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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Regarding claim 16 “wherein an aperture mechanism is disposed on the second movable portion, and the aperture mechanism is electrically connected to the elastic element via the first connection point of the elastic element” is not enabled. The claim adds an electrically connected aperture mechanism to the optical element driving mechanism (Wand factor A). The specification has no description of how such an electrical aperture is physically incorporated into the driving mechanism, and further figure 7 adds no details that one could use to modify the device of figures 1-2 (Wands factors F-G). Considering all the evidence, as a whole, the examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to engage in undue experimentation to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure (Wands factor H), see MPEP 2164.01(a). The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 19 “during assembly” followed by a step raises clarity issues. The claims are directed to a device, not a method of making. It is unclear if an identical device assembled with a different method step would read on the device or not, making the metes and bounds of the claims vague and indefinite. It has been held that the presence of process limitations in a product claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 135 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Furthermore, the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production. If the product in a product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed Cir 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, for purposes of examination the examiner will interpret any method step occurring during assembly will be interpreted as having no patentable weight. The examiner respectfully suggests deleting these method steps from the claims.
Regarding claim 12 “the magnetically permeable elements” in line 9 “one of the magnetically permeable elements” in line 10 and “the other of the magnetically permeable elements” in line 11 raise clarity issues. It is unclear if which multiple combination of the first magnetically permeable element, the second magnetically permeable element and/or the two magnetically permeable element is referred to by “the magnetically permeable elements” in line 11. Since the magnetically permeable element are “parallel to the third magnetically permeable element” and the first and second magnetically permeable elements are perpendicular to the third magnetically permeable element it is for purposes of examination the examiner will use “the two magnetically permeable elements are parallel to the third magnetically permeable element, one of the two magnetically permeable elements is disposed on the first movable portion, and the other of the two magnetically permeable elements is disposed on the second movable portion.”
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 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. US Patent 5,633,763.
Regarding claim 1 Suzuki discloses an optical element driving mechanism (title e.g. figure 1), comprising: a fixed portion (e.g. fourth lens mount 41); a movable portion (e.g. first, second & third lens mounts 11, 21 & 31) connected to an optical element (e.g. lenses 11a and 11b) having an optical axis (e.g. unlabeled ∙- line), wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion (axiomatic); and a first driving component configured to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion (e.g. piezoelectric element 25 & drive shaft 22).
Regarding claim 2 Suzuki discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the movable portion comprises a first movable portion (e.g. 21) and a second movable portion (e.g. 11) , and the second movable portion is movable relative to the first movable portion (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 3 Suzuki discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses it is further comprising a guide element (e.g. guide shaft 28), wherein the guide element guides (axiomatic) the movement of the second movable portion relative to the first movable portion (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 5 Suzuki discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 3, as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein during assembly of the optical element driving mechanism, the guide element is assembled to the first movable portion from a direction opposite the direction in which light enters the optical element driving mechanism (no patentable weight, see 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 6 Suzuki discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 3, as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the first movable portion (e.g. 21) comprises a first stopper (e.g. collar 21b), and when the second movable portion (e.g. 11) moves to a first limit position along the optical axis (e.g. fully extended), the second movable portion contacts the first stopper (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7 Suzuki discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 6, as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the first movable portion (e.g. 21) further comprises a second stopper (e.g. collar 21a), and when the second movable portion (e.g. 11) moves to a second limit position along the optical axis (e.g. fully closed, see figure 2), the second movable portion contacts the second stopper (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 8 Suzuki discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 6, as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the first movable portion (e.g. 21) further comprises a groove (e.g. figure 3 notch 17), the groove accommodates (see figure 3) the guide element (e.g. 28) to fix the guide element on the first movable portion (e.g. 21), and the groove is located on the first stopper (e.g. 21b) of the first movable portion (see figures 1 & 3).
Regarding claim 9 Suzuki discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 3, as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses it is further comprising a second driving component, wherein the second driving component is configured to drive the second movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion and the first movable portion (column 3 lines 16-23 “the drive mechanism to move first lens mount 11 inside second lens mount 21, the drive mechanism to drive second lens mount 21 inside third lens mount 31 and the drive mechanism to move third lens mount 31 inside fourth lens mount 41 are all identical” e.g. see figure 1).
Claims 1-5, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim US Patent Application Publication 2022/0163089.
Regarding claim 1 Kim discloses an optical element driving mechanism(title e.g. figure 1 actuator 100), comprising: a fixed portion (e.g. base 110); a movable portion (e.g. first OIS carrier 130 & second OIS carrier 140) connected to an optical element having an optical axis (e.g. lens 105), wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion (axiomatic); and a first driving component configured to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion (inter alia paragraph [0047] “magnetic force is generated between the second coil C2 and a second magnet M2 … using the magnetic force as a driving force” & paragraph [0053] “magnetic force is generated between the third coil C3 and a third magnet M3 … using the generated magnetic force as a driving force”).
Regarding claim 2 Kim discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the movable portion (e.g. 130 & 140) comprises a first movable portion (e.g. 130) and a second movable portion (e.g. 140), and the second movable portion is movable relative to the first movable portion (inter alia abstract).
Regarding claim 3 Kim discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, as set forth above. Kim further discloses it is further comprising a guide element, wherein the guide element guides the movement of the second movable portion relative to the first movable portion (paragraph [0056] “guiding rail (groove rail) for guiding the second ball B2 positioned between the first OIS carrier 130 and the second OIS carrier 140”).
Regarding claim 4 Kim discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 3, as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the fixed portion comprises a base (e.g. 110) that at least partially overlaps the guide element when viewed along the optical axis (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 5 Kim discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 3, as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein during assembly of the optical element driving mechanism, the guide element is assembled to the first movable portion from a direction opposite the direction in which light enters the optical element driving mechanism (no patentable weight, see 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 9 Kim discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 3, as set forth above. Kim further discloses it is further comprising a second driving component, wherein the second driving component is configured to drive the second movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion and the first movable portion (inter alia paragraph [0053] “magnetic force is generated between the third coil C3 and a third magnet M3, and the second OIS carrier 140 moves in the second direction by using the generated magnetic force as a driving force”).
Regarding claim 19 Kim discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above. Kim further discloses it is further comprising a suppression element (e.g. damper 170), wherein the fixed portion comprises a base (e.g. 110), and the base comprises an opening (see figure 1), and during assembly of the optical element driving mechanism, the suppression element is applied to the inside of the base from outside the base through the opening (no patentable weight, see 112 rejection above).
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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US Patent Application Publication 2022/0163089 in view of Cheng et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0213493.
Regarding claim 20 Kim discloses the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above. Kim does not disclose it is further comprising two elastic elements and a suppression element, and the suppression element is provided between the elastic elements.
Cheng teaches a similar optical element driving device (e.g. figure 2 optical system 1-100) including a movable portion (e.g. 1-MA), a fixed portion (e.g. fixed assembly 1-FA), a drive unit (e.g. driving module 1-DM); and further comprising two elastic elements (e.g. first elastic element 1-106 & second elastic element 1-110) and a suppression element (e.g. protruding columns 1-1123), and the suppression element is provided between the elastic elements (paragraph [0057] “first elastic element 1-106 is fixedly disposed on the top surfaces of the protruding columns 1-1123 … second elastic element 1-110 is fixedly disposed on a plane 1-1125 of each of the protruding columns 1-1123”) for the purpose of suspending movable elements in an accommodating space (paragraph [0057]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical element driving mechanism as disclosed by Kim to have two elastic elements and a suppression element provided between the elastic elements as taught by Cheng for the purpose of suspending movable elements in an accommodating space.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/769,919 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,625,414. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while ‘414 is narrower than the broader claim of the instant application necessarily includes the device of ‘414.
Instant application
12,625,414
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a fixed portion;
a movable portion connected to an optical element having an optical axis, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion; and
a first driving component configured to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion.
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a movable portion connected to an optical element;
a fixed portion, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion;
a driving assembly configured to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion; and
a structural strengthening element, wherein the structural strengthening element comprises a cutting portion, the cutting portion is on opposite sides of the structural strengthening element, and the cutting portion has a straight edge.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,416,779. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while ‘779 is narrower than the broader claim of the instant application necessarily includes the device of ‘779.
Instant application
12,416,779
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a fixed portion;
a movable portion connected to an optical element having an optical axis, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion; and
a first driving component configured to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion.
1. An optical system, comprising:
an optical module with a main axis, comprising;
a fixed portion;
a movable portion connected to an optical element and movable relative to the fixed portion;
a driving mechanism driving the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion;
a supporting assembly connected to the movable portion and the fixed portion; and
a circuit assembly electrically connected to a circuit located outside the optical module;
wherein when viewed along a direction that is parallel with the main axis, the fixed portion is a polygonal structure with a first side, a second side, a third side, and a fourth side;
wherein the first side is parallel with the third side, the second side is parallel with the fourth side, and the first side is not parallel with the second side;
wherein the fixed portion comprises an outer frame and a frame connected to the outer frame, a first accommodating space is formed to accommodate the movable portion and the frame, and the outer frame comprises:
a top wall having a plate-like structure and not parallel with the main axis;
a first side wall extending from a first edge of the top wall and not parallel with the top wall;
a second side wall extending from a second edge of the top wall and not parallel with the top wall;
a third side wall extending from a third edge of the top wall and not parallel with the top wall; and
a fourth side wall extending from a fourth edge of the top wall and not parallel with the top wall, wherein the fourth side wall has an opening corresponding to a light;
wherein the movable portion comprises:
a pedestal connected to the optical element and having a plate-like structure; and
a holder fixedly disposed on the pedestal;
wherein the circuit assembly comprises:
a first circuit fixedly disposed on the pedestal and integrally formed with the pedestal;
a second circuit fixedly disposed on the holder and at least partially embedded in the holder;
a third circuit fixedly disposed on the frame and at least partially buried in the frame; and
an external circuit connected to the circuit outside the optical module.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,526. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while ‘526 is narrower than the broader claim of the instant application necessarily includes the device of ‘526.
Instant application
12,287,526
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a fixed portion;
a movable portion connected to an optical element having an optical axis, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion; and
a first driving component configured to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion.
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a first movable portion connected to a first optical element;
a fixed portion, wherein the first movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion;
a first driving assembly driving the first movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion in a first dimension;
a first supporting assembly disposed between the first movable portion and the fixed portion, wherein the first movable portion moves relative to the fixed portion via the first supporting assembly;
a second movable portion comprising a first holder, wherein the first holder is connected to the first optical element;
a second driving assembly driving the second movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion in a second dimension;
a third movable portion comprising a second holder, wherein the second holder is connected to a second optical element;
a third driving assembly driving the third movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion in a third dimension; and
a main axis;
wherein the first optical element has a first optical axis, and the second optical element has a second optical axis;
wherein:
a movement in the first dimension is a translational movement along the main axis;
a movement in the second dimension is a translational movement along the first optical axis;
a movement in the third dimension is a translational movement in a direction that is perpendicular to the second optical axis or a rotational movement around a first rotational axis, wherein the first rotational axis is parallel to the second optical axis.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,493,728. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while ‘728 is narrower than the broader claim of the instant application necessarily includes the device of ‘728.
Instant application
11,493,728
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a fixed portion;
a movable portion connected to an optical element having an optical axis, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion; and
a first driving component configured to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion.
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a first a fixed portion, having a main axis, wherein when viewed in a direction which is parallel to the main axis, the fixed portion has a polygonal structure; and
a movable portion, connected to an optical element having an optical axis, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion;
a driving assembly, comprising:
a first driving element;
a second driving element, corresponding the first driving element and driving the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion;
a first circuit element, having a first circuit;
a second circuit element, having a second circuit, wherein the first circuit element and the second circuit element are arranged along the direction which is parallel to the main axis;
a first circuit connecting portion, configured to be electrically connected to the first circuit, wherein the first circuit is a first coil, wherein the first circuit element is electrically connected to the second circuit element via the first circuit connecting portion; and
a plurality of metal pads, disposed on the first circuit element and the second circuit element, the metal pads disposed on the first circuit element are electrically separated from each other, and the metal pads disposed on the second circuit element are electrically separated from each other,
wherein when viewed in a first direction which is perpendicular to the main axis, the first circuit connecting portion is located between the first circuit element and the second circuit element, and when viewed in the direction which is parallel to the main axis, the first circuit element, the second circuit element and the first circuit connecting portion at least partially overlap each other.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,669,673 (to be published). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while ‘673 is narrower than the broader claim of the instant application necessarily includes the device of ‘673.
Instant application
12,669,673
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a fixed portion;
a movable portion connected to an optical element having an optical axis, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion; and
a first driving component configured to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion.
1. An optical element driving mechanism, driving an optical element, comprising:
a movable portion, connected to the optical module;
a fixed portion, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion;
a driving assembly, driving the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion, and comprising:
a first driving unit, having a first lead-out portion:
a second driving unit, having a second lead-out portion:
a third driving unit, having a third lead-out portion:
a fourth driving unit, having a fourth lead-out portion:
a first connecting portion, wherein the first driving unit is electrically connected to the second driving unit through the first connecting portion: and
a second connecting portion, wherein the third driving unit is electrically connected to the fourth driving unit through the second connecting portion; and
a circuit assembly, electrically connected to the driving assembly, comprising:
a first circuit element, electrically connected to the first lead-out portion:
a second circuit element, electrically connected to the fourth lead-out portion; and
a third circuit element, wherein the second lead-out portion is electrically connected to the third lead-out portion through the third circuit element,
wherein:
the fixed portion has a main axis and is a polygonal structure, when viewed along the main axis, the first lead-out portion is located between the first driving unit and the second driving unit:
when viewed along the main axis, the first lead-out portion is located at a first corner of the optical element driving mechanism;
wherein when viewed along the main axis, the third lead-out portion is located at a third corner of the optical element driving mechanism;
when viewed along the main axis, the first circuit element is located at a first side portion of the optical element driving mechanism;
when viewed along the main axis, the second circuit element is located at a third side portion of the optical element driving mechanism; and
when viewed along the main axis, the third circuit element is at least partially located at the first side portion.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/964,118 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while ‘118 is narrower than the broader claim of the instant application necessarily includes the device of ‘118.
Instant application
18/964,118
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a fixed portion;
a movable portion connected to an optical element having an optical axis, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion; and
a first driving component configured to drive the movable portion to move relative to the fixed portion.
1. An optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a movable portion connected to an optical element having an optical axis;
a fixed portion, wherein the movable portion is movable relative to the fixed portion; and
a driving component configured to drive the movable portion to move in a first dimension relative to the fixed portion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examiner’s Comments
Upon filing a terminal disclaimer claims 10-13, 15 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and claim 14 (also dependent upon a rejected base claim) if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103. Specifically, with respect to claim 10 (and its dependents) none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed optical element driving mechanism specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, a first circuit component, wherein the first driving component is electrically connected to the first circuit component, the first circuit component comprises a first circuit element and a second circuit element, and the first circuit element and the second circuit element are perpendicular to each other.
For example, neither Suzuki or Kim have a first and second circuit element which are perpendicular to each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2025/0028144; a pre-grant of application 18/769,919 noted above.
Zhuang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2025/0180858; a pre-grant of application 18/964,118 noted above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights