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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20130258475 A1 (Lee; Jin Yu).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
622
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
532
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 1, Lee teaches an optical element driving mechanism [122], comprising: a movable part [122, see paragraph 0035: “the lens carrier 122 as well as the lens 125 to move linearly with respect to the base frame 121 along the photo axis 7”], for connecting an optical element [125]; a fixed part [11-13], wherein the movable part moves relative to the fixed part [see paragraph 0035: “the lens carrier 122 as well as the lens 125 to move linearly with respect to the base frame 121 along the photo axis 7”]; and a driving assembly, for driving the movable part to move [see paragraph 0035: “a coil 123, at least a magnet 124 (four shown in FIG. 2)”].
Per claim 2, Lee teaches the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a sensing assembly [35,36], wherein the fixed part has a frame [11] and a base [13] the frame is fixedly connected to the base [see figure 2], and the sensing assembly is disposed on the base [see figure 5].
Per claim 3, Lee teaches the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, wherein when observed along an incident direction of an incident light, the frame, the movable part, the driving assembly, the sensing assembly, and the base are arranged in sequence [see figure 5].
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 (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 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(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130258475 A1 (Lee; Jin Yu) in view of US 20200333685 A1 (HU; Chao-Chang et al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
614
524
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
794
420
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per claim 4, Lee teaches the optical element driving mechanism as described in claim 3, further comprising an electronic assembly [301]. Lee lacks, Hu teaches, the electronic assembly disposed on the base, electrically connected to the driving assembly, wherein the electronic assembly includes: a first external end, having a groove, protruding from the base; and a second external end, protruding from the base [see electronic assembly 400 and external ends 130]. Improved module compactness would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu with Lee.
Per claim 5, Lee in view of Hu teach the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 4, wherein the first external end is connected to a metal element, and the metal element extends in the incident direction [inherent to the combination, see Hu’s metal elements 130].
Per claim 6, Lee in view of Hu teach the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 4, wherein the second external end extends in the incident direction [see Hu’s figure 5].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130258475 A1 (Lee; Jin Yu) in view of WO 2009133690 A1 and JP 6679143 B2
Per claim 7-8, Lee teaches the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, wherein the driving assembly comprises: a first magnetic element [124], a coil [34], and corresponding to the first magnetic element. Lee lacks the coil having a trapezoidal structure; wherein the base has a protruding structure and a main body, and the coil is disposed on the protruding structure, wherein the thickness of the main body is less than the thickness of the protruding structure.
However, WO 2009133690 A1 and JP 6679143 B2 respectively teach driving units incorporating trapezoidal shaped coils. See ‘690’s and ‘143 disclosure: “Here, when the center at which the photographing unit 1 swings is below the photographing unit 1 in the Z-axis direction, the longitudinal sectional shape of each photographing unit driving coil 230x, 230y is a long trapezoidal shape on the lower side. If the center where the movable unit swings is in the range overlapping the movable unit in the Z-axis direction, the vertical cross-sectional shape of each of the photographing unit driving coils 230x and 230y is rectangular.” and “The drive magnet 55 is arranged so that the trapezoidal lower bottom faces the coil 35, as shown in FIG. 8B. The driving magnet 55 is magnetized to have different magnetic poles on the inside (the trapezoidal lower bottom side) facing the coil 35 and on the outside (the trapezoidal upper bottom side) opposite to the inside.” Improved drive control would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine 690 and 143 with Lee.
Regarding the protrusion, official notice it taken that it would have been common knowledge in incorporate a protrusion in the base plate in order to reduce coil movement. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-17 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:
Per claim 9, the prior art teaches the optical element driving mechanism as claimed in claim 7. In combination with the limitation above, the prior art does not teach wherein the sensing assembly includes: a first electronic element, disposed on the protruding structure; and a second electronic element, disposed on the main body, wherein the distance between the first electronic element and a bottom surface of the base is different from the distance between the second electronic element and the bottom surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, 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 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights