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, 4-10, 12-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2014/0146406) in view of Chao et al. (US 2022/0179163).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. (figures 1-7) discloses an optical element driving mechanism, comprising:
a movable part, for connecting an optical element (131; see at least paragraph 0043);
a fixed part, wherein the movable part may move relative to the fixed part (11);
a driving assembly, comprising a coil and a magnetic element (152 and 151) wherein the driving assembly drives the movable part to move relative to the fixed part (13); and
a positioning assembly, comprising four side walls (12 and 14).
Lee et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Lee et al. is silent regarding wherein the coil is positioned at the four side walls. Chao et al. (figures 1-13) teaches wherein the coil is positioned at the four side walls (35 and 11-12). 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 coils as taught by Chao et al. in order to achieve the effect of miniaturization and simplify the manufacture of the optical element driving mechanism.
Regarding claim 3, Chao et al. (figures 1-13) teaches wherein each of the side walls comprise (12 and 14) a first surface facing the coil and a second surface facing the magnetic element (11-12; figure 13).
Regarding claim 4, Chao et al. (figures 1-13) teaches wherein the second surface is not parallel to the first surface (the upper surface as shown in figure 13).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first surface has a first axis, parallel to the first surface, wherein: along the first axis, the shortest distance between the coil and the magnetic element is greater than the shortest distance between the second surface and the magnetic element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first surface has a first axis, parallel to the first surface, wherein: along the first axis, the shortest distance between the coil and the magnetic element is greater than the shortest distance between the second surface and the magnetic element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Chao et al. (figures 1-13) teaches wherein the positioning assembly further (710) comprises a plurality of support parts, fixedly connected to each of the side walls. Chao et al. discloses the claimed invention except for along the first axis, the maximum dimension of the support part is greater than the maximum dimension of the side wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have along the first axis, the maximum dimension of the support part is greater than the maximum dimension of the side wall, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second surface has a second axis, parallel to the second surface, and the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis, wherein: along the second surface, the maximum dimension of each one of the support parts is greater than the maximum dimension of the corresponding side wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second surface has a second axis, parallel to the second surface, and the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis, wherein: along the second surface, the maximum dimension of each one of the support parts is greater than the maximum dimension of the corresponding side wall, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the coil comprises: a first portion; and a second portion, wherein the first portion is closer to the support part than the second portion; wherein along the first axis, the shortest distance between the first portion and the magnetic element is different from the shortest distance between the second portion and the magnetic element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the coil comprises: a first portion; and a second portion, wherein the first portion is closer to the support part than the second portion; wherein along the first axis, the shortest distance between the first portion and the magnetic element is different from the shortest distance between the second portion and the magnetic element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. discloses the claimed invention except for along the first axis, the shortest distance between the first portion and the magnetic element is greater than the shortest distance between the second portion and the magnetic element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have along the first axis, the shortest distance between the first portion and the magnetic element is greater than the shortest distance between the second portion and the magnetic element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. discloses the claimed invention except for along the first axis, the shortest distance between the second portion and the magnetic element and the shortest distance between the first portion and the magnetic element has a difference value, and the difference value is at least 0.008 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have along the first axis, the shortest distance between the second portion and the magnetic element and the shortest distance between the first portion and the magnetic element has a difference value, and the difference value is at least 0.008 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a circuit assembly, electrically connected to the driving assembly, wherein the circuit assembly is at least partially disposed on the support part (153; figure 7).
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the circuit assembly (153) comprises: a first connecting part, corresponding to an external circuit; and a second connecting part, corresponding to the driving assembly (1531 and 1532); wherein along the second axis (x, y or z direction), the center of the movable part is located between the first connecting part and the second connecting part (131).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a first connecting element (1532a, 1311, and the connecting layers between the first surface and 13; figure 7), wherein the coil is connected to the positioning assembly via the first connecting element; and the first connecting element is in direct contact with the first surface and the support part (1441 and 1442).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the first connecting element does not contact the second surface directly (the surface of 210 facing the magnetic 151; figure 7).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a protecting assembly and a second connecting element (14422 and the connecting element between 14422 and 14421), wherein the protecting assembly corresponds to the driving assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Chao et al. (figures 1-13) teaches wherein: each one of the side walls further comprises a third surface, the protecting assembly comprises a protecting element, and the protecting element is disposed on the third surface; and the direction in which the third surface is facing is different from the first surface and the second surface (xyz direction).
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a guiding assembly (141-143), wherein the movable part moves relative to the fixed part via the guiding assembly, and the guiding assembly comprises: a guiding element, disposed on the support part; and a corresponding part, corresponding to the guiding element, wherein the corresponding part moves relative to the guiding element (a plurality of rolling members 143 (four into two pairs as shown) and the elastic pre-stress structure 144. A pair of the rolling members 143 is restrained to move inside a longitudinal Z-axial channel formed between the groove 141 and the constraint block 142, while another pair of the rolling members 143 is restrained to move inside another longitudinal Z-axial channel formed between another groove 141' and the elastic pre-stress structure 144. Upon such an arrangement, the lens carrier 131 can thus shift along the Z axis with respect to the frame 12 inside the inner compartment 110; see at least paragraph 0038).
The limitation, “wherein the corresponding part moves relative to the guiding element” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Lee 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.
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a sensing assembly (161) for sensing the movement of the movable part, wherein: the sensing assembly is at least partially disposed on the support part; and the guiding element and the sensing assembly are disposed on different surfaces of the support part (figure 2), wherein these surfaces face different directions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2014/0146406) in view of Chao et al. (US 2022/0179163); further in view of Ozaki et al. (DE 11-2013-006750).
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above. However, Lee et al. is silent regarding wherein the coil is made of a lead wire, and the difference value is greater than the dimension of the cross-section of the lead wire. Ozaki et al. teaches wherein the coil is made of a lead wire (see at least page 30; 6th 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 coils as taught by Ozaki et al. in order to improve the efficiency of rotary electric machines.
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 have the difference value is greater than the dimension of the cross-section of the lead wire, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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 second connecting element is in direct contact with the protecting element, the coil, and the third surface” in the combination as claimed in claim 18 are not provided nor made obvious by the prior art of record. Claim 18 would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
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
