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 § 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, 3-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuhisa et al. (WO 2016/199776) in view of Kuo et al. (US 2018/0136482).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses a driving mechanism for moving an optical element that has an optical axis, comprising:
a fixed part (480, 411);
a movable part (lower 430, 470, 460), movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element; and
a driving assembly, configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part (422A, 422B; see at least paragraphs page 21, 5th to 10th paragraphs);
vertical coils (422).
Matsuhisa et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Matsuhisa et al. is silent regarding the wires. Kuo et al. (figures 1-10) teaches
wherein the movable part has a first member and a second member connected to each other (S and 30), and
the first and second members constitute a holder for holding the optical element has an optical axis (32, 34; axis O, Q); and
a driving assembly (ED), configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part, wherein the driving assembly includes two vertical coils disposed on the second member;
a first electronic element (M), disposed on the first member;
a circuit structure (M), disposed on the first member; and
two wires (W), disposed on the second member and electrically connected between the vertical coil and the circuit structure (The two ends of each biasing wire are respectively connected to the fixed portion 11 of the bottom plate 10 and the connecting portion S1 of the elastic member S, wherein the fixed portion 11 and the connecting portion S1 extend along the direction of optical lens O (Z-axis) and extend toward the movable portion 30; see at least paragraph 0047); and
a connecting wire (36 or 38), electrically connected between the vertical coil, wherein the second member forms two grooves for receiving the wires and a depressed structure for receiving the connecting wire, the bottom surfaces of the grooves and the bottom surface of the depressed structure are situated on the same plane that is perpendicular to the optical axis (bottom surface of 34 as shown in figure 8).
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 wires as taught by Kuo et al. in order to achieve a lens driving mechanism that includes a housing configured to restrict the movement of the holder and the optical lens disposed therein. Therefore, Matsuhisa et al. as modified by Kuo et al. teaches a connecting wire, electrically connected between the vertical coils and two wires, disposed on the second member and electrically connected between the vertical coils and the circuit structure
The limitation “movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element” 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 3, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses wherein the first member forms a recess for receiving the first electronic element, and the depth of the recess is less than the thickness of the first electronic element (435 and 473).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses a second electronic element disposed on the first member, wherein when viewed along the optical axis, the first and second electronic elements at least partially overlap (435 and 469).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses wherein the first and second electronic elements are integrated circuit elements, and the circuit structure is embedded in the first member and electrically connected to the first and second electronic elements (435 and 469).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses wherein both of the first and second electronic elements have a longitudinal structure, and the long axes of the first and second electronic elements are not parallel to each other (435 and 469 have lengths and widths in different directions).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses a resilient element (471A-471D, 473), wherein the movable part further has a frame (431), the driving assembly includes two first magnetic elements (432A-432D) disposed on the frame and located adjacent to the vertical coils (422A, 422B), and the resilient element is disposed on the first member and connected to the frame.
Regarding claim 8, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses wherein the frame (431) forms a cavity, and at least a part of the first electronic element is received in the cavity when the first member contacts the frame.
The limitation “at least a part of the first electronic element is received in the cavity when the first member contacts the frame” 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 9, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses wherein the resilient element is electrically connected to the circuit structure, and the resilient element and the circuit structure comprise different material (each of the upper leaf springs 471A, 471B, 471C, and 471D includes a right-triangular frame-shaped plate portion P, an elastic portion Q formed in an S shape, and a lead formed in an arc shape).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses wherein the resilient element is sandwiched between the circuit structure and an external circuit (any external circuit outside of the device 1 as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses a metal wire electrically connected between the resilient elements and a conductive terminal of the fixed part (The lower leaf spring 473 is attached to the rear end surface of the frame 431; see at least paragraphs page 21, 5th to 10th paragraphs).
Regarding claim 13, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses two resilient elements (471A-471D, 473), wherein the first and second members constitute a polygonal holder for holding the optical element (473 and 432), and the resilient elements are disposed on the same side of the holder to movably connect the holder with the frame.
The limitation “the resilient elements are disposed on the same side of the holder to movably connect the holder with the frame” 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 14, Matsuhisa et al. (figures 23-24) discloses wherein both of the resilient elements have an elongated resilient structure, and the resilient structures are located adjacent to and parallel to each other (471A-471D, 473).
Claims 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuhisa et al. (WO 2016/199776) in view of Kuo et al. (US 2018/0136482); further in view of Wada et al. (JP 3956787).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuhisa et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above. However, Matsuhisa et al. is silent regarding a rod and a hollow clamping member. Wada et al. (figures 1-2) teaches a rod and a hollow clamping member (28 and 31), wherein the rod and the clamping member are affixed to the frame, and the rod is held between the holder and the clamping member (14, 16, 60). 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 rod and the hollow clamping member as taught by Wada et al. in order to achieve an imaging apparatus capable of performing camera shake correction by driving an imaging unit.
Regarding claim 16, Wada et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the first member forms a first through hole, the second member forms a second through hole, and the first through hole is small than the second through hole when viewed along the optical axis (14, 16, 60).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuhisa et al. (WO 2016/199776) in view of Kuo et al. (US 2018/0136482); further in view of Hu et al. (CN 209657057).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuhisa et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 14 above. However, Matsuhisa et al. is silent regarding a damping element connected between the resilient structures. Hu et al. (figures 18-19) teaches a damping element connected between the resilient structures (280 and 290). 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 damping element as taught by Hu et al. in order to a buffer, so that the bearing seat can be more rapidly reaches a predetermined position.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuhisa et al. (WO 2016/199776) in view of Kuo et al. (US 2018/0136482); further in view of Wang et al. (CN 214586186).
Regarding claim 17, Matsuhisa et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Matsuhisa et al. is silent regarding two winding posts. Wang et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein the second member has a polygonal structure and forms two winding posts (6-310 and 6-313), and the circuit structure has two conductive pads (6-130) exposed to the second member and located adjacent to the winding post, wherein at least a part of the wire is located between the conductive pad (6-130, 6-330 or 6-310) and the winding posts (figure 1). 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 wire as taught by Wang et al. in order to effectively improve the stability and durability of the imaging unit.
Regarding claim 18, Wang et al. (figures 1-5) teaches the conductive pads are located between the winding post and the groove along the optical axis (6-130 and 6-310, 6-313).
Regarding claim 19, Wang et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein the winding posts are located on the same side of the second member when viewed along the optical axis.
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
