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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 2, 5-7, the limitations “wherein in response to the optical unit configured for a first state” and “wherein in response to the optical unit configured for a second state” appear to be unclear. The examiner is not sure what is in response to the optical unit configured for a first state (or second state). It is also unclear whether the first state (or second state) refers to a horizontal position, a diagonal position, or a different position.
Being dependent on claim 1, claims 3-4 and 8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Lee (US 2023/0262305).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA (figures 6A-6B) discloses an optical unit comprising:
a movable body (101) having an optical module (see at least paragraph 0005);
a fixed body (102) holding the movable body; and
a drive mechanism (103); wherein in response to the optical unit configured for a first state, an optical axis of the optical module is parallel to a first direction, and in response to the optical unit configured for a second state, the drive mechanism is structured to turn the movable body with respect to the fixed body so that the optical axis of the optical module is inclined to the first direction (L10);
wherein the drive mechanism comprises a drive magnet (105) attached to the movable body and a drive coil (101 and 106) attached to the fixed body (102);
in response to the optical unit configured for the first state, the drive magnet and the drive coil face each other in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (105 and 106; horizontal axis or any related axis);
the drive magnet is magnetized in the first direction (L10; figure 6B); and
a magnetic pole of one of faces of the drive magnet in the first direction and a magnetic pole of an other of the faces of the drive magnet in the first direction are different from each other (N and S).
The limitation, “wherein in response to the optical unit configured for a first state, an optical axis of the optical module is parallel to a first direction, and in response to the optical unit configured for a second state, the drive mechanism is structured to turn the movable body with respect to the fixed body so that the optical axis of the optical module is inclined to the first direction” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, AAPA discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
AAPA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, AAPA is silent regarding the drive magnet is a single-poled magnetized in the first direction. Lee (figures 11-12) teaches the drive magnet is a single-poled magnetized in the first direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive magnet as taught by Lee et al. in order to simplify the mechanical integration and achieve design flexibility. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the single-poled drive magnet since it was known in the art that the drive magnet can be a single-pole or two-pole magnetization type magnet.
Regarding claim 2, AAPA (figures 6A-6B) discloses the drive magnet comprises: a first drive magnet turning the movable body with respect to the fixed body with the second direction as an axial direction of turning in response to the optical unit configured for the second state, and a second drive magnet turning the movable body with respect to the fixed body with a third direction as an axial direction of turning in response to the optical unit configured for the second state, wherein the first direction, the second direction and the third direction are perpendicular to each other, and the drive coil comprises: a first drive coil disposed to face the first drive magnet in the second third direction in response to the optical unit configured for the first state, and a second drive coil disposed to face the second drive magnet in the second direction in response to the optical unit configured for the first state (L10 and the horizontal position; 101-106).
The limitation “the drive magnet comprises: a first drive magnet turning the movable body with respect to the fixed body with the second direction as an axial direction of turning in response to the optical unit configured for the second state, and a second drive magnet turning the movable body with respect to the fixed body with a third direction as an axial direction of turning in response to the optical unit configured for the second state, wherein the first direction, the second direction and the third direction are perpendicular to each other, and the drive coil comprises: a first drive coil disposed to face the first drive magnet in the second third direction in response to the optical unit configured for the first state, and a second drive coil disposed to face the second drive magnet in the second direction in response to the optical unit configured for the first state” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 4, AAPA (figures 6A-6B) discloses wherein the optical module is a camera module (see at least paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 5, AAPA (figures 6A-6B) discloses in response to the optical unit configured for the first state, a center of the drive magnet and a center of the drive coil are coincided with each other in the second direction (105 and 106, figures 6A-6B).
Regarding claim 7, AAPA (figures 6A-6B) discloses wherein in response to the optical unit configured for the first state, a thickness of the drive magnet in the second direction is larger than a thickness of the drive coil in the second direction (105 and 106; figure 6A).
Claims 3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Lee (US 2023/0262305); further in view of Arai et al. (WO 2020/039945).
Regarding claim 3, AAPA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, AAPA is silent regarding an intermediate member turnably holding the movable body, wherein the fixed body turnably holds the intermediate member. Arai et al. (figures 1-7) teaches an intermediate member turnably holding the movable body, wherein the fixed body turnably holds the intermediate member (40, 14, 16; the gimbal mechanism 22 supports the movable body 14 by the convex curved first support portion 18 being in contact with the concave portion 48 a of the first bearing member 48 of the intermediate frame 40 of the movable body 14. On the other hand, in the gimbal mechanism 22, the second support portion 20 having a convex curved surface is supported by the fixed body 16 in contact with the concave portion 30a of the second bearing member 30 of the fixed body 16; see at least page 4, 9th paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intermediate member as taught by Arai et al. in order to efficiently connect the members together while allowing the movable body to move in the necessary direction.
The limitation “wherein the fixed body turnably holds the intermediate member” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 6, Arai et al. (figures 1-7) teaches wherein in response to the optical unit configured for the first state, a width of the drive magnet in the first direction is smaller than a width of the drive coil in the first direction (drive magnet 42A is shorter than the drive coil 32A; figure 5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Lee (US 2023/0262305); further in view of Ozawa et al. (CN 200410101962).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, AAPA is silent regarding wherein the movable body comprises a holder made of resin to which the optical module is fixed, and the drive magnet is directly fixed to the holder. Ozawa et al. (figures 1-4) teaches wherein the movable body comprises a holder made of resin to which the optical module is fixed, and the drive magnet is directly fixed to the holder (the rotor part 18 is composed of a cylindrical rotor magnet 22 and forming the magnet holding member of barrel-shaped rotor magnet 22 formed by the resin molding material 23 is formed; see at least page 5, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intermediate member as taught by Arai et al. in order to protect the movable body and the drive magnet.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights