conductive resin from flowing outside of the desired area and potentially causing a short circuit.
With regard to claim 4: The accommodating portion of Nakamura which is incorporated into the combination is drawn as being circular (best seen in Figures 2 and 5), and thus the accommodating portion of the combination would also be circular (and include a curved surface portion in the form of the inner perimeter of the circular opening/recess).
With regard to claim 5: Zhang discloses that the driving device includes an electrode part for applying a voltage to the piezoelectric element, with the electrode being arranged to connect to a side of piezoelectric element opposite to a side at which the piezoelectric element is fixed to the resonance part. This electrode is diagrammatically shown in Figure 23, with the physical connections shown in Figure 26 and discussed in ¶0098.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Nakamura in view of Han (KR 2017-0006731 A, English machine translation attached.
With regard to claims 2-3: The portion to which the piezoelectric part of Nakamura is attached to includes a communication portion that communicates between the accommodating portion and a space outside a region where the piezoelectric element is fixed, to allow the resin to be introduced to the accommodating portion.
The communication portion in Nakamura however is simply a hole, arranged to reach the opposite side of the supporting element. While some form of communication portion would need to be present in the combination (to allow for the introduction of the conductive resin), Nakamura does not provide a teaching as to what form that communication portion would be (as a simple hole extending through to the backside would not be able to used due to the attachment of a second piezoelectric element on the opposite side of the resonance part), and thus does not teach that the communication portion would extend from the accommodating portion to an end portion of the resonance part, a space outside a region where the piezoelectric element is fixed.
It is known in the art of miniaturized camera modules for embedding in electronic devices to use holes and passages which lead from areas where adhesive will be applied to two elements to join them together to easily accessible edge portions to allow the adhesive to be introduced to the locations where it is needed while the parts are held in the desired positions. See Han ¶0082 and 0096-0097.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the combination of Zhang and Nakamura to incorporate an adhesive introduction passage extending from the accommodating portion to an end portion of the resonance part in order to allow the conductive resin to be introduced into the accommodating part after the parts have been arranged into position and thus allow for more precise assembly of the driving device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852