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
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 10/02/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/23/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no serious examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the configuration of each driving mechanism of the two inventions are separate and require different fields of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites “the movable part” where there is no prior mention. For the purpose of continuing examination, it is assumed that “the movable part” is meant to recite “the optical element”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (USPG Pub No. 2021/0149143), hereinafter “Hu”.
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a driving mechanism (10) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 136), comprising: a fixed part (F) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 136); an optical element (L, S), movably connected to the fixed part (F) (see Fig. 2, Paragraphs 135, 136); and a driving assembly (E1, E2), disposed in the fixed part for moving the movable part 1(L,S) relative to the fixed part (F) along a first axis (see Fig. 2, Paragraphs 135, 136).
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses further comprising a first conductive element (6-DU) (Paragraph 364 – each element of the driving unit is considered to be conductive), wherein the fixed part (F) includes a housing (110) and a base (210) connected to each other (see Fig. 2), the first conductive element (6-DU) is disposed on the base (6-112) and has a first stopper (6-EE1) that is angled relative to the first axis (see Figs. 68, 69), and when the optical element (6-MA) is in a first position, the first stopper (6-EE1) contacts the optical element (6-MA) (see Figs. 67-69, Paragraphs 359, 362, 364).
Regarding claim 3, Hu discloses wherein the optical element (6-MA) comprises conductive material (see Figs. 67-69), and when the optical element is in the first position, the first conductive element and the optical element are electrically connected to each other so that a first electrical signal is transferred to an external circuit (Paragraphs 394-397). This embodiment provides a driving unit (6-DU) that has multiple conductive components that, in conjunction with position sensors, are electrically connected to one another and transfer electrical signals. When engaged to the optical element 6-MA, the driving unit 6-DU is an extension of the optical element.
Regarding claim 5, Hu discloses wherein the first conductive element (6-DU, 6-DA) further has a first guiding structure parallel to the first axis, and the optical element (6-MA) is guided by the first guiding structure (6-1121) to move relative to the base (6-112) along the first axis (see Figs. 60, 65-72, Paragraphs 358-359).
Regarding claim 6, Hu discloses further comprising a second conductive element (6-DU) disposed on the base (6-112) and having a second stopper (6-BE1, 6-BE2) that is angled relative to the first axis (Paragraph 364 – each element of the driving unit is considered to be conductive), wherein when the optical element (6-MA) is in a second position, the second stopper contacts the optical element (see Figs. 60, 65-72).
Regarding claim 7, Hu discloses wherein the optical element (6-MA) comprises conductive material (see Figs. 67-69), and when the optical element is in the second position, the second conductive element and the optical element are electrically connected to each other so that a second electrical signal is transferred to an external circuit (Paragraphs 394-397). This embodiment provides a driving unit (6-DU) that has multiple conductive components that, in conjunction with position sensors, are electrically connected to one another and transfer electrical signals. When engaged to the optical element 6-MA, the driving unit 6-DU is an extension of the optical element.
Regarding claim 9, Hu discloses wherein the second conductive element (6-DU, 6-DA) further has a second guiding structure parallel to the first axis, and the optical element (6-MA) is guided by the second guiding structure (6-1121) to move relative to the base (6-112) along the first axis (see Figs. 60, 65-72, 358-359).
Regarding claim 10, Hu discloses wherein the optical element (6-MA) has a connecting portion (6-108) connected to the driving assembly (6-DA, 6-DU) (Paragraphs 358-360, 390), and the first stopper (6-EE1) contacts a first end surface of the connecting portion when the optical element is in the first position (see Figs. 61, 65-72).
Regarding claim 11, Hu discloses wherein the second stopper (6-BE1, 6-BE2) contacts a second end surface of the connecting portion (6-108) when the optical element (6-MA) is in the second position, and the first and second end surfaces are on opposite sides of the connecting portion (6-108) (see Figs. 60, 61, 66-72).
Regarding claim 13, Hu discloses further comprising a support (120), a circuit board, and a plurality of optical lenses (L), wherein the optical lenses are disposed on the circuit board (inherent via image capturing element for performing image capturing function), and the support is disposed on the optical lenses and contacts the optical element (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 359 – “the holder 6-108 can also be further connected to other optical elements, such as shutters, apertures, camera lenses, filters, photosensitive elements and other optical elements”).
Regarding claim 14, Hu discloses wherein a gap is formed between the optical element (R) and the optical lenses (L) (see Fig. 52).
Regarding claim 15, Hu discloses wherein the base is disposed on the circuit board (130) (see Fig. 2).
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 4, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (USPG Pub No. 2021/0149143) in view of Hung et al. (USPG Pub No. 2022/0308421), hereinafter “Hung”.
Regarding claim 4, Hu discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify further comprising a plurality of first conductive elements disposed on opposite sides of the optical element. In the same field of endeavor, Hung discloses further comprising a plurality of first conductive elements (109) disposed on opposite sides of the optical element (OE) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the driving mechanism of Hu with further comprising a plurality of first conductive elements disposed on opposite sides of the optical element of Hung for the purpose of providing an improved driving mechanism that is convenient, thin and lightweight (Paragraph 3). Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, Hu discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify further comprising a plurality of second conductive elements disposed on opposite sides of the optical element. In the same field of endeavor, Hung discloses further comprising a plurality of second conductive elements (109) disposed on opposite sides of the optical element (OE) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the driving mechanism of Hu with further comprising a plurality of second conductive elements disposed on opposite sides of the optical element of Hung for the purpose of providing an improved driving mechanism that is convenient, thin and lightweight (Paragraph 3). Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 12, Hu discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the housing has an opening blocked by the optical element when the optical element is in the first position. In the same field of endeavor, Hung discloses wherein the housing has an opening (1021) blocked by the optical element (OE) when the optical element is in the first position (see Fig. 2, Paragraphs 48, 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the driving mechanism of Hu with wherein the housing has an opening blocked by the optical element when the optical element is in the first position of Hung for the purpose of selectively shielding the photosensitive module (Paragraphs 48, 51).
Prior Art Citations
Wang et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0249415) is being cited herein to show a driving mechanism relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/26/2026
1 See claim objection above
Prosecution Insights