DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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. 12518976, filed on 6/12/2009.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2025 and 1/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higuchi (20080117536) hereafter Higuchi.
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi discloses a lens driving apparatus, comprising: a base (19); a housing (18) coupled with the base (19); a yoke (16) disposed on the base (19); a bobbin (12) disposed between the base (19) and the housing (18); a coil (141) disposed around the bobbin (fig. 1B); a plurality of magnets (17) including four magnets (par. [0040]) that are each disposed at a corresponding corner of the base (fig. 1, par. [0040]), respectively; a first spring (32) disposed between the housing and the plurality of magnets (fig. 1B); and a second spring (31) disposed on the base (19), wherein the yoke (16) includes an inner yoke disposed between the bobbin and at least one of the plurality of magnets (fig. 1B, 2, par. [0037]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 1, wherein the coil includes eight outer side surfaces and eight edges between adjacent surfaces of the eight outer side surfaces, respectively (see fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 3, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in an outer peripheral surface of the coil (141), first regions disposed toward the plurality of magnets and second regions that are not disposed toward the plurality of magnets are alternately disposed (fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 4, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 3, wherein an area of the first regions is smaller than an area of the second regions (fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 5, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 3, wherein the area of the second regions is greater than 50% of a total area of the outer peripheral surface of the coil and smaller than 80% of the total area of the outer peripheral surface of the coil (fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 6, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 3, wherein the first regions of the coil and a first plane of each magnet (17) facing the coil (141) have the same curvature (fig. 1B and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 1, wherein the yoke, the bobbin, the coil, and the plurality of magnets are disposed in a space provided by a coupling of the housing and the base (fig. 1B and 2, par. [0037]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first spring includes a first outer portion coupled to the housing, a first inner portion coupled to an upper portion of the bobbin, and a first connecting portion connecting the first outer portion and the first inner portion (fig. 1B, 2A, 2B, par. [0037]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 12, wherein the first outer portion of the first spring is overlapped vertically with the housing and one magnet of the plurality of magnets (fig. 1B, 2A, 2B, par. [0037]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 14, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the housing and an upper surface of the inner yoke are vertically overlapped (fig. 1B, 2A, 2B, par. [0037]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 15, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 1, wherein a side surface of the housing and a side surface of the inner yoke are horizontally overlapped (fig. 1B, 2A, 2B, par. [0037]-[0050])..
Regarding claim 16, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of magnets (17) includes an upper surface, a lower surface, and side surfaces, and wherein the side surfaces include a plurality of flat planes (fig. 1B, 2A, 2B, par. [0037]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 17, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 16, wherein the side surfaces of each of the plurality of magnets (17) include side surfaces facing away from the coil (see fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 18, Higuchi discloses the lens driving apparatus of claim 16, wherein the side surfaces of each of the plurality of magnets (17) include a first side surface coupled with an inner surface of the housing and a second side surface facing the coil (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Higuchi discloses a camera comprising the lens driving apparatus of claim 1 (par. [0036]).
Regarding claim 20, Higuchi discloses an electronic appliance comprising the lens driving apparatus of claim 1 (par. [0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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: the prior art does not disclose the claimed lens driving apparatus specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the housing includes four recessed portions provided at each corner of an upper surface of the housing, respectively.”
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, 19, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 19, 20 of U.S. Patent No. Park (9618722) hereafter Park. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 19, 20 of Park read on or make obvious claims 1, 19, 20 of the instant invention.
Regarding claim 1, a lens driving apparatus, comprising: a base; a housing coupled with the base; a yoke disposed on the base; a bobbin disposed between the base and the housing; a coil disposed around the bobbin; a plurality of magnets including four magnets that are each disposed at a corresponding corner of the base, respectively; a first spring disposed between the housing and the plurality of magnets; and a second spring disposed on the base, wherein the yoke includes an inner yoke disposed between the bobbin and at least one of the plurality of magnets (see claim 1).
Claims 19 and 20, Park discloses the limitations therein (see claims 19 and 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1278. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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 C. JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights