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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2022/0174189) in view of Minamizawa (JP 2021-086065).
Regarding claim 1, Kuo et al. (figures 2-11) discloses a module drive device, comprising:
a module holder configured to hold an optical module including a lens body and an imaging device (first bracket 100);
a connection member connected to the module holder such that the module holder is swingable around a first axis intersecting an optical axis direction (second bracket 200; the first bracket 100 and the second bracket 200 form a rotational connection about the first rotation axis L1 by using the first connection assembly 500; see at least paragraph 0035);
a fixed-side member connected to the connection member such that the connection member is swingable around a second axis perpendicular to an axial direction of the first axis (third bracket 300; the second bracket 200 and the third bracket 300 form a rotational connection about the second rotation axis L2 by using the second connection assembly 600; see at least paragraph 0040);
a driver that moves the module holder with respect to the fixed-side member (first driving assembly 700 and second driving assembly 800; figure 9; the second driving assembly 800 is distributed on a fourth sidewall 240 of the second bracket 200 and a sixth sidewall 360 of the third bracket 300; see at least paragraph 0055);
a first engagement part provided such that the module holder is swingable around the first axis (111, 232, 500; figure 4; The first rotation axis L1 is perpendicular to the optical axis of the optical lens module 400. Each third sidewall 230 of the second bracket 200 is provided with one second bearing-shaft connection hole 232, and the second bearing-shaft connection hole 232 is coaxial to the first bearing-shaft connection hole 111; see at least paragraph 0035); and
a second engagement part provided such that the connection member is swingable around the second axis (243, 364, 600; Each fourth sidewall 240 of the second bracket 200 is provided with one third bearing-shaft connection hole 243, and two third bearing-shaft connection holes 243 are coaxial to the second rotation axis L2; see at least paragraph 0035), wherein
the connection member is formed of a frame-shaped so that the module holder is arrangeable therein (200 and 100), and
the connection member includes
a first extending portion and a second extending portion that are separated from each other in the axial direction of the first axis and extend in an axial direction of the second axis (230 or 240), and
a third extending portion and a fourth extending portion that are separated from each other in the axial direction of the second axis and extend in the axial direction of the first axis (240 or 230),
the first engagement part includes
a first support-side engagement portion provided at a central portion in the axial direction of the second axis of each of the first extending portion and the second extending portion (111, 232, 500; figure 4; The first rotation axis L1 is perpendicular to the optical axis of the optical lens module 400. Each third sidewall 230 of the second bracket 200 is provided with one second bearing-shaft connection hole 232, and the second bearing-shaft connection hole 232 is coaxial to the first bearing-shaft connection hole 111; see at least paragraph 0035), and
a first swing-side engagement portion provided on the module holder so as to engage with the first support-side engagement portion (111, 232, 500; figure 4; The first rotation axis L1 is perpendicular to the optical axis of the optical lens module 400. Each third sidewall 230 of the second bracket 200 is provided with one second bearing-shaft connection hole 232, and the second bearing-shaft connection hole 232 is coaxial to the first bearing-shaft connection hole 111; see at least paragraph 0035), and
the second engagement part includes
a second swing-side engagement portion provided at a central portion in the axial direction of the first axis of each of the third extending portion and the fourth extending portion axis (243, 364, 600; Each fourth sidewall 240 of the second bracket 200 is provided with one third bearing-shaft connection hole 243, and two third bearing-shaft connection holes 243 are coaxial to the second rotation axis L2; see at least paragraph 0035), and
a second support-side engagement portion provided on the fixed-side member so as to engage with the second swing-side engagement portion axis (243, 364, 600; Each fourth sidewall 240 of the second bracket 200 is provided with one third bearing-shaft connection hole 243, and two third bearing-shaft connection holes 243 are coaxial to the second rotation axis L2; see at least paragraph 0035).
The limitation “a connection member connected to the module holder such that the module holder is swingable around a first axis intersecting an optical axis direction; a fixed-side member connected to the connection member such that the connection member is swingable around a second axis perpendicular to an axial direction of the first axis; a first engagement part provided such that the module holder is swingable around the first axis, a second engagement part provided such that the connection member is swingable around the second axis” 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.
The limitation, “a driver that moves the module holder with respect to the fixed-side member” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. 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.
Kuo et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kuo et al. is silent regarding the connection member is formed of a frame-shaped metal. Minamizawa (figures 2-3) teaches the connection member is formed of a frame-shaped metal (gimbal frame 10; see at least page 3, second 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 modify the connection member as taught by Minamizawa in order to achieve an optical unit with a runout correction function that connects a movable body and a fixed body by a gimbal mechanism.
Regarding claim 2, Kuo et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first swing-side engagement portion is formed of a first metal member made of a metal plate, and the second support-side engagement portion is formed of a second metal member made of a metal plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first swing-side engagement portion being formed of a first metal member made of a metal plate, and the second support-side engagement portion being formed of a second metal member made of a metal plate since it was known in the art that such metal materials prevent premature wear and unexpected breakdowns and prevent harmful electrical currents from discharging through the motor's bearings. Claim 2 is therefore unpatentable.
Regarding claim 6, Kuo et al. (figures 2-11) discloses wherein
the connection member (100 and 200) is formed of a metal plate including a plurality of bent portions (figure 4),
the first extending portion and the second extending portion (230 and 240) includes a first opposing plate portion whose plate surfaces face each other in the axial direction of the first axis (figure 4),
the first support-side engagement portion (111, 232, 500; figure 4) is formed in the first opposing plate portion,
the third extending portion and the fourth extending portion (230 and 240) include a second opposing plate portion whose plate surfaces face each other in the axial direction of the second axis,
the second swing-side engagement portion (243, 364, 600) is formed in the second opposing plate portion, and the first support-side engagement portion and the second swing-side engagement portion project in a same direction in a state where the bent portion is unbent so that the plate surfaces of the first opposing plate portion and the second opposing plate portion are parallel to a same imaginary plane.
The limitation “the first support-side engagement portion and the second swing-side engagement portion project in a same direction in a state where the bent portion is unbent so that the plate surfaces of the first opposing plate portion and the second opposing plate portion are parallel to a same imaginary plane” 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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2022/0174189) in view of Minamizawa (JP 2021-086065); in view of Osada (WO 2022/190947).
Regarding claim 7, Kuo et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kuo et al. is silent regarding wherein the driver includes a plurality of shape-memory alloy wires, and the shape-memory alloy wires are provided at two positions separated in the axial direction of the first axis across the optical module. Osada (figures 3-16) teaches wherein the driver includes a plurality of shape-memory alloy wires, and the shape-memory alloy wires are provided at two positions separated in the axial direction of the first axis across the optical module (W and 10; see at least abstract). 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 alloy wires as taught by Osada in order to improve the assembling efficiency of the driving device.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2022/0174189) in view of Minamizawa (JP 2021-086065); in view of Osada (WO 2022/190947).
Regarding claim 7, Kuo et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kuo et al. is silent regarding wherein the driver includes a plurality of shape-memory alloy wires, and the shape-memory alloy wires are provided at two positions separated in the axial direction of the first axis across the optical module. Osada (figures 3-16) teaches wherein the driver includes a plurality of shape-memory alloy wires, and the shape-memory alloy wires are provided at two positions separated in the axial direction of the first axis across the optical module (W and 10; see at least abstract). 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 alloy wires as taught by Osada in order to improve the assembling efficiency of the driving device.
Regarding claim 8, Osada (figures 3-16) teaches wherein
the shape-memory alloy wire includes a first wire and a second wire arranged at one position in the axial direction of the first axis, and a third wire and a fourth wire arranged at another position in the axial direction of the first axis (W1-W4),
each of the first wire to the fourth wire has one end fixed to a fixed-side metal member provided on the fixed-side member, and another end fixed to a movable-side metal member provided on a movable-side member including the module holder (see at least page 3, 3rd paragraph), and
when viewed along the axial direction of the first axis, the first wire and the second wire intersect each other, and the third wire and the fourth wire intersect each other (figures 3 and 9A).
Regarding claim 9, Osada (figures 3-16) teaches wherein
when viewed along the axial direction of the first axis, a first intersection point between a first straight line connecting one end of the first wire and another end of the first wire and a second straight line connecting one end of the second wire and another end of the second wire is at a position different from the first axis (W1 and W2; figures 3 and 16), and
when viewed along the axial direction of the first axis, a second intersection point between a third straight line connecting one end of the third wire and the another end of the third wire, and a fourth straight line connecting one end of the fourth wire and another end of the fourth wire is at a position different from the first axis (W1 and W2; figures 3 and 16).
Regarding claim 10, Osada (figures 3-16) teaches wherein
the another end of the first wire and the another end of the second wire are electrically connected through a first movable-side metal member (W1-W2 and 8L), and
the another end of the third wire and the another end of the fourth wire are electrically connected through a second movable-side metal member (W3-W4 and 8R).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2022/0174189) in view of Minamizawa (JP 2021-086065); in view of Osada (WO 2022/190947) and Nakamura (US 6,071,018).
Regarding claim 3, Kuo et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Kuo et al. is silent regarding the embedded portions. Osada (figures 3-16) teaches wherein
the first metal member includes an embedded portion embedded in the module holder (9ML),
the first swing-side engagement portion exposed from the module holder (7), and
an elastic deformation portion (9GL) that is elastically deformable, exposed from the module holder, and provided between the embedded portion and the first swing-side engagement portion,
the fixed-side member includes a base member (9MR),
the second metal member embedded in the base member (7), and
the second metal member includes an embedded portion embedded in the base member (7),
the second support-side engagement portion exposed from the base member (7), and
an elastic deformation portion (9GR) that is elastically deformable, exposed from the base member, and provided between the embedded portion and the second support-side engagement portion.
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 portions as taught by Osada in order to improve the assembling efficiency of the driving device.
In addition, Nakamura (figures 1-2) teaches the first metal member includes an embedded portion embedded in the module holder made of a synthetic resin and the fixed-side member includes a base member made of a synthetic resin (the driving elements are made of synthetic resin, and while it is desirable to make the take-up spool 5 and the output gear 6 out of synthetic resin as well, it is also acceptable to use metal; column 6, lines 1-15). 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 driving elements as taught by Nakamura in order to reduce the amount of dead space above the take-up spool and the height of the camera. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the members made of synthetic resin since it was known in the art that such materials are common for the lens driving art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
The specific limitations of “wherein the base member includes a pair of wall portions that are disposed outside the connection member and face each other while being spaced apart in the axial direction of the second axis, the second metal member is embedded in each of the wall portions, the fixed-side member includes a cover member constituting a housing together with the base member, the cover member includes a side plate portion disposed outside the wall portion, one of the second swing-side engagement portion or the second support-side engagement portion is formed in a convex shape along the axial direction of the second axis, and the another is formed in a concave shape along the axial direction of the second axis, and an engagement dimension in the axial direction of the second axis, between the second swing-side engagement portion and the second support-side engagement portion, being formed by interlocking a portion that has the concave shape and a portion that has the convex shape, is formed so as to be larger than a dimension between the side plate portion and the second support-side engagement portion” in the combination as claimed in claim 4 are not provided nor made obvious by the prior art of record. Claim 4 would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
The specific limitations of “wherein the connection member is formed of a metal plate, the first extending portion and the second extending portion each include a first opposing plate portion, the first opposing portions facing each other in the axial direction of the first axis, the first support-side engagement portion is formed in a convex curved shape such that an inner surface of the first opposing plate portion projects inward along the axial direction of the first axis, the first swing-side engagement portion is formed in a concave curved shape such that an outer surface of the first metal member is recessed inward along the axial direction of the first axis, and an engagement dimension between the first swing-side engagement portion and the first support-side engagement portion in the axial direction of the first axis is larger than a dimension between an inner surface of a portion where the first swing-side engagement portion of the first metal member is formed and an outer surface of an optical module held by the module holder” in the combination as claimed in claim 5 are not provided nor made obvious by the prior art of record. Claim 5 would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
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