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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 07/27/2026, are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 11-14 are amended. Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are cancelled by the applicant. Claims 15-24 are added without the addition of new matter. Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-24 are pending. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 1, 13, and 14.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-15, 17-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US PGPub 2020/0409125A1 (of record, see IDS dated 02/19/2025, hereinafter, “Li”) in view of Wu et al. US PGPub 2022/0019052 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 04/27/2026, hereinafter, “Wu”) and Park US PGPub 2020/0200994 A1 (hereinafter, “Park”).
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Li discloses a prism assembly of a prism motor (Li discloses a prism module that includes a prism assembly, refer to at least abstract, and the prism module includes a rotation shaft for rotationally connecting the prism assembly and housing, and a driving assembly to rotate the prism assembly, abstract, equivalent to a prism motor), the prism assembly comprising:
a prism (see at least Fig. 4 showing prism 22, par. [0033]);
a prism support (Figs. 3 and 4, prism assembly 2 comprises a substrate 21 installed in housing 1, par. [0034], and prism 22 is installed in substrate 21, par. [0033], therefore housing 1 and substrate 21 of prism assembly 2 are equivalent to prism support elements); and
a weight component (Fig. 4, restoring assembly 4, par. [0031], is equivalent to a weight component);
wherein the prism assembly has a rotation center rotating relative to a base of the prism motor (Fig. 4, prism assembly 2, comprising prism 22 installed in substrate 21, and substrate 21 installed in housing 1, par. [0034], has accommodation groove 210 in housing 1 corresponding to rotation shaft 3, par. [0035], and prism assembly 2 rotates around rotation shaft 3, see Fig. 8, par. [0031], therefore rotation shaft 3 is equivalent to a rotation center, and driving assembly 5 drives prism assembly 2 to rotate around rotation shaft 3, par. [0031], therefore driving assembly 5 is equivalent to the prism motor, and either first magnetic block 512 or second magnetic block 522 may be equivalent to a base of the driving assembly 5 relative to which prism assembly 2 rotates, satisfying the limitation),
wherein the weight component is fixed on a side of the prism support (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, restoring component 4, par. [0031], is fixed to a side of housing 1 and substrate 21 of prism assembly 2);
wherein the weight component comprises a first magnet assembly, wherein the first magnet assembly is fixed on the prism support (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, restoring assembly 4 comprises a first magnet 41 fixed on the prism assembly 2 and a second magnet 42 fixed on the housing 1, par. [0031]) and configured to be mated with a driving coil of the prism motor to drive the prism assembly to rotate around the rotation center (Fig. 4, driving assembly 5 comprises a first driving member 51 comprised of first magnetic block 512 and first coil 511 that cooperate with each other, and driving assembly 5 also comprises a second driving member 52 comprised of second magnetic block 522 and a second coil 521 that cooperate with each, and driving assembly 5 drives prism assembly 2 to rotate around rotation shaft 3, see Fig. 8, par. [0031]);
wherein the first magnet assembly comprises a first magnet and a second magnet (Figs. 4 and 5, restoring assembly 4 comprises first magnet 41 and second magnet 42, par. [0031]), and the first magnet is located on a side of the second magnet away from a light-emitting surface of the prism (Figs. 4 and 5, prism 22 comprises light outlet surface 222, par. [0041], and first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2, see Figs. 5, 6, and 8, and second magnet 42 is fixed on housing 1, par. [0031], and first magnet 41 is located on a side of the second magnet 42 and first magnet 41 is located away from light outlet surface 222 of prism 22)
Li does not specifically and explicitly disclose the weight component is fixed away from a center of gravity of the prism (Fig. 4, restoring component 4, par. [0031], is depicted as fixed to a side of housing 1 and substrate 21, but the relationship between the position of restoring component 4 relative to the center of gravity of the prism 22 is not disclosed or suggested), nor does Li disclose a volume of the first magnet is greater than a volume of the second magnet (Fig. 5 depicts first magnet 41 and second magnet 42 with different diameters perpendicular to the A-A line, thereby suggesting different volumes, but not that the magnet 41 is greater in volume than magnet 42), nor does Li disclose wherein the prism assembly is configured such that a moment about the rotation center, generated by the prism assembly, is zero or within a threshold of zero (Li is silent as to a theoretical design range for the position of the center of gravity of prism 22 or prism assembly 2, therefore Li does not disclose the moment about the rotation center is zero or within a threshold of zero).
However, prism 22 and prism assembly 2 disclosed by Li must have centers of gravity, which are points around which the weight of the element, i.e., prism 22 or prism assembly 2, is evenly distributed, because the elements of the prism module are made of baryonic matter (i.e., atoms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arranged restoring component 4 to be fixed to a side of housing 1 and substrate 21 away from the center of gravity of the prism assembly 2 so that the restoring component 4 is within a theoretical design range relative to any torque of the rotation center, and a person of ordinary skill could choose the theoretical design range to be zero, or a numerical range within a threshold of zero, as such a choice would prevent the prism assembly from rotating due to any torque produced by its own mass in a uniform gravitational field.
Nevertheless, in the same field of invention, Wu discloses a prism driving device 10 (refer to at least abstract and par. [0065] thereof), with prism holder 2 for prism 30, see Figs. 2 to 9 and refer to par. [0066] thereof, and Wu teaches prism holder 2 may include holder body 21 and support structure 22 which may be disposed at a position of a gravity center of the holder body 21 to facilitate the support protrusion 4 to better support the support structure 22 and the holder body 21, and to reduce the probability of the holder body 21 being tilted (pars. [0069-72] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and disposed prism assembly 2 so as to reduce the probability of the prism assembly 2 being tilted or rotated due to any torque acting relative to the center of gravity applied by its own weight (Wu, par. [0072]).
The prior art combination of Li and Wu does not disclose a volume of the first magnet is greater than a volume of the second magnet (Wu discloses magnets, but does not teach or suggest magnets of differing volume).
In the same field of invention, Park discloses a camera module with lens driving devices (title, abstract), such as first lens driving device 1000 (Fig. 1) with first magnet 1320 (Fig. 3, par. [0061]). Park discloses first magnet 1320 may include first to fourth magnet units 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324 (par. [0082]), where the volumes of the first magnet unit 1321 and the second magnet unit 1322 may be different (par. [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Park to the disclosure of Li and designed first magnet 41 and second magnet 42 to have different volumes, with magnet 41 having a larger volume than magnet 42, because Park teaches the magnetic field interference affected by one magnet to the exterior of the device can be minimized by arranging the smaller magnet unit near to the exterior of the device (Park, pars. [0085], [0162]).
Regarding amended dependent claim 2, Li in view of Wu and Park (hereinafter, “modified Li”) discloses the prism assembly according to claim 1, and Li further discloses wherein the center of gravity of the prism assembly coincides with the rotation center (Li, Fig. 4, accommodation groove 210 corresponds to rotation shaft 3, par. [0035], where rotation shaft 3 is equivalent to a rotation center, and the prior art combination of Li in view of Wu teaches and renders obvious the limitation that the center of gravity of the prism assembly 2 of Li coincides with the rotation shaft 3, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding amended dependent claim 6, modified Li discloses the prism assembly according to claim 1, and Li further discloses wherein the first magnet and the second magnet have a thickness (Li, Figs. 4 and 5, first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 on housing 1, par. [0031], have thickness, being three-dimensional objects), a size of a first side of the first magnet and a size of a first side of the second magnet are the same (Li, Fig. 5, first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 on housing 1, par. [0031], have sides that are the same size), wherein the first side of the first magnet and the first side of the second magnet are adjacent to one another (Li, Fig. 5, first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 on housing 1, par. [0031], have sides that are adjacent to one another).
Li does not disclose the first magnet and the second magnet are cuboids (as depicted in at least Fig. 4 of Li, magnets 41 and 42 are shown to be cylindrical, not cuboid), nor does Li disclose a size of a second side of the first magnet is greater than a size of a second side of the second magnet (as shown in at least Fig. 4 of Li, magnets 41 and 42 are depicted as the same size in all dimensions).
Wu, in at least Fig. 6 thereof, shows prism driving device 10 with electromagnetic driving assembly 3 including a plurality of magnet portions 31 (par. [0080] thereof), where magnet portions 31 are depicted as cuboid, where Examiner understands cuboid to refer to a polyhedron with 6 rectangular faces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and selected first and second magnets to have a cuboid shape, because Wu teaches cuboid magnets are an appropriate and feasible shape for magnetic elements in a prism driving assembly, and it would be obvious as a matter of design choice to include magnets having a cuboid shape, since Applicant has not disclosed that cuboid magnets solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with magnets of various other shapes, such as those disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding amended dependent claim 7, modified Li discloses the prism assembly according to claim 1, and Li further discloses wherein the prism is a triple prism (Li Figs. 2 and 4, prism 22 is a triangular prism, par. [0048]), the second side surface is perpendicular to a light inlet main axis of the prism (Li Figs. 4 and 5, prism 22 has light inlet surface 221, par. [0041], and second magnet 42 is fixed on a side of housing 1 that is perpendicular to prism light inlet surface 221), and the first side surface is parallel to an end surface of the prism (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2 at a side surface that is parallel to an end surface of prism 22, satisfying the limitation).
Li does not explicitly disclose the prism assembly further comprises a second magnet assembly, and therefore Li does not disclose the second magnet assembly and the first magnet assembly are respectively located on a first side surface and a second side surface of the prism support (Li discloses the restoring assembly 4 comprises a first magnet 41 fixed on the prism assembly 2 and a second magnet 42 fixed on the housing 1, par. [0031], see Figs. 1-9, Li, Figs. 4, 5, and 6, first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2 at a side surface, and second magnet 42 is fixed on housing 1 at a side surface, and together prism assembly 2 and housing 1 are functionally equivalent to prism support, but does not explicitly disclose a second magnet assembly), nor that magnet assemblies on a first side surface and a second side surface of the prism support that are perpendicular to each other (as depicted in Figs. 4, 5, and 6 of Li, substrate 21, prism assembly 2, and housing 1 have side surfaces that are perpendicular to each other, but first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 fixed on a side of housing 1 are not perpendicular to each other).
Wu, in at least Fig. 6 thereof, shows prism driving device 10 with electromagnetic driving assembly 3 including a plurality of magnet portions 31 (par. [0080] thereof), where magnet portions 31 are respectively located on a first side surface and a second side surface of the holder body 21, equivalent to a prism support, that are perpendicular to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and included a second magnet assembly, disposed such that first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 is fixed on a side of housing 1 to be perpendicular to each other, because Wu teaches such an arrangement of magnets is an appropriate and feasible disposition for magnetic elements in a prism driving assembly (Wu, par. [0080]), and it would be obvious as a matter of design choice to include magnets on perpendicular sides of a prism support element.
Regarding amended dependent claim 11, modified Li discloses the prism assembly according to claim 1, but Li does not disclose wherein the first magnet is composed of one or more magnets, and the second magnet is composed of one or more magnets.
Wu, in at least Fig. 6 thereof, shows prism driving device 10 with electromagnetic driving assembly 3 including a plurality of magnet portions 31 (par. [0080] thereof), where magnet portions 31 are depicted as cuboids of different dimensions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and selected first and second magnets to have cuboid shapes with different dimensions for different surfaces of the prism support elements, because Wu teaches cuboid magnets with different dimensions are an appropriate and feasible shape for magnetic elements in a prism driving assembly, and it would be obvious as a matter of design choice to include magnets having a cuboid shape with different dimensions, since Applicant has not disclosed that cuboid magnets solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with magnets of various other shapes, such as those disclosed in the prior art. The prior art combination of Li in view of Wu therefore teaches and renders obvious the limitation of a volume of the first magnet is greater than a volume of the second magnet, because cuboid magnets with different dimensions, such as those taught by Wu, would have different volumes.
Regarding amended dependent claim 12, modified Li discloses the prism assembly according to claim 7, and Li further discloses wherein the first side surface and the second side surface are respectively provided with a first groove and a second groove, which are respectively configured to mount the second magnet assembly and the first magnet assembly (the prior art combination of Li in view of Wu teaches first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 fixed on a side of housing 1 can be disposed so as to be perpendicular to each other), and the first side surface and the second side surface are respectively provided with a first groove and a second groove, which are respectively configured to mount the first magnet assembly and the second magnet assembly (Li, Fig. 4, first mounting groove 215 is configured to hold magnet 41, par. [0045], and Li Fig. 5, second mounting groove 102 is configured to hold magnet 42, par. [0049]).
Regarding amended independent claim 13, Li discloses a prism motor (Li discloses a driving assembly to rotate a prism assembly, abstract, equivalent to a prism motor), comprising:
a base (Fig. 4, driving assembly 5 drives prism assembly 2 to rotate around rotation shaft 3, par. [0031], therefore driving assembly 5 is equivalent to the prism motor, and either first or second magnetic blocks 512 or 522 may be equivalent to a base of the driving assembly 5); and
a prism assembly that includes a prism, a prism support, and a weight component (Figs. 3 and 4, prism assembly 2 comprises a substrate 21 installed in housing 1, par. [0034], and prism 22 is installed in substrate 21, par. [0033], therefore housing 1 and substrate 21 of prism assembly 2 are equivalent to prism support elements, and Fig. 4, restoring assembly 4, par. [0031], is equivalent to a weight component);
wherein the prism assembly has a rotation center rotating relative to a base of the prism motor (Fig. 4, prism assembly 2, par. [0034], has accommodation groove 210 in housing 1 corresponding to rotation shaft 3, par. [0035], and prism assembly 2 rotates around rotation shaft 3, see Fig. 8, par. [0031], therefore rotation shaft 3 is equivalent to a rotation center, and driving assembly 5 drives prism assembly 2 to rotate around rotation shaft 3, par. [0031], therefore driving assembly 5 is equivalent to the prism motor, and either first or second magnetic blocks 512 or 522 may be equivalent to a base of the driving assembly 5 relative to which prism assembly 2 rotates);
wherein the weight component is fixed on a side of the prism support (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, restoring component 4 is fixed to a side of housing 1 and substrate 21 of prism assembly 2, par. [0031]);
wherein the weight component comprises a first magnet assembly, wherein the first magnet assembly is fixed on the prism support and configured to be mated with a driving coil of the prism motor to drive the prism assembly to rotate around the rotation center (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, restoring assembly 4 comprises a first magnet 41 fixed on the prism assembly 2 and a second magnet 42 fixed on the housing 1, par. [0031] Fig. 4, driving assembly 5 comprises a first driving member 51 comprised of first magnetic block 512 and first coil 511 that cooperate with each other, and driving assembly 5 also comprises a second driving member 52 comprised of second magnetic block 522 and a second coil 521 that cooperate with each, and driving assembly 5 drives prism assembly 2 to rotate around rotation shaft 3, see Fig. 8, par. [0031]); and
wherein the first magnet assembly comprises a first magnet and a second magnet, and the first magnet is located on a side of the second magnet away from a light-emitting surface of the prism (Figs. 4 and 5, restoring assembly 4 comprises first magnet 41 and second magnet 42, par. [0031] Figs. 4 and 5, prism 22 comprises light outlet surface 222, par. [0041], and first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2, see Figs. 5, 6, and 8, and second magnet 42 is fixed on housing 1, par. [0031], and first magnet 41 is located on a side of the second magnet 42 and first magnet 41 is located away from light outlet surface 222 of prism 22).
Li does not disclose the weight component is fixed away from a center of gravity of the prism (Fig. 4, restoring component 4, par. [0031], is depicted as fixed to a side of housing 1 and substrate 21, but the relationship between the position of restoring component 4 relative to the center of gravity of the prism 22 is not disclosed or suggested) nor does Li disclose a volume of the first magnet is greater than a volume of the second magnet (Fig. 5 depicts first magnet 41 and second magnet 42 with different diameters perpendicular to the A-A line, thereby suggesting different volumes, but not that the magnet 41 is greater in volume than magnet 42), nor does Li disclose wherein the prism assembly is configured such that a moment about the rotation center, generated by the prism assembly, is zero or within a threshold of zero (Li is silent as to a theoretical design range for the position of the center of gravity of prism 22 or prism assembly 2, therefore Li does not disclose the moment about the rotation center is zero or within a threshold of zero).
However, prism 22 and prism assembly 2 disclosed by Li must have centers of gravity, which is the point around which the weight of the element, i.e., prism 22 or prism assembly 2, is evenly distributed, because the elements of the prism module are made of baryonic matter (i.e., atoms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arranged restoring component 4 to be fixed to a side of housing 1 and substrate 21 away from the center of gravity of the prism assembly so that the restoring component 4 is within a theoretical design range relative to torque of the rotation center, and a person of ordinary skill could choose the theoretical design range to be zero, or a numerical range within a threshold of zero, as such a choice would prevent the prism assembly from rotating due to any torque produced by its own mass in a uniform gravitational field.
Nevertheless, in the same field of invention, Wu discloses a prism driving device 10 (refer to at least abstract and par. [0065] thereof), with prism holder 2 for prism 30, see Figs. 2 to 9 and refer to par. [0066] thereof, and Wu teaches prism holder 2 may include holder body 21 and support structure 22 which may be disposed at a position of a gravity center of the holder body 21 to facilitate the support protrusion 4 to better support the support structure 22 and the holder body 21, and to reduce the probability of the holder body 21 being tilted (pars. [0069-72] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and disposed prism assembly 2 so as to reduce the probability of the prism assembly 2 being tilted (Wu, par. [0072]).
The prior art combination of Li and Wu does not disclose a volume of the first magnet is greater than a volume of the second magnet (Wu discloses magnets, but does not teach or suggest magnets of differing volume).
In the same field of invention, Park discloses a camera module with lens driving devices (title, abstract), such as first lens driving device 1000 (Fig. 1) with first magnet 1320 (Fig. 3, par. [0061]). Park discloses first magnet 1320 may include first to fourth magnet units 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324 (par. [0082]), where the volumes of the first magnet unit 1321 and the second magnet unit 1322 may be different (par. [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Park to the disclosure of Li and designed first magnet 41 and second magnet 42 to have different volumes, with magnet 41 having a larger volume than magnet 42, because Park teaches the magnetic field interference affected by one magnet to the exterior of the device can be minimized by arranging the smaller magnet unit near to the exterior of the device (Park, pars. [0085], [0162]).
Regarding amended independent claim 14, Li discloses an electronic device (Li, in Figs. 10 and 11 present an embodiment of prism assembly 10' which further comprises a circuit board 6 fixed to the housing 1', par. [0054]), comprising:
a prism motor that includes a base and a prism assembly (Fig. 4, driving assembly 5 drives prism assembly 2 to rotate around rotation shaft 3, par. [0031], therefore driving assembly 5 is equivalent to the prism motor, and either first or second magnetic blocks 512 or 522 may be equivalent to a base of the driving assembly 5);
wherein the prism assembly includes a prism, a prism support, and a weight component (Figs. 3 and 4, prism assembly 2 comprises a substrate 21 installed in housing 1, par. [0034], and prism 22 is installed in substrate 21, par. [0033], therefore housing 1 and substrate 21 of prism assembly 2 are equivalent to prism support elements, and Fig. 4, restoring assembly 4, par. [0031], is equivalent to a weight component);
wherein the prism assembly has a rotation center rotating relative to a base of the prism motor (Fig. 4, prism assembly 2, par. [0034], has accommodation groove 210 in housing 1 corresponding to rotation shaft 3, par. [0035], and prism assembly 2 rotates around rotation shaft 3, see Fig. 8, par. [0031], therefore rotation shaft 3 is equivalent to a rotation center, and driving assembly 5 drives prism assembly 2 to rotate around rotation shaft 3, par. [0031], therefore driving assembly 5 is equivalent to the prism motor, and either first or second magnetic blocks 512 or 522 may be equivalent to a base of the driving assembly 5 relative to which prism assembly 2 rotates);
wherein the weight component is fixed on a side of the prism support away from a center of gravity of the prism (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, restoring component 4 is fixed to a side of housing 1 and substrate 21 of prism assembly 2, par. [0031], therefore by not being at the center of gravity of prism assembly 2, restoring component 4 must be away from the center of gravity of prism assembly 2);
wherein the weight component comprises a first magnet assembly, wherein the first magnet assembly is fixed on the prism support and configured to be mated with a driving coil of the prism motor to drive the prism assembly to rotate around the rotation center (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, restoring assembly 4 comprises a first magnet 41 fixed on the prism assembly 2 and a second magnet 42 fixed on the housing 1, par. [0031] Fig. 4, driving assembly 5 comprises a first driving member 51 comprised of first magnetic block 512 and first coil 511 that cooperate with each other, and driving assembly 5 also comprises a second driving member 52 comprised of second magnetic block 522 and a second coil 521 that cooperate with each, and driving assembly 5 drives prism assembly 2 to rotate around rotation shaft 3, see Fig. 8, par. [0031]); and
wherein the first magnet assembly comprises a first magnet and a second magnet, and the first magnet is located on a side of the second magnet away from a light-emitting surface of the prism (Figs. 4 and 5, restoring assembly 4 comprises first magnet 41 and second magnet 42, par. [0031] Figs. 4 and 5, prism 22 comprises light outlet surface 222, par. [0041], and first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2, see Figs. 5, 6, and 8, and second magnet 42 is fixed on housing 1, par. [0031], and first magnet 41 is located on a side of the second magnet 42 and first magnet 41 is located away from light outlet surface 222 of prism 22).
Li does not disclose a volume of the first magnet is greater than a volume of the second magnet (Fig. 5 depicts first magnet 41 and second magnet 42 with different diameters perpendicular to the A-A line, thereby suggesting different volumes, but not that the magnet 41 is greater in volume than magnet 42), nor wherein the prism assembly is configured such that a moment about the rotation center, generated by the prism assembly, is zero or within a threshold of zero (Li is silent as to a theoretical design range for the position of the center of gravity of prism 22 or prism assembly 2, therefore Li does not disclose the moment about the rotation center is zero or within a threshold of zero).
However, prism 22 and prism assembly 2 disclosed by Li must have centers of gravity, which are points around which the weight of the element, i.e., prism 22 or prism assembly 2, is evenly distributed, because the elements of the prism module are made of baryonic matter (i.e., atoms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arranged restoring component 4 to be fixed to a side of housing 1 and substrate 21 away from the center of gravity of the prism assembly so that the restoring component 4 is within a theoretical design range relative to torque of the rotation center, and a person of ordinary skill could choose the theoretical design range to be zero, or a numerical range within a threshold of zero, as such a choice would prevent the prism assembly from rotating due to any torque produced by its own mass in a uniform gravitational field.
Nevertheless, in the same field of invention, Wu discloses a prism driving device 10 (refer to at least abstract and par. [0065] thereof), with prism holder 2 for prism 30, see Figs. 2 to 9 and refer to par. [0066] thereof, and Wu teaches prism holder 2 may include holder body 21 and support structure 22 which may be disposed at a position of a gravity center of the holder body 21 to facilitate the support protrusion 4 to better support the support structure 22 and the holder body 21, and to reduce the probability of the holder body 21 being tilted (pars. [0069-72] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and disposed prism assembly 2 so as to reduce the probability of the prism assembly 2 being tilted or rotated due to any torque acting relative to the center of gravity applied by its own weight (Wu, par. [0072]).
The prior art combination of Li and Wu does not disclose a volume of the first magnet is greater than a volume of the second magnet (Wu discloses magnets, but does not teach or suggest magnets of differing volume).
In the same field of invention, Park discloses a camera module with lens driving devices (title, abstract), such as first lens driving device 1000 (Fig. 1) with first magnet 1320 (Fig. 3, par. [0061]). Park discloses first magnet 1320 may include first to fourth magnet units 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324 (par. [0082]), where the volumes of the first magnet unit 1321 and the second magnet unit 1322 may be different (par. [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Park to the disclosure of Li and designed first magnet 41 and second magnet 42 to have different volumes, with magnet 41 having a larger volume than magnet 42, because Park teaches the magnetic field interference affected by one magnet to the exterior of the device can be minimized by arranging the smaller magnet unit near to the exterior of the device (Park, pars. [0085], [0162]).
Regarding new dependent claim 15, modified Li discloses the prism motor according to claim 13, and Wu further discloses wherein the center of gravity of the prism assembly coincides with the rotation center. Wu discloses a prism driving device 10 (refer to at least abstract and par. [0065] thereof), with prism holder 2 for prism 30, see Figs. 2 to 9 and refer to par. [0066] thereof, and Wu teaches prism holder 2 may include holder body 21 and support structure 22 which may be disposed at a position of a gravity center of the holder body 21 to facilitate the support protrusion 4 to better support the support structure 22 and the holder body 21, and to reduce the probability of the holder body 21 being tilted (pars. [0069-72] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and disposed prism assembly 2 so as to reduce the probability of the prism assembly 2 being tilted or rotated due to any torque acting relative to the center of gravity applied by its own weight (Wu, par. [0072]).
Regarding new dependent claim 17, modified Li discloses the prism motor according to claim 13, and Li further discloses wherein the first magnet and the second magnet have a thickness (Li, Figs. 4 and 5, first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 on housing 1, par. [0031], have thickness, being three-dimensional objects), a size of a first side of the first magnet and a size of a first side of the second magnet are the same (Li, Fig. 5, first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 on housing 1, par. [0031], have sides that are the same size), wherein the first side of the first magnet and the first side of the second magnet are adjacent to one another (Li, Fig. 5, first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 on housing 1, par. [0031], have sides that are adjacent to one another).
Li does not disclose the first magnet and the second magnet are cuboids (as depicted in at least Fig. 4 of Li, magnets 41 and 42 are shown to be cylindrical, not cuboid), nor does Li disclose a size of a second side of the first magnet is greater than a size of a second side of the second magnet (as shown in at least Fig. 4 of Li, magnets 41 and 42 are depicted as the same size in all dimensions).
Wu, in at least Fig. 6 thereof, shows prism driving device 10 with electromagnetic driving assembly 3 including a plurality of magnet portions 31 (par. [0080] thereof), where magnet portions 31 are depicted as cuboid, where Examiner understands cuboid to refer to a polyhedron with 6 rectangular faces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and selected first and second magnets to have a cuboid shape, because Wu teaches cuboid magnets are an appropriate and feasible shape for magnetic elements in a prism driving assembly, and it would be obvious as a matter of design choice to include magnets having a cuboid shape, since Applicant has not disclosed that cuboid magnets solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with magnets of various other shapes, such as those disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding new dependent claim 18, modified Li discloses the prism motor according to claim 13, and Li further discloses wherein the prism assembly wherein the prism is a triple prism (Li Figs. 2 and 4, prism 22 is a triangular prism, par. [0048]), the second side surface is perpendicular to a light inlet main axis of the prism (Li Figs. 4 and 5, prism 22 has light inlet surface 221, par. [0041], and second magnet 42 is fixed on a side of housing 1 that is perpendicular to prism light inlet surface 221), and the first side surface is parallel to an end surface of the prism (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2 at a side surface that is parallel to an end surface of prism 22, satisfying the limitation).
Li does not explicitly disclose the prism assembly further comprises a second magnet assembly, and therefore Li does not disclose the second magnet assembly and the first magnet assembly are respectively located on a first side surface and a second side surface of the prism support (Li discloses the restoring assembly 4 comprises a first magnet 41 fixed on the prism assembly 2 and a second magnet 42 fixed on the housing 1, par. [0031], see Figs. 1-9, Li, Figs. 4, 5, and 6, first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2 at a side surface, and second magnet 42 is fixed on housing 1 at a side surface, and together prism assembly 2 and housing 1 are functionally equivalent to prism support, but does not explicitly disclose a second magnet assembly), nor that magnet assemblies on a first side surface and a second side surface of the prism support that are perpendicular to each other (as depicted in Figs. 4, 5, and 6 of Li, substrate 21, prism assembly 2, and housing 1 have side surfaces that are perpendicular to each other, but first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 fixed on a side of housing 1 are not perpendicular to each other).
Wu, in at least Fig. 6 thereof, shows prism driving device 10 with electromagnetic driving assembly 3 including a plurality of magnet portions 31 (par. [0080] thereof), where magnet portions 31 are respectively located on a first side surface and a second side surface of the holder body 21, equivalent to a prism support, that are perpendicular to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and included a second magnet assembly, disposed such that first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 is fixed on a side of housing 1 to be perpendicular to each other, because Wu teaches such an arrangement of magnets is an appropriate and feasible disposition for magnetic elements in a prism driving assembly (Wu, par. [0080]), and it would be obvious as a matter of design choice to include magnets on perpendicular sides of a prism support element.
Regarding new dependent claim 20, modified Li discloses the electronic device according to claim 14, and Wu further discloses wherein the center of gravity of the prism assembly coincides with the rotation center. Wu discloses a prism driving device 10 (refer to at least abstract and par. [0065] thereof), with prism holder 2 for prism 30, see Figs. 2 to 9 and refer to par. [0066] thereof, and Wu teaches prism holder 2 may include holder body 21 and support structure 22 which may be disposed at a position of a gravity center of the holder body 21 to facilitate the support protrusion 4 to better support the support structure 22 and the holder body 21, and to reduce the probability of the holder body 21 being tilted (pars. [0069-72] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and disposed prism assembly 2 so as to reduce the probability of the prism assembly 2 being tilted or rotated due to any torque acting relative to the center of gravity applied by its own weight (Wu, par. [0072]).
Regarding new dependent claim 22, modified Li discloses the electronic device according to claim 14, modified Li discloses the prism motor according to claim 13, and Li further discloses wherein the first magnet and the second magnet have a thickness (Li, Figs. 4 and 5, first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 on housing 1, par. [0031], have thickness, being three-dimensional objects), a size of a first side of the first magnet and a size of a first side of the second magnet are the same (Li, Fig. 5, first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 on housing 1, par. [0031], have sides that are the same size), wherein the first side of the first magnet and the first side of the second magnet are adjacent to one another (Li, Fig. 5, first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 on housing 1, par. [0031], have sides that are adjacent to one another).
Li does not disclose the first magnet and the second magnet are cuboids (as depicted in at least Fig. 4 of Li, magnets 41 and 42 are shown to be cylindrical, not cuboid), nor does Li disclose a size of a second side of the first magnet is greater than a size of a second side of the second magnet (as shown in at least Fig. 4 of Li, magnets 41 and 42 are depicted as the same size in all dimensions).
Wu, in at least Fig. 6 thereof, shows prism driving device 10 with electromagnetic driving assembly 3 including a plurality of magnet portions 31 (par. [0080] thereof), where magnet portions 31 are depicted as cuboid, where Examiner understands cuboid to refer to a polyhedron with 6 rectangular faces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and selected first and second magnets to have a cuboid shape, because Wu teaches cuboid magnets are an appropriate and feasible shape for magnetic elements in a prism driving assembly, and it would be obvious as a matter of design choice to include magnets having a cuboid shape, since Applicant has not disclosed that cuboid magnets solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with magnets of various other shapes, such as those disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding new dependent claim 23, modified Li discloses the electronic device according to claim 14, modified Li discloses the prism motor according to claim 14, and Li further discloses wherein the prism assembly wherein the prism is a triple prism (Li Figs. 2 and 4, prism 22 is a triangular prism, par. [0048]), the second side surface is perpendicular to a light inlet main axis of the prism (Li Figs. 4 and 5, prism 22 has light inlet surface 221, par. [0041], and second magnet 42 is fixed on a side of housing 1 that is perpendicular to prism light inlet surface 221), and the first side surface is parallel to an end surface of the prism (Figs. 4, 5, and 6, first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2 at a side surface that is parallel to an end surface of prism 22, satisfying the limitation).
Li does not explicitly disclose the prism assembly further comprises a second magnet assembly, and therefore Li does not disclose the second magnet assembly and the first magnet assembly are respectively located on a first side surface and a second side surface of the prism support (Li discloses the restoring assembly 4 comprises a first magnet 41 fixed on the prism assembly 2 and a second magnet 42 fixed on the housing 1, par. [0031], see Figs. 1-9, Li, Figs. 4, 5, and 6, first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2 at a side surface, and second magnet 42 is fixed on housing 1 at a side surface, and together prism assembly 2 and housing 1 are functionally equivalent to prism support, but does not explicitly disclose a second magnet assembly), nor that magnet assemblies on a first side surface and a second side surface of the prism support that are perpendicular to each other (as depicted in Figs. 4, 5, and 6 of Li, substrate 21, prism assembly 2, and housing 1 have side surfaces that are perpendicular to each other, but first magnet 41 fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 fixed on a side of housing 1 are not perpendicular to each other).
Wu, in at least Fig. 6 thereof, shows prism driving device 10 with electromagnetic driving assembly 3 including a plurality of magnet portions 31 (par. [0080] thereof), where magnet portions 31 are respectively located on a first side surface and a second side surface of the holder body 21, equivalent to a prism support, that are perpendicular to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Wu to the disclosure of Li and included a second magnet assembly, disposed such that first magnet 41 is fixed on prism assembly 2 and second magnet 42 is fixed on a side of housing 1 to be perpendicular to each other, because Wu teaches such an arrangement of magnets is an appropriate and feasible disposition for magnetic elements in a prism driving assembly (Wu, par. [0080]), and it would be obvious as a matter of design choice to include magnets on perpendicular sides of a prism support element.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wu and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feldman et al. US PGPub 2022/0163706 A1 (hereinafter, “Feldman”), Avivi et al. US PGPub 2018/0120583 A1 (hereinafter, “Avivi”), Aitken et al. US Patent 7,143,609 B2 (hereinafter, “Aitken”), and Bag, Dibyendu S., et al. "Density measurements of plastics -- A simple standard test method." Indian Journal of Chemical Technology 10.5 (2003): 561-563 (hereinafter, “Bag”) (all references of record, see Office action dated 04/27/2026).
Regarding dependent claim 3, modified Li discloses the prism assembly according to claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein a material density of the prism support is less than a material density of the prism (Li, Wu, and Park are silent as to material density or compositions of the optical support elements and the prisms or other optical elements disclosed therein, therefore a comparison between these specific prior art references and the instant limitation is not feasible).
In the same field of invention, Feldman discloses a single element light folding prism 100, shown in at least Figs. 1A and 1B thereof, that is made from glass (par. [0031] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Feldman to the disclosure of Li and selected glass as a material for prism 22, because Feldman teaches glass is a suitable and appropriate material for prisms in optical systems (Feldman, par. [0031]).
Also, in the same field of invention as Li, Avivi discloses an embodiment of an optical image stabilization and autofocus structure for a camera module, where Fig. 5a depicts frame 506, and Avivi teaches frame 506 may exemplarily be made of a plastic material (par. [0035] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Avivi to the disclosure of Li and selected plastic as a material for substrate 21 and/or housing 1, because Avivi teaches plastic is a suitable and appropriate material for frames and other supporting elements in optical systems (Avivi, par. [0035]).
In the related field of optical component manufacturing, Aitken discloses a method for molding optical components from glass (refer to abstract thereof), where material properties of selected optical glasses are provided in Table 1 thereof, with Example 4 being an oxide-based glass and Example 5 being a fused silica glass (col. 8, lines 44-47). Table 1 lists the density for Example 4 as 2.51 g/cm3 and for Example 5 is 2.20 g/cm3.
In the general field of material properties measurements, Bag discloses measured densities of plastics (refer to abstract), where Tables 1 and 2 present results of density measurements of some plastic materials, where the densities of the plastic materials range from 1.2670 to 1.3665 g/cm3 (refer to page 562 thereof).
Therefore, the prior art combination of Li, Wu and Park, in view of Feldman, Avivi, Aitken, and Bag teaches and renders obvious the limitation wherein a material density of the prism support is less than a material density of the prism, because Avivi teaches plastic is a suitable and appropriate material for frames and other supporting elements in optical systems (Avivi, par. [0035]), and Bag teaches plastics have material densities that are in the range of 1.3 to 1.4 g/cm3 (Bag, page 562, Tables 1 and 2) while Feldman teaches glass is a suitable and appropriate material for prisms in optical systems (Feldman, par. [0031]), and Aitken teaches glasses have material densities that are in the range 2.2 to 2.5 g/cm3 (see Table 1 thereof), thus the prior art combination teaches and renders obvious the limitation that the prism support materials have a lower material density than the material density of the prism.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wu and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feldman and Avivi.
Regarding dependent claim 8, modified Li discloses the prism assembly according to claim 1, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the prism is made of glass, and the prism support is made of plastic (Li, Wu, and Park are silent as to the composition of the prisms, optical elements, and support materials).
In the same field of invention, Feldman discloses a single element light folding prism 100, shown in at least Figs. 1A and 1B thereof, that is made from glass (par. [0031] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Feldman to the disclosure of Li and selected glass as a material for prism 22, because Feldman teaches glass is a suitable and appropriate material for prisms in optical systems (Feldman, par. [0031]).
Also, in the same field of invention as Li, Avivi discloses an embodiment of an optical image stabilization and autofocus structure for a camera module, where Fig. 5a depicts frame 506, and Avivi teaches frame 506 may exemplarily be made of a plastic material (par. [0035] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Avivi to the disclosure of Li and selected plastic as a material for substrate 21 and/or housing 1, because Avivi teaches plastic is a suitable and appropriate material for frames and other supporting elements in optical systems (Avivi, par. [0035]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select glass for the material of a prism, such as prism 22 disclosed by Li, and plastic for the housing 1 and/or the substrate 21 of Li, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07. In this case, prisms made of glass and supporting elements such as frame made of plastic are widely available from optical suppliers and it is known in the art that prisms have been made of glass historically, therefore choosing to make a prism made out of glass and supporting elements out of plastic would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wu and Park as applied to claims 13 and 14, respectively, above, and further in view of Feldman, Aitken, and Bag.
Regarding new dependent claim 16, modified Li discloses the prism motor according to claim 13, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein a material density of the prism support is less than a material density of the prism (Li, Wu, and Park are silent as to material density or compositions of the optical support elements and the prisms or other optical elements disclosed therein, therefore a comparison between these specific prior art references and the instant limitation is not feasible).
In the same field of invention, Feldman discloses a single element light folding prism 100, shown in at least Figs. 1A and 1B thereof, that is made from glass (par. [0031] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Feldman to the disclosure of Li and selected glass as a material for prism 22, because Feldman teaches glass is a suitable and appropriate material for prisms in optical systems (Feldman, par. [0031]).
In the related field of optical component manufacturing, Aitken discloses a method for molding optical components from glass (refer to abstract thereof), where material properties of selected optical glasses are provided in Table 1 thereof, with Example 4 being an oxide-based glass and Example 5 being a fused silica glass (col. 8, lines 44-47). Table 1 lists the density for Example 4 as 2.51 g/cm3 and for Example 5 is 2.20 g/cm3.
In the general field of material properties measurements, Bag discloses measured densities of plastics (refer to abstract), where Tables 1 and 2 present results of density measurements of some plastic materials, where the densities of the plastic materials range from 1.2670 to 1.3665 g/cm3 (refer to page 562 thereof).
Therefore, the prior art combination of Li, Wu and Park, in view of Feldman, Aitken, and Bag teaches and renders obvious the limitation wherein a material density of the prism support is less than a material density of the prism, because Avivi teaches plastic is a suitable and appropriate material for frames and other supporting elements in optical systems (Avivi, par. [0035]), and Bag teaches plastics have material densities that are in the range of 1.3 to 1.4 g/cm3 (Bag, page 562, Tables 1 and 2) while Feldman teaches glass is a suitable and appropriate material for prisms in optical systems (Feldman, par. [0031]), and Aitken teaches glasses have material densities that are in the range 2.2 to 2.5 g/cm3 (see Table 1 thereof), thus the prior art combination teaches and renders obvious the limitation that the prism support materials have a lower material density than the material density of the prism.
Regarding new dependent claim 21, modified Li discloses the electronic device according to claim 14, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein a material density of the prism support is less than a material density of the prism (Li, Wu, and Park are silent as to material density or compositions of the optical support elements and the prisms or other optical elements disclosed therein, therefore a comparison between these specific prior art references and the instant limitation is not feasible).
In the same field of invention, Feldman discloses a single element light folding prism 100, shown in at least Figs. 1A and 1B thereof, that is made from glass (par. [0031] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Feldman to the disclosure of Li and selected glass as a material for prism 22, because Feldman teaches glass is a suitable and appropriate material for prisms in optical systems (Feldman, par. [0031]).
In the related field of optical component manufacturing, Aitken discloses a method for molding optical components from glass (refer to abstract thereof), where material properties of selected optical glasses are provided in Table 1 thereof, with Example 4 being an oxide-based glass and Example 5 being a fused silica glass (col. 8, lines 44-47). Table 1 lists the density for Example 4 as 2.51 g/cm3 and for Example 5 is 2.20 g/cm3.
In the general field of material properties measurements, Bag discloses measured densities of plastics (refer to abstract), where Tables 1 and 2 present results of density measurements of some plastic materials, where the densities of the plastic materials range from 1.2670 to 1.3665 g/cm3 (refer to page 562 thereof).
Therefore, the prior art combination of Li, Wu and Park, in view of Feldman, Aitken, and Bag teaches and renders obvious the limitation wherein a material density of the prism support is less than a material density of the prism, because Avivi teaches plastic is a suitable and appropriate material for frames and other supporting elements in optical systems (Avivi, par. [0035]), and Bag teaches plastics have material densities that are in the range of 1.3 to 1.4 g/cm3 (Bag, page 562, Tables 1 and 2) while Feldman teaches glass is a suitable and appropriate material for prisms in optical systems (Feldman, par. [0031]), and Aitken teaches glasses have material densities that are in the range 2.2 to 2.5 g/cm3 (see Table 1 thereof), thus the prior art combination teaches and renders obvious the limitation that the prism support materials have a lower material density than the material density of the prism.
Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wu and Park as applied to claims 13 and 14, respectively, above, and further in view of Feldman and Avivi.
Regarding new dependent claim 19, modified Li discloses the prism motor according to claim 13, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the prism is made of glass, and the prism support is made of plastic (Li, Wu, and Park are silent as to the compositions of optical elements and the support elements disclosed therein).
In the same field of invention, Feldman discloses a single element light folding prism 100, shown in at least Figs. 1A and 1B thereof, that is made from glass (par. [0031] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Feldman to the disclosure of Li and selected glass as a material for prism 22, because Feldman teaches glass is a suitable and appropriate material for prisms in optical systems (Feldman, par. [0031]).
Also, in the same field of invention as Li, Avivi discloses an embodiment of an optical image stabilization and autofocus structure for a camera module, where Fig. 5a depicts frame 506, and Avivi teaches frame 506 may exemplarily be made of a plastic material (par. [0035] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Avivi to the disclosure of Li and selected plastic as a material for substrate 21 and/or housing 1, because Avivi teaches plastic is a suitable and appropriate material for frames and other supporting elements in optical systems (Avivi, par. [0035]).
Regarding new dependent claim 24, modified Li discloses the electronic device according to claim 14, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the prism is made of glass, and the prism support is made of plastic (Li, Wu, and Park are silent as to the compositions of optical elements and the support elements disclosed therein).
In the same field of invention, Feldman discloses a single element light folding prism 100, shown in at least Figs. 1A and 1B thereof, that is made from glass (par. [0031] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Feldman to the disclosure of Li and selected glass as a material for prism 22, because Feldman teaches glass is a suitable and appropriate material for prisms in optical systems (Feldman, par. [0031]).
Also, in the same field of invention as Li, Avivi discloses an embodiment of an optical image stabilization and autofocus structure for a camera module, where Fig. 5a depicts frame 506, and Avivi teaches frame 506 may exemplarily be made of a plastic material (par. [0035] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Avivi to the disclosure of Li and selected plastic as a material for substrate 21 and/or housing 1, because Avivi teaches plastic is a suitable and appropriate material for frames and other supporting elements in optical systems (Avivi, par. [0035]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Li does not disclose or suggest the that the weight component comprises a first magnet assembly that is "fixed on the prism support and configured to be mated with a driving coil of the prism motor to drive the prism assembly to rotate around the rotation center," and that the first magnet assembly "comprises a first magnet and a second magnet" having different volumes, with the first magnet located on a side of the second magnet away from a light-emitting surface of the prism, nor that "the prism assembly is configured such that a moment about the rotation center, generated by the prism assembly, is zero or within a threshold of zero." Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in the rejection, all elements and structures recited in the claims are mapped to elements and structures taught by the prior art of Li in view of Wu and Park. Li has a first magnet assembly (Li Figs. 4, 5, and 6, restoring assembly 4 comprises a first magnet 41 fixed on the prism assembly 2 and a second magnet 42 fixed on the housing 1, par. [0031]), fixed to a prism support (Li Figs. 3 and 4, prism assembly 2 comprises a substrate 21 installed in housing 1, par. [0034], and prism 22 is installed in substrate 21, par. [0033]), and by being housed in housing 1, the prism support of Li is mated to a driving coil (Li Fig. 4, driving assembly 5).
With respect to the limitation that "the prism assembly is configured such that a moment about the rotation center, generated by the prism assembly, is zero or within a threshold of zero”, Examiner notes that any prism configured to rotate freely will, under the influence of gravity, rotate until the torque around its rotation center is zero.
No other substantial arguments were presented after page 10 of Remarks. Therefore, the prior art teaches the invention as currently claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 L 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights