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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 4 December 2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-14 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2024 and 9/15/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/931,331, filed on 7/16/2020.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,650,392 B2, herein ‘392 and claims 1-8 and 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,189,206 B2, herein ‘206. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
For brevity, the claims will only be rejected showing the language of ‘206, as there is significant overlap in the claims and both the ‘392 and ‘206 patents are tied by a previous terminal disclaimer.
The following will be used in the below table:
Present application – ‘206 – reasons for obviousness, if any
With respect to claim 1, claim 1 of ‘206 (and likewise ‘392) claims:
An imaging camera driving module, comprising:
An imaging camera driving module, comprising:
identical
a lens unit, comprising: an imaging lens assembly, having an optical axis
a lens unit, comprising: an imaging lens assembly, having an optical axis;
identical
a driving mechanism, wherein at least a part of the driving mechanism is coupled to the lens unit, and the driving mechanism is configured to drive the lens unit to move in a direction parallel to the optical axis
a driving mechanism, wherein at least a part of the driving mechanism is coupled to the lens unit, and the driving mechanism is configured to drive the lens unit to move in a direction parallel to the optical axis;
Identical
a sensing mechanism, comprising: a plurality of sensing magnets, fixed to the lens unit without facing the driving mechanism
a sensing mechanism, comprising: a plurality of sensing magnets, fixed to the lens unit, wherein at least a part of the lens unit is located between the plurality of sensing magnets and the driving mechanism, and the plurality of sensing magnets are blocked by the at least a part of the lens unit from facing the driving mechanism;
Appears to be inherent from the claimed language, or would be obvious to be the case if not. As stated in the patent, the magnets must be fixed to the lens unit, and the lens unit must be between the magnets and the driving mechanism. This means that the magnets must be on the side of the lens unit facing away from the driving mechanism
and a plurality of sensing elements, disposed on an image side of the imaging lens assembly and on an image side of the plurality of sensing magnets, wherein each of the plurality of sensing elements is disposed corresponding to one of the plurality of sensing magnets, and each of the plurality of sensing elements is configured to detect a relative position of the sensing magnet corresponding thereto
and a plurality of sensing elements, disposed on an image side of the imaging lens assembly and on an image side of the plurality of sensing magnets, wherein each of the plurality of sensing elements is disposed corresponding to one of the plurality of sensing magnets, and each of the plurality of sensing elements is configured to detect a relative position of the sensing magnet corresponding thereto
Identical
and an image surface, having a central axis, wherein the image surface is disposed on the image side of the imaging lens assembly, and the optical axis of the imaging lens assembly passes through the image surface;
and an image surface, having a central axis, wherein the image surface is disposed on the image side of the imaging lens assembly, and the optical axis of the imaging lens assembly passes through the image surface;
Identical
wherein a minimum distance in parallel with the central axis from one of the plurality of sensing magnets to the sensing element corresponding thereto is Da, and the following condition is satisfied:
0 mm ≤ Da ≤ 0.93 mm.
wherein a minimum distance in parallel with the central axis from one of the plurality of sensing magnets to the sensing element corresponding thereto is Da, and the following condition is satisfied:
0 mm≤Da≤0.93 mm.
Identical
Claims 2-8 of the present application are identical to claims 2-8 of ‘206 and ‘392.
Claims 9-14 of the present application are identical to claims 10-15 of ‘206 and ‘392.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang et al. (Publication No.: US 2022/0276462 A1)
Park et al. (Publication No.: US 2022/0263981 A1)
Kim (Publication No.: US 2021/0389645 A1)
Sharma et al. (Publication No.: US 2021/0132327 A1)
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
9/9/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights