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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 10 and 13-19 have been deemed to contain allowable subject matter and are objected to.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “L2” (figs. 3 and 4) and “O” (fig. 7). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 13-19 are 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.
Claim 10 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a driving mechanism wherein the cavity is recessed in a first direction that is perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis, as generally set forth in claim 10, the invention including the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 8, from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 13 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a driving mechanism wherein when viewed along the first axis, the movable part protrudes more than the fixed part on a front side of the driving mechanism, as generally set forth in claim 13, the invention including the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 12, from which claim 13 depends.
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to for at least the reason that they depend from claim 13.
Claim 16 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a driving mechanism wherein the resilient element is connected to the rotary member, and when viewed along the second axis, the rotary member protrudes more than the movable part on a front side of the driving mechanism, as generally set forth in claim 16, the invention including the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 12, from which claim 16 depends.
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to for at least the reason that they depend from claim 16.
Claim 19 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a driving mechanism wherein the resilient element comprises a metal spring sheet extending across the movable part and a rotary member, as generally set forth in claim 13, the invention including the limitations of claims 1 and 11, from which claim 19 depends.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-11, 13-14 and 18-19 of copending Application No. 18/593,709 (citations are to the most recent claims in the application file dated 1/21/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 1, 18/593,709 claims a driving mechanism for moving an optical element, comprising: a fixed part; a movable part, movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element; and a driving assembly, configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part (see claim 10, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, 18/539,709 claims a rotary member pivotally connected to the movable part, wherein the optical element is disposed on the rotary member (see claim 11), the driving assembly drives the movable part to rotate relative to the fixed part around a first axis and drives the rotary member to rotate relative to the movable part around a second axis, and the first axis is not parallel to the second axis (see claim 10, lines 6-7 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 3, 18/593,709 claims that the first axis and the center of the optical element have a first distance, the second axis and the center of the optical element have a second distance, and the first distance is longer than the second distance (see claim 10, lines 14-16).
Additionally, regarding claim 1, 18/593,709 claims a driving mechanism for moving an optical element, comprising: a fixed part; a movable part, movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element; and a driving assembly, configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part (see claim 13, lines 1-5).
Additionally, regarding claim 2, 18/539,709 additionally claims a rotary member pivotally connected to the movable part, wherein the optical element is disposed on the rotary member (see claim 13, lines 7-8), the driving assembly drives the movable part to rotate relative to the fixed part around a first axis and drives the rotary member to rotate relative to the movable part around a second axis, and the first axis is not parallel to the second axis (see claim 14, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, 18/539/709 claims a hinge pivotally connecting the movable part to the fixed part (see claim 13, line 6), wherein the fixed part forms a slot, and the hinge is rotatably received in the slot (see claim 14, lines 2-3).
Additionally, regarding claim 2, 18/539,709 claims a rotary member pivotally connected to the movable part, wherein the optical element is disposed on the rotary member (see claim 13, lines 7-8), the driving assembly drives the movable part to rotate relative to the fixed part around a first axis and drives the rotary member to rotate relative to the movable part around a second axis, and the first axis is not parallel to the second axis (see claim 18).
Regarding claim 8, 18/539,709 claims a ball (see claim 13, line 8), wherein the movable part forms a cavity, and the rotary member has a main body and a sleeve portion protruding from the main body, wherein the ball is received in the cavity and connected to the sleeve portion (see claim 19).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-2, 5-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2019/0230262) (hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1¸ Wang discloses a driving mechanism for moving an optical element (see at least Fig. 13 and 14), comprising: a fixed part (see at least Fig. 14 and paragraph [0377], where housing 1-B11 is a fixed part); a movable part, movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element (see at least Fig. 13 and paragraph [0375], where frame 1-B1230 is a movable part); and a driving assembly, configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part (see at least Fig. 14 and paragraph [0369], where 1-B1281 and 1-B1282 are a driving assembly).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wang also discloses a rotary member pivotally connected to the movable part, wherein the optical element is disposed on the rotary member, the driving assembly drives the movable part to rotate relative to the fixed part around a first axis and drives the rotary member to rotate relative to the movable part around a second axis, and the first axis is not parallel to the second axis (see at least Figs. 13 and 14 and paragraph [0376], where optical member holder 1-B1220 is a rotary member and where 1-R2 and 1-R1 are the first and second axes, respectively).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Wang also discloses that when viewed along the first axis, the second axis extends through the optical element (see at least Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Wang also discloses that the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (see at least Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Wang also discloses a hinge pivotally connecting the movable part to the fixed part, wherein the fixed part forms a slot, and the hinge is rotatably received in the slot (see at least Figs. 13 and 14 and paragraph [0376], where 1-B1235 is a hinge and it is received in a slot in the housing 1-B11).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wang also discloses a resilient element connected between the fixed part and the movable part, wherein the resilient element exerts a first main preload force on the movable part (see at least Figs. 13 and 14 and paragraph [0376], where steady member 1-B1290 is a resilient element between the fixed part and the movable part).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Wang also discloses a rotary member pivotally connected to the movable part, wherein the optical element is disposed on the rotary member, the driving assembly drives the movable part to rotate relative to the fixed part around a first axis and drives the rotary member to rotate relative to the movable part around a second axis, and the first axis is not parallel to the second axis (see at least Figs. 13 and 14 and paragraph [0376], where optical member holder 1-B1220 is a rotary member and where 1-R2 and 1-R1 are the first and second axes, respectively).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siercks et al. (US 2015/0042977) (hereafter Siercks).
Regarding claim 1¸ Siercks discloses a driving mechanism for moving an optical element (see at least Fig. 2c), comprising: a fixed part (see at least Fig. 2c, where the base is a fixed part); a movable part, movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element (see at least Fig. 2c, where measurement system 50 is a movable part)); and a driving assembly, configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part (see at least Figs. 2a and 2c and paragraph [0067], where 26 is a motor that rotates the measurement system relative to the base about vertical pivoting axis 22).
Regarding claim 2, Siercks discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Siercks also discloses a rotary member pivotally connected to the movable part, wherein the optical element is disposed on the rotary member (see at least Fig. 2c, where mirror 11 is mounted on a rotating shaft) , the driving assembly drives the movable part to rotate relative to the fixed part around a first axis and drives the rotary member to rotate relative to the movable part around a second axis, and the first axis is not parallel to the second axis (see at least Fig. 2c).
Regarding claim 3, Siercks discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Siercks also discloses that the first axis and the center of the optical element have a first distance, the second axis and the center of the optical element have a second distance, and the first distance is longer than the second distance (see at least Fig. 2c).
Regarding claim 4, Siercks discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Siercks also discloses that when viewed along the first axis, the first axis does not extend through the optical element (see at least Fig. 2c, axis 22 does not extend through mirror 11).
Regarding claim 5, Siercks discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Siercks also discloses that when viewed along the first axis, the second axis extends through the optical element (see at least Figs. 2a and 2c, axis 12 extends through mirror 11)
Regarding claim 6, Siercks discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Siercks also discloses that the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (see at least Fig. 2c).
Claims 1-2, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yedid et al. (US 2022/0397808) (hereafter Yedid).
Regarding claim 1¸ Yedid discloses a driving mechanism for moving an optical element (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2A), comprising: a fixed part (see at least Fig. 2A and paragraph [0047], where stationary sub-assembly 230 is a fixed part); a movable part, movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element (see at least Fig. 2A and paragraph [0047], where yaw sub-assembly 210 is a movable part); and a driving assembly, configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part (see at least Fig. 2B and paragraph [0050], where yaw driving coil 222 and pitch driving coil 224 are a driving assembly).
Regarding claim 2, Yedid discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yedid also discloses a rotary member pivotally connected to the movable part, wherein the optical element is disposed on the rotary member, the driving assembly drives the movable part to rotate relative to the fixed part around a first axis and drives the rotary member to rotate relative to the movable part around a second axis, and the first axis is not parallel to the second axis (see at least Figs. 2A and 2B and paragraph [0047], where pitch sub-assembly 220 is a rotary member, yaw rotation axis 206 is a first axis and pitch rotation axis 208 is a second axis).
Regarding claim 6, Yedid discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yedid also discloses that the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (see at least Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 8, Yedid discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yedid also discloses a ball, wherein the movable part forms a cavity, and the rotary member has a main body and a sleeve portion protruding from the main body, wherein the ball is received in the cavity and connected to the sleeve portion (see at least Fig. 2C and paragraph [0054], where 238 are balls, sockets 234 are cavities in the movable part, and rotation mechanism 232 comprise sleeve portions in the rotary member).
Regarding claim 9, Yedid discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yedid also discloses that when viewed in a first direction or a second direction, the sleeve portion do not overlap the main body, wherein the first direction, the second direction, and the second axis are perpendicular to each other (see at least Fig. 2C).
Claims 1, 11, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng et al. (US 2020/0225442) (hereafter Weng).
Regarding claim 1¸ Weng discloses a driving mechanism for moving an optical element (see at least Fig. 73), comprising: a fixed part (see at least Fig. 73, where 7-110 is a fixed part); a movable part, movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element (see at least Fig. 73, where 7-200 is a movable part); and a driving assembly, configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part (see at least Fig. 73 and paragraph [0472], where driving member 7-410A, 7-410B, 7-420A, and 7-420B are a driving assembly).
Regarding claim 11, Weng discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Weng also discloses a resilient element connected between the fixed part and the movable part, wherein the resilient element exerts a first main preload force on the movable part (see at least figs. 73 and 82 and paragraph [0487], where elastic member 7-500 is a resilient element).
Regarding claim 20¸ Weng discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Weng also discloses a damping element disposed on the resilient element (see at least paragraph [0487], where damping members 7-700 can be disposed on the elastic member 7-500 so as to suppress vibration).
Regarding claim 21, Weng discloses all of the limitations of claim 20.
Weng also discloses that the damping element is connected to at least one of the fixed part, the movable part, and the rotary member (see at least Figs. 73 and 82 and paragraph [0487]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0297560 to Peng et al. is the US patent application publication of application number 18/593,709 cited in the Double Patenting rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights