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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Provisional Double Patenting
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of at least copending Application(s) No.(s): 18/504,488 and 18/938,911. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. The copending applications discloses each limitation of claim 1, including a driving mechanism for moving an optical element having an optical axis, a fixed part, a movable part 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. Claim 1 of the instant application and the reference applications are identical and therefore claim the same invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0129823).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a driving mechanism for moving an optical element that has an optical axis (Figures 1-3; 100, driving mechanism; [0055] discloses: O, optical axis), the driving mechanism comprising:
a fixed part ([0055] discloses: H, housing and B, base module, constitute a fixed part of 100, driving mechanism);
a movable part ([0055] discloses: LH, holder, the movable part), movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element ([0055] discloses: LH, holder, connected to H, housing and B, base module; Figure 1 depicts: L, optical element; Examiner notes that LH, holder is considered to hold L, optical element); and
a driving assembly ([0056] discloses: C, coils and M, magnets), configured for moving the movable part relative to the fixed part ([0056] discloses: C, coils and M, magnets, move LH, holder relative to the fixed part along O, optical axis).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising (Figures 4-7) a plurality of conductive members ([0056] discloses: BT4, conductive members) and a grounding member ([0056] discloses: BT1, conductive members; [0064] discloses: BT1, conductive member, may be electrically connected to a ground point of P, circuit unit), wherein the fixed part includes a housing ([0055] discloses: H, housing, part of fixed part) and a base ([0055] discloses: B, base module, part of fixed part) connected to each other (Figure 2 depicts: B, base module, connected to H, housing), the conductive members and the grounding member are embedded in the base (Figure 4 depicts: BT4, conductive members, and BT4, conductive members, embedded in B, base module), and the grounding member is electrically connected to the housing ([0007] discloses: conductive members have protrusions and the housing and protrusions are mounted to each other by welding).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, wherein the conductive members and the grounding member are embedded in the base by insert molding ([0058] teaches: conductive members embedded in the main body by plastic insert molding).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, further comprising a circuit assembly ([0059] discloses: P, circuit unit) disposed on the base (Figure 8 depicts: P, circuit unit, on B, base module), wherein the conductive members are directly and electrically connected to the circuit assembly ([0059] discloses: BT4, conductive members, electrically connected to P, circuit unit), and the grounding member is connected to the housing ([0007] discloses: conductive members have protrusions and the housing and protrusions are mounted to each other by welding) and located between the conductive members (Figure 7 depicts: BT1, conductive members, the grounding member, located between BT4, conductive members).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0129823), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0196299).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, further comprising a lower sheet spring ([0055] discloses: G21 and G22, lower spring sheets) movably connecting the base (B, base module) to the movable part ([0055] discloses: G21 and G22, lower spring sheets, connect LH, holder to B, base module) wherein at least one of the conductive members (BT4, conductive members) forms a flat portion that is exposed to a top side of the base (Figure 4 depicts: BT4, conductive member, with tabs, the flat portion, expose to the top side of B, base), and the flat portion is higher than the grounding member (Figure 4 depicts: BT4, conductive member, flat portions, higher than BT1, conductive member, that is considered the grounding member).
Wang fails to disclose a device wherein at least one of the conductive members forms a flat portion that is exposed to a top side of the base and electrically connected to the lower sheet spring. Wang and Lee are related because both disclose driving mechanisms.
Lee teaches a device wherein at least one of the conductive members (Figure 4 depict: 360, 370, connection terminals) forms a flat portion that is exposed to a top side of the base (Figure 4 depict: 360, 370, connection terminals, with a flat portions 362, 372, terminal units) and electrically connected to the lower sheet spring ([0056] teaches: 410, 420, elastic members, analogous to the lower sheet springs, electrically connected to 360, 370, and therefore 362, 372).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang in view of Lee and provide a device wherein at least one of the conductive members forms a flat portion that is exposed to a top side of the base and electrically connected to the lower sheet spring. Doing so would allow for the sheet springs to transmit an electrical signal from the conductive member to the movable portion, thereby providing a reliable electrical connection while reducing additional wiring.
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, wherein the base (B, base module) has a plurality of columns extending along the optical axis (Figure 4 depicts: B, base module, with a plurality of columns extending along the optical axis), and the movable part has a bobbin (Figure 13 depicts: Q1, bobbin structure on LH, holder) extending in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (Figure 13 depicts: Q1, bobbin, extending in the Y direction, perpendicular to the Z, direction, the direction of the optical axis).
Wang fails to disclose a device wherein the movable part has a bobbin located between the columns. Wang and Lee are related because both disclose driving mechanisms.
Lee teaches a device wherein the movable part has a bobbin located between the columns (Figure 1 depicts: 210, bobbin, and 120, coupling pillars; Examiner notes that when the VCM is assembled the bobbin would be located between the columns).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang in view of Lee and provide a device wherein the movable part has a bobbin located between the columns. Doing so would allow for the columns to support and couple the surrounding fixed structure while accommodating movement of the bobbin therebetween, thereby providing a compact and stable lens driving structure.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0129823), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0033551).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, further comprising a circuit assembly ([0059] discloses: P, circuit unit) disposed on the base (Figure 8 depicts: P, circuit unit, on B, base module).
Wang fails to disclose a device wherein the movable part has a first protruding portion and a second protruding portion, the first and second protruding portions are located on opposite sides of the movable part and extending in opposite directions that are perpendicular to the optical axis, and the second protruding portion faces the circuit assembly. Wang and Lee are related because both disclose driving mechanisms.
Lee teaches a device wherein the movable part (Figure 5 depicts: 1210, bobbin) has a first protruding portion and a second protruding portion (Figure 5 depicts: 1210, bobbin, with 1212, protrusions), the first and second protruding portions are located on opposite sides of the movable part ([0101] teaches: 1210, bobbin, with first protrusion disposed on a first side surface and the second protrusion disposed on a second side surface, at the opposite side of the first side surface) and extending in opposite directions that are perpendicular to the optical axis (Figure 5 depicts: the optical axis is considered the Z direction and the protrusions extend in the +-X directions, that is perpendicular to the optical axis; Examiner notes that one protrusion extends in the +x direction and the other in the -x direction, thus extending in opposite directions), and the second protruding portion faces the circuit assembly (Figure 4 depicts: 1410, substrate comprising 1420, circuit member, disposed on upper surface of 1430, base, such that the lower surface of the second protrusion portion of 1210, faces the circuit member).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang in view of Lee and provide a device wherein the movable part has a first protruding portion and a second protruding portion, the first and second protruding portions are located on opposite sides of the movable part and extending in opposite directions that are perpendicular to the optical axis, and the second protruding portion faces the circuit assembly. Doing so would allow for the movable part to be positioned and constrained relative to the surrounding fixed structure and assembly, thereby improving stability and preventing excessive movement of the movable part.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0129823) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0033551), as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Cho et al. (US 2016/0191754).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 11.
Wang fails to disclose a device wherein the movable part further has a first protrusion and a second protrusion extending along the optical axis and facing the base, the first protrusion is located below the first protruding portion, and the second protrusion is located below second protruding portion. Wang and Cho are related because both disclose driving mechanisms.
Cho teaches a device (Figures 6 and 7) wherein the movable part further has a first protrusion and a second protrusion extending along the optical axis and facing the base ([0175] teaches: 1111, lug; Examiner notes that the “height” portion of 1111, lug, is extending along the optical axis, and the bottom Face of 1111, as pictured in Figure 7, is considered to be facing the base), the first protrusion is located below the first protruding portion, and the second protrusion is located below second protruding portion (Figure 7 depicts: each 1111, lug, located below its respective 1110, stopper, analogous to the protruding portions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang in view of Cho and provide a device wherein the movable part further has a first protrusion and a second protrusion extending along the optical axis and facing the base, the first protrusion is located below the first protruding portion, and the second protrusion is located below second protruding portion. Doing so would allow for the protrusions to act as mechanical stops, thereby limiting excessive movement of the movable part and preventing damage from the impact with the base.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 12, wherein the movable part further has a third protrusion and a fourth protrusion extending along the optical axis, and the first, second, third, and fourth protrusions are located on different sides of the movable part (Cho: Figure 6 depicts: four individual 1110, stoppers, located on different sides of the movable part; Examiner notes each 1110, stopper is considered to have a 1111, lug; thus the first, second, third and fourth protrusions; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 12, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 13.
Wang fails to disclose a device wherein the area of the first protrusion is greater than the area of the second protrusion. However, optimizing the area of protrusion would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation,” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Cho discusses in [0051-0052] that the lug/groove geometry to the contact area between the stopper and the rib to reduce sticking/defects, in [0167-0168] that the lug on the stopper is specifically used to reduce the contact area between stopper and rib and in [0182] Cho says that the lug may have a variable selection according to a user’s intentions and thus establishes as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose a device wherein the area of the first protrusion is greater than the area of the second protrusion since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 14.
Wang fails to disclose a device wherein the area of the second protrusion is greater than the area of the third protrusion. However, optimizing the area of protrusion would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation,” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Cho discusses in [0051-0052] that the lug/groove geometry to the contact area between the stopper and the rib to reduce sticking/defects, in [0167-0168] that the lug on the stopper is specifically used to reduce the contact area between stopper and rib and in [0182] Cho says that the lug may have a variable selection according to a user’s intentions and thus establishes as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose a device wherein the area of the second protrusion is greater than the area of the third protrusion since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 13, wherein the shape of the first protrusion is different from the shape of the second protrusion (Cho: [0182] teaches: lugs may have a cylindrical shape, a polygonal shape, a polyhedral shape including a cone shape or a conical shape, or may be formed in a plural fashion; Examiner notes that this is considered to include the option where each lug has a different shape, as the shapes are selectable design parameters; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 13, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0129823) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0033551), as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0217353) hereinafter Lee353.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 11.
Wang fails to disclose a device further comprising a magnet disposed on the movable part and a magnetic field sensor disposed on the circuit assembly for detecting the displacement of the magnet. Wang and Lee353 are related because both disclose driving mechanisms.
Lee353 teaches a device further comprising a magnet disposed ([0070] teaches: 190, sensing magnet) on the movable part ([0134] teaches: sensing magnets fixed to a movable body, i.e., the bobbin) and a magnetic field sensor ([0070] teaches: 180, position sensor) disposed on the circuit assembly ([0068] teaches: 180, position sensor, connected to 170, printed circuit board by soldering; thus considered disposed on) for detecting the displacement of the magnet ([0070] teaches: position sensor to sense change of magnetic force).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang in view of Lee353 and provide a device further comprising a magnet disposed on the movable part and a magnetic field sensor disposed on the circuit assembly for detecting the displacement of the magnet. Doing so would allow for detecting displacement of the movable part, thereby enabling accurate position feedback and control of the optical element.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 17, further comprising a thermal glue (Lee353: [0179] teaches: adhesive agent may be a thermosetting epoxy), wherein the second protruding portion ([0113] teaches: 110, bobbin) forms a recess (Lee353: [0091] teaches: 117, reception recess) for receiving the magnet (Lee353: [0110] teaches: 190, sensing magnets, may be inserted into 117, reception recess), and the thermal glue is disposed at the bottom of the recess for adhering the magnet to the movable part (Lee353: [0111] teaches: 117b, adhesive groove in 117, reception recess, such that an adhesive agent is injected into the adhesive groove; [0113] teaches: adhesive groove, formed from opening to one inner surface of 110, bobbin contacting one surface of 190, sensing magnet; therefore considered to adhere the magnet to the movable part; doing so would allow the sensing magnet to be securely retained adjacent to the magnetic field sensor, thereby improving positional sensing accuracy and structural reliability).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0129823), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Ishiguro (US 2017/0090146).
Regarding claim 21, Wang discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2.
Wang fails to disclose a device wherein the base has a column extending along the optical axis and a cavity is formed on the column, and the movable part has a first protruding portion extending into the cavity along a direction perpendicular to the optical axis. Wang and Ishiguro are related because both disclose driving mechanisms.
Ishiguro teaches a device wherein the base ([0031] teaches: 21, movable base) has a column extending along the optical axis ([0032] teaches: 23, legs, extending along the optical axis) and a cavity is formed on the column ([0036] teaches: 27, stopper recesses, formed on the inner peripheral side of 23, legs), and the movable part has a first protruding portion ([0052] teaches: 35, projections, formed with the lens holder) extending into the cavity along a direction perpendicular to the optical axis ([0052] teaches: 35, projections, radially project outward, and inserted into 27, stopper recesses).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang in view of Ishiguro and provide a device wherein the base has a column extending along the optical axis and a cavity is formed on the column, and the movable part has a first protruding portion extending into the cavity along a direction perpendicular to the optical axis. Doing so would allow for restrictions of excess displacement and rotation of the movable part, thereby preventing damage to the supporting components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 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:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the grounding member has a protruding structure, a grounding portion, and a slot, the protruding structure and the grounding portion extend in a first direction and are exposed to the same side of the base, wherein the slot is formed between the protruding structure and the grounding portion, and the first direction is perpendicular to the optical axis” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 6, 2 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Claims 8-10 are dependent on claim 7 and therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “further comprising a light-curable adhesive covering the magnet and the recess, wherein the magnet is located between the thermal glue and the light-curable adhesive” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 18, 17, 11, 2 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 1 and therefore allowed for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. (US 2015/0077840 A1), Lee et al. (US 2020/0166770 A1) and Lee (US 10,254,627 B2) all disclose relevant optical system but fails to remedy the deficiencies of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights