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 .
This action is in response to the Amendments and Remarks filed on 07/02/2026
This is a CON of 18/311,577 now a PAT 12,200,337 which is a CON of 17/658,042 now a PAT 11,678,039 which is a CON of 17/132,667 which is now a PAT 11,323,599
Claim 9 has been cancelled
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the amendments made to the independent claims, Examiner would like to state that the limitations with regards to the direction of contraction and expansion in response to the changes in temperature and the flexure adjustment is not disclosed in the instant Application or the parent applications.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner has brought in a new reference that teaches the limitations added and the following rejection elucidates the teachings.
In view of the above remarks, Examiner would like to maintain the rejections as detailed in the following action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
This application is claiming the benefit of prior-filed application No. 17/132,667 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Copendency between the current application and the prior application is required. Since the applications are not copending, the benefit claim to the prior-filed application is improper. Applicant is required to delete the claim to the benefit of the prior-filed application, unless applicant can establish copendency between the applications.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/132,667, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Amended Claim 1 and new claim 21 recites “wherein the piezoelectric material is configured to contract along a first direction in response to an increase in environmental temperature or expand along the first direction in response to a decrease in environmental temperature, wherein, when the piezoelectric material contracts or expands along the first direction, the flexure structure adjusts along a second direction based on the contraction or expansion of the piezoelectric material so as to counteract the increase or decrease in environmental temperature, and wherein the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the second direction”. There is no disclosure relating to the “direction” of expansion or contraction of the piezoelectric material and adjustments of the flexure material.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/132,667, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 21 recites “wherein, when the piezoelectric material contracts or expands along the first direction, the flexure structure adjusts along a second direction based on the contraction or expansion of the piezoelectric material so as to counteract the increase or decrease in environmental temperature”. The instant Application does not disclose about the direction of expansion or contraction and the direction of counteraction.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered in the claim. Therefor the claim is "indefinite". See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information..
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,337 B2 and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,039 B2 and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,323,599 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table.
1. Application: A camera focus adjustment device comprising:
1. Patent 12,200,337 B2: a camera focus adjustment device comprising:
a flexure structure comprising two structural members,
1. Patent 12,200,337 B2:a flexure structure comprising two structural members oriented in parallel,
wherein a gap exists between the two structural members;
1. Patent 12,200,337 B2:wherein a gap exists between the two structural members;
and a piezoelectric material within the gap,
1. Patent 12,200,337 B2: a piezoelectric material within the gap;
wherein the piezoelectric material is configured to contract along a first direction in response to an increase in environmental temperature or expand in response to a decrease in environmental temperature,
1. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein the piezoelectric material is configured to contract in response to an increase in environmental temperature or expand in response to a decrease in environmental temperature,
wherein, when the piezoelectric material contracts or expands along the first direction, the flexure structure adjusts along a second direction based on the contraction or expansion of the piezoelectric material so as to counteract the increase or decrease in environmental temperature, and
11. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein the piezoelectric material is configured to contract in response to an increase in environmental temperature or expand in response to decrease in environmental temperature, and wherein the flexure structure is operable to counteract the contraction or expansion of the piezoelectric material;
wherein the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the second direction
1. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein the flexure structure is operable to counteract the contraction or expansion of the piezoelectric material.
2. Application: wherein the displacement of the flexure structure causes vertical displacement of an image sensor.
2. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein displacement of the flexure structure causes vertical displacement of an image sensor.
3. Application: wherein the piezoelectric material comprises a piezoelectric stack or a piezoelectric actuator.
1. Patent 12,200,337 B2: A camera focus adjustment device comprising: a piezoelectric material
4. Application: wherein the piezoelectric material has a compressive stress pressure of approximately 15 Megapascals.28
4. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein the piezoelectric material has a compressive stress pressure of approximately 15 Megapascals.
5. Application: wherein the flexure structure is comprised of 440C stainless steel or 440F stainless steel.
5. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein the flexure structure is comprised of 440C stainless steel or 440F stainless steel.
6. Application: wherein the flexure structure has a length of approximately 40 millimeters (mm), wherein the flexure structure has a height of approximately 10 mm, and wherein the flexure structure has a width of approximately 5 mm.
6. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein the flexure structure has a length of approximately 40 millimeters (mm), wherein the flexure structure has a height of approximately 10 mm, and wherein the flexure structure has a width of approximately 5 mm.
7. Application: wherein the piezoelectric material has a length of approximately 18 mm, wherein the piezoelectric material has a height of approximately 3 mm, and wherein the piezoelectric material has a width of approximately 2 mm.
7. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein the piezoelectric material has a length of approximately 18 mm, wherein the piezoelectric material has a height of approximately 3 mm, and wherein the piezoelectric material has a width of approximately 2 mm.
8. Application: wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the flexure structure is approximately 10 parts per million (ppm), and wherein a CTE of the piezoelectric material along an actuation axis is approximately -5 ppm.
8. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the flexure structure is approximately 10 parts per million (ppm), and wherein a CTE of the piezoelectric material along an actuation axis is approximately -5 ppm.
10. Application: wherein the flexure structure is configured to amplify motion of the piezoelectric material by at least a factor of seven.
8. Patent 12,200,337 B2: wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the flexure structure is approximately 10 parts per million (ppm), and wherein a CTE of the piezoelectric material along an actuation axis is approximately -5 ppm. (Examiner has used this since CTE dictates how rapidly a component will change as it heats up during operation).
Claims 11-21 are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,337 B2 and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,039 B2 and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,323,599 B1.
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, 11-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0279916 A1) in view Topliss et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2010/0283887 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Brown discloses a camera focus adjustment device (Brown’s disclosure is about a camera structure incorporating actuator for focus purposes) comprising:
a flexure structure comprising two structural members (Figs 1, 2 – resilient flexures 13 – Fig 1 clearly discloses two structures that are parallel to each other),
wherein a gap exists between the two structural members (Fig 1 clearly discloses the gap between the two flexures 13); and
a piezoelectric material within the gap (Examiner has used Browns disclosure of the SMA material 31 (and SMA actuator 30) as the piezoelectric material. Throughout his disclosure – Applicant has not disclosed or defined the material used as “a piezoelectric material) except that it is wedge or stacked.),
wherein the piezoelectric material (Browns disclosure of the SMA material 31 (and SMA actuator 30) is configured to contract along a first direction in response to an increase in environmental temperature (In ¶0059, Brown discloses that the SMA wire 31 contracts) or expand along the first direction in response to a decrease in environmental temperature (In ¶0061, Brown discloses that the SMA wire 31 expands and causes the lens element 6 to move towards the image sensor 4; also see ¶0109),
(In ¶0005, Brown discloses that the SMA actuator is controlled over an active temperature range. Brown also discloses the movement of the lens element 6 over range of temperature in ¶0061, ¶0081. In ¶0084, Brown further discloses that the flexures 13 provides relatively high minimum stress within the SMA wire 31 that allows operation at high temperature while reducing the maximum stress within the SMA wire 31. Throughout his disclosure – Applicant has not disclosed or defined the material used as “a piezoelectric material” except that it is wedge or stacked. Therefore it is reasonable to interpret to use the SMA wire in place of “a piezoelectric material”. Also see Figs 3-4 and ¶0090-¶0091 where Brown discloses case where flexures 13 are not in compression and when they are in compression).
The amended limitation of independent claim 1 is taught in a similar endeavor, by Topliss who discloses wherein, when the piezoelectric material contracts or expands along the first direction, the flexure structure adjusts along a second direction based on the contraction or expansion of the piezoelectric material so as to counteract the increase or decrease in environmental temperature, and wherein the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the second direction (Throughout Topliss teaches that the SMA material contracts and expands and changes it length in response to changes in temperature. Since the process is expansion and contraction, and the length of the SMA increases or decreases accordingly. Referring to Fig 1, the SMA 30 changes its length 31 and the contraction and expansion would be along the direction of the SMA 30 and - we can interpret this as the “first direction”. The movement of the lens is in the X and Y direction as shown in Fig 1 and this is substantially perpendicular to the direction of SMA 30 expansion/contraction).
Brown and Topliss are combinable because both are related to imaging devices using actuators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the actuator architecture as taught by Topliss in the imaging module disclosed by Brown.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “use a material that could be used in the lens element of miniature camera which provides the advantage of being linear and provide high power per unit and low cost” as disclosed by Topliss in ¶0006.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brown and Topliss to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Brown in view of Topliss discloses wherein the piezoelectric material comprises a piezoelectric stack or a piezoelectric actuator (Brown’s disclosure is about a camera structure incorporating actuator for focus purposes and Browns disclosure of the SMA material 31 (and SMA actuator 30) as the piezoelectric material).
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is an imaging apparatus claim that has limitation similar to claim 1. Since Brown in view of Topliss discloses the lens and the image sensor and since in ¶0129 Brown discloses that the SMA actuator arrangement can be adapted to drive movement of an object other than the lens element, and Topliss in ¶0090 teaches the change in state of the SMA material over varied range of temperature which allows the movement of the lens along the optical axis as taught by Topliss in ¶0099, it is clear that Brown discloses all the elements of Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Brown in view of Topliss discloses wherein the camera is coupled to an autonomous vehicle (Brown, in ¶0053, discloses that the structure could be in a portable electronic device.).
Regarding Claim 13, Brown in view of Topliss discloses wherein the piezoelectric material is configured to contract in response to an increase in environmental temperature, and wherein the flexure structure adjusts based on the contraction of the piezoelectric material such that the camera focus adjustment device moves the image sensor closer to the lens so as to counteract the increase in environmental temperature (In ¶0005, Brown discloses that the SMA actuator is controlled over an active temperature range. Brown also discloses the movement of the lens element 6 over range of temperature in ¶0061, ¶0081. In ¶0084, Brown further discloses that the flexures 13 provides relatively high minimum stress within the SMA wire 31 that allows operation at high temperature while reducing the maximum stress within the SMA wire 31. Also see Figs 3-4 and ¶0090-¶0091 where Brown discloses case where flexures 13 are not in compression and when they are in compression).
Regarding Claim 14, Brown in view of Topliss discloses wherein the piezoelectric material is configured to expand in response to a decrease in environmental temperature, and wherein the flexure structure adjusts based on the expansion of the piezoelectric material such that the camera focus adjustment device moves the image sensor farther away from the lens so as to counteract the decrease in environmental temperature (In ¶0005, Brown discloses that the SMA actuator is controlled over an active temperature range. Brown also discloses the movement of the lens element 6 over range of temperature in ¶0061, ¶0081. In ¶0084, Brown further discloses that the flexures 13 provides relatively high minimum stress within the SMA wire 31 that allows operation at high temperature while reducing the maximum stress within the SMA wire 31. Also see Figs 3-4 and ¶0090-¶0091 where Brown discloses case where flexures 13 are not in compression and when they are in compression. In ¶0099, Brown discloses that the drive movement of the lens element 6 along the optical axis O relative to the support structure 2. ¶0105, Brown discloses that the SMA actuator 30 moves the lens element 6 and changes the focus of the image formed on the image sensor 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Brown in view of Topliss discloses all the features of Claim 11 and wherein at least a portion of the flexure structure is oriented along a three degree angle with respect to an orientation of the structural member (Brown in ¶0030 discloses that the flexure and SMA wire are connected at an acute angle. Since three degree is an “acute angle” it could be interpreted that Brown discloses this feature).
Regarding Claim 21, this claim is a camera apparatus that has limitations parallel to Claim 1. Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of Claim 1 and 11.
Claims 2, 4-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0279916 A1) in view Topliss et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2010/0283887 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view Brown (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019675 A1 – herewith referred to as Brown-2012).
Regarding Claim 2, Brown in view of Topliss fails to clearly disclose wherein displacement of the flexure structure caused vertical displacement of an image sensor.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Brown-2012 discloses wherein displacement of the flexure structure caused vertical displacement of an image sensor (In ¶0057 (and throughout) Brown-2012 teaches that the SMA actuator 31 may be driven to provide high degree of positional control, as a result of the suspension system 20 allowing the camera unit 10 (and hence the image sensor 11 since in ¶0045, Brown-2012 teaches that the image sensor 11 is mounted in the camera unit 10 to the PCB 14) to move along the optical axis O).
Brown, Topliss and Brown-2012 are combinable because all are related to imaging devices using actuators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the actuator architecture as taught by Brown-2012 in the imaging module disclosed by Brown in view of Topliss.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “desirable to provide a system that reduces the power consumption and/or size of a camera” as disclosed by Brown-2012 in ¶0009.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Brown, Topliss and Brown-2012 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4, Brown in view of Topliss and Brown-2012 discloses all the features of Claim 4 and parent claim except wherein the piezoelectric material has a compressive stress pressure of approximately 15 Megapascals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a compressive stress pressure of approximately 15 Megapascals since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 5, Brown in view of Topliss and Brown-2012 discloses all the features of Claim 5 and parent claim except wherein the flexure structure is comprised of 440C stainless steel or 440F stainless steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flexure structure is comprised of 440C stainless steel or 440F stainless steel since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 6, Brown in view of Topliss and Brown-2012 discloses all the features of parent claim 1 except wherein the flexure structure has a length of approximately 40 millimeters (mm), wherein the flexure structure has a height of approximately 10 mm, and wherein the flexure structure has a width of approximately 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a structure wherein the flexure structure has a length of approximately 40 millimeters (mm), wherein the flexure structure has a height of approximately 10 mm, and wherein the flexure structure has a width of approximately 5 mm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 7, Brown in view of Topliss and Brown-2012 discloses all the features of parent claims 1 and 6 except wherein the piezoelectric material has a length of approximately 18 mm, wherein the piezoelectric material has a height of approximately 3 mm, and wherein the piezoelectric material has a width of approximately 2 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a structure wherein the piezoelectric material has a length of approximately 18 mm, wherein the piezoelectric material has a height of approximately 3 mm, and wherein the piezoelectric material has a width of approximately 2 mm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 8, Brown in view of Topliss and Brown-2012 discloses all the features of parent claim 1 except wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the flexure structure is approximately 10 parts per million (ppm), and wherein a CTE of the piezoelectric material along an actuation axis is approximately -5 ppm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the flexure structure is approximately 10 parts per million (ppm), and wherein a CTE of the piezoelectric material along an actuation axis is approximately -5 ppm since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 16, this claim has limitations parallel to Claim 5. Claim 16 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 17, Brown in view of Topliss and Brown-2012 discloses wherein the flexure structure is manufactured according to a machining process (Examiner would like to state that the “machining process” has not been defined in the claim, or in the instant Application. Brown-2012’s teaching in ¶0040-¶0042 that the flexure is formed from a single piece of material, typically a metal, although each of the flexure 21 could be formed as a separate element.).
Regarding Claim 18, Brown in view of Topliss and Brown-2012 discloses all the features of Claim 11 and wherein the camera focus adjustment device is operable to position the image sensor (Brown in ¶0105 discloses that the actuator 30 moves the lens element 6 and changes the focus of the image formed on the image sensor 4) except within 10 micrometers of the lens. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the camera focus adjustment device be operable to position the image sensor within 10 micrometers of the lens since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 19, this claim has limitations parallel to Claim 8. Claim 19 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 8.
Reference Cited
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Davis et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2013/0194555 A1) discloses a piezoelectric actuated device includes one or more areas of piezoelectric material coupled to a substrate. The piezoelectric material may be placed on regions of the substrate that exhibit the greatest curvature and stress when the device is vibrating according to a desired structural Eigenmode of vibration. The piezoelectric material may have a non-uniform density.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights