DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 07 November 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and currently being examined.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 13 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claim 13, the phrase “has two coils disposed in the upper and lower portions” would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --has two coils disposed in the upper and lower portions respectively--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7 – 20 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.
In Re Claim 7, this claim recites the limitation “the first and second openings” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --first and second openings-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 9, The phrase “close to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of variation in frequency is still within the scope of the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the phrase will be interpreted to mean that the frequencies differ within accepted tolerances.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Jang discloses a driving mechanism (Figure 5), comprising: a fixed part (30); a movable part (11, 12), connected to the fixed part (via hinge 110); and a driving assembly (14, 15, 21, 22), configured to move the movable part (12) relative to the fixed part (paragraphs [0022]-[0025]; Figure 5).
In Re Claim 2, Jang discloses that the driving assembly (14, 15, 21, 22) includes a first driving element (14 or 15) and a second driving element (21 or 22), and the movable part (11, 12) has a main body (12) and a vibrating portion (11) connected to the main body (12), wherein the first driving element (14) is disposed on a first surface of the vibrating portion (11), and the second driving element (21) is disposed on the fixed part (30; Figure 6) and located adjacent to the first driving element (21).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First Annotated Figure 6 of Jang
In Re Claim 7, Jang discloses that the movable part (11, 12) has a central axis (see first annotated Figure 6 above) extending through first and second openings (33; Figure 5, there are a plurality of such openings), the main body (12) includes a first flexible portion (see first annotated Figure 6 above) and a second flexible portion (see first annotated Figure 6 above) arranged along a first axis (see first annotated Figure 6 above) that is perpendicular to the central axis, and the first and second flexible portions are symmetrical with respect to the central axis.
In Re Claim 11, Jang discloses that the first (14 or 15) and second (21 or 22) driving elements do not overlap when viewed along the central axis (First Annotated Figure 6 above).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kolm (US Patent 4,498,851 A).
In Re Claim 1, Kolm discloses a driving mechanism (Figure 4 embodiment), comprising: a fixed part (110, 112a, 112b, top cover similar to 17b – Column 5, Line 5); a movable part (118), connected to the fixed part (110, 112a, 112b, top cover similar to 17b – Column 5, Line 5); and a driving assembly (144), configured to move the movable part (18) relative to the fixed part (110, 112a, 112b, top cover similar to 17b – Column 5, Line 5).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 2 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolm (US Patent 4,498,851 A) in view of Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1).
In Re Claim 2, Kolm discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 but it does not disclose a first driving element and a second driving element as claimed.
However, Jang discloses that the driving assembly (14, 15, 21, 22) includes a first driving element (14 or 15) and a second driving element (21 or 22), and the movable part (11, 12) has a main body (12) and a vibrating portion (11) connected to the main body (12), wherein the first driving element (14) is disposed on a first surface of the vibrating portion (11), and the second driving element (21) is disposed on the fixed part (30; Figure 6) and located adjacent to the first driving element (21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the fan blade configuration (141, 144, 128, 118) of Kolm with the fan blade configuration (10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22) of Jang because the bilaminates of Kolm are typically piezoelectric which contains lead that raises health, safety and regulatory concerns.
In Re Claim 3, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 2, and Kolm discloses a first opening (122) and a second opening (124) are formed on opposite sides of the fixed part (110, 112a, 112b, top cover similar to 17b – Column 5, Line 5), the main body (12) protrudes from the fixed part (110, 112a, 112b, top cover similar to 17b – Column 5, Line 5) through the first opening (122), and Jang discloses that the vibrating portion (11) is accommodated in the fixed part (30).
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, and Kolm discloses that the movable part (118) does not protrude from the fixed part (110, 112a, 112b, top cover similar to 17b – Column 5, Line 5) through the second opening (124).
PNG
media_image2.png
582
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Figure 6 of Jang
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 4, and Jang discloses that the movable part further has a support portion (portion of housing 30 where 110 is fixed) and a bridge portion (end portion of 110, see second annotated figure 6 above), the support portion has to be affixed to the fixed part (30)(to allow the pivoting function to be performed), and the bridge portion (end portion of 110, see annotated figure above) is connected between the support portion (portion of housing 30 where 110 is fixed) and the main body (12).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolm (US Patent 4,498,851 A) in view of Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1) and further in view of Park (PG Pub US 20020067104 A1).
In Re Claim 6, Kolm and Jang disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, but they do not disclose that the support portion and the bridge portion form a T-shaped resilient structure.
However, Park discloses a movable part (310) connected to a fixed part (10) via a support portion (20a or 20b) and bridge portion (31), the support portion and bridge portion form a T-shaped resilient structure (paragraphs [0028]-[0031]; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the pivot (110) of Jang in the apparatus of Kolm / Jang with the torsional flexure (21/31) of Park because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed rotational hinge (110) of Jang with the specifically disclosed rotational hinge (21/31) of Park, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1) in view of Nishikawa (PG Pub US 20090162720 A1).
In Re Claims 8 and 9, Jang discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, but it does not disclose different signals generating different modes.
However, paragraphs [0115] and Table 1 (just above said paragraph) of Nishikawa discloses a movable part (3a; Figure 2; 101; Figure 63) whose main body moves in a first mode (several modes are disclosed having a different number of nodes; the first mode for example can be at 70 khz resonance frequency that has 9 nodes) when a first periodic signal (corresponding to 70kHz; paragraph [0004]) is applied to the driving assembly, the main body of the movable part moves in a second mode (several modes are disclosed having a different number of nodes; the second mode for example can be at 117 khz resonance frequency that has 12 nodes) when a second periodic signal (corresponding to 117 khz; paragraph [0004]) is applied to the driving assembly, and the frequencies of the first and second periodic signals are different (70 kHz versus 117 kHz), the frequency (70 kHz) of the first periodic signal is one of the resonance frequencies of the movable part (3a, 101), and the frequency of the second periodic signal (117 kHz) is another one of the resonance frequencies of the movable part (3a, 101).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to operate the moveable part of Jang at different resonance frequencies as taught by Nishikawa, because the manner of operation does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114, Section II.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1) in view of Scher (PG Pub US 20040207292 A1).
In Re Claim 8, Jang discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, but it does not disclose different signals generating different modes.
However, paragraph [0045] and Figure 4 of Scher discloses the main body (102) of the movable part moves in a first mode when a first periodic signal is applied to the driving assembly (one of the “modes of vibration”), the main body of the movable part moves in a second mode when a second periodic signal is applied to the driving assembly (another of the “modes of vibration”), and the frequencies of the first and second periodic signals are different (“depending on the frequency” implies different frequencies).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to operate the moveable part of Jang at different frequencies which result in different modes of vibration as taught by Scher, because the manner of operation does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2114, Section II.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1) in view of Scher (PG Pub US 20040207292 A1) and further in view of Edwards (US Patent 10,815,826 B1).
In Re Claim 10, Jang and Scher disclose all the limitations of Claim 8, although paragraph [0069] of Jang discloses that bending type vibration or torsion type vibration can be generated, Jang and Scher do not specifically disclose the claimed overlapping first mode and a non-overlapping second mode.
However, Edwards discloses a movable part (fan blade 342; Figure 3) that can have a bending mode (Figures 6A-6E) and a torsion mode (Figures 7A,7B)(Column 7, Line 38 – Column 8, Line 7). Jang discloses that the first and second flexible portions overlap when the main body of the movable part moves in the first mode and viewed along the first axis (the first mode is the bending mode taught by Edwards and is achieved by Jang when operated at the “low frequency” of Edwards – Column 7, Line 53), and Jang discloses that the first and second flexible portions do not overlap when the main body of the movable part moves in the second mode and viewed along the first axis (the second mode is the torsion mode taught by Edwards and is achieved by Jang when operated at the “more than one frequency (e.g. _1 and _2)” of Edwards – Column 8, Line 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to operate Jang / Scher at a frequency that achieves the first mode (bending), and at a frequency that achieves the second mode (torsion) as taught by Edwards because different modes are useful to verify structural integrity under dynamic loads and are useful in modal testing to identify damping and stiffness changes due to wear or imbalance.
Claim(s) 12 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1) in view of Yan (PG Pub US 20220413253 A1).
In Re Claim 12, Jang discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, but it does not disclose an FPC (flexible printed circuit board).
However, Figure 6 of Yan discloses driving coils (410, 510, 550) mounted on an FPC (450) having an upper portion (“first section” – paragraph [0047]), lower portion (“third section” – paragraph [0047]) and foldable portion (“second section” – paragraph [0047]), each of these sections has a corresponding driving coil (paragraphs [0047],[0050]; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to mount the driving coils (21, 22) of Jang on the first and third sections of an FPC as taught by Yan because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed control circuit of Jang with the specific FPC structure of Yan, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 13, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 12, and Figure 6 of Yan depicts that the upper (“first section” – paragraph [0047]) and lower (“third section” – paragraph [0047]) portions are parallel to each other, the first and second openings (the “C” shape of 450 has a first opening on one side and a second opening on the other side) are located between the upper and lower portions, and the FPC further has two coils (410, 550) disposed in the upper and lower portions respectively.
In Re Claim 14, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 13, and Jang further discloses that the first driving element (14 or 15) is located between the two coils (21, 22) and comprises a permanent magnet or magnetic permeable material (paragraph [0024]).
Claim(s) 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1) in view of Yan (PG Pub US 20220413253 A1) and further in view of Tochishita (PG Pub US 20200292637 A1).
In Re Claim 15, Jang and Yan disclose all the limitations of Claim 14, but they do not disclose plating.
However, paragraph [0148] of Tochishita disclose that magnets (40) are formed by plating.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to form the magnets on the vibrating portion of Jang in the apparatus of Jang / Yan by plating as taught by Tochishita because it is only a matter of substitute the broadly implied formation procedure of Jang with the specifically disclosed formation procedure (by plating) of Tochishita, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 17, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, and Figure 5 of Jang discloses that the first driving element (14, 15) has a first portion (14) disposed on a first surface of the vibrating portion (11), wherein the first surface is parallel to the central axis and the first axis (see first annotated Figure 6 above).
In Re Claim 18, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 17, and Figure 5 of Jang discloses that the first driving element (14, 15) further has a second portion (15) disposed on a second surface of the vibrating portion (11), wherein the first and second surfaces are located on opposite sides of the vibrating portion (11).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1) in view of Yan (PG Pub US 20220413253 A1) and in view of Tochishita (PG Pub US 20200292637 A1) and further in view of Strohmeyr (German Patent DE 102020128181 A1, Machine Translation provided).
In Re Claim 16, Jang, Yan and Tochishita disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, but they do not disclose the material of the movable part.
However, Strohmeyr discloses a movable part (4; Figure 1) is made of a thin and flat metal sheet (paragraph [0038] of Translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to form the movable part of Jang in the apparatus of Jang / Yan / Tochishita from a thin and flat metal sheet as taught by Strohmeyr because 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 (See MPEP 2144.07 In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (PG Pub US 20090074571 A1) in view of Yan (PG Pub US 20220413253 A1) and in view of Tochishita (PG Pub US 20200292637 A1) and further in view of Yamamoto (US Patent 4,755,782 A).
In Re Claim 19, Jang, Yan and Tochishita disclose all the limitations of Claim 18, but they do not disclose a third portion connecting the first and second portions.
PNG
media_image3.png
698
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Yamamoto
However, Figure 3 of Yamamoto discloses a driving element having a first portion (33) and a second portion (34), and a third portion (see annotated figure above, it is the annotated rectangular portion of 32) connected between the first and second portions (33 and 34), and the third portion (see annotated figure above, it is the annotated rectangular portion of 32) and the vibrating portion (14b) do not overlap when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface (top surface of 14) (Column 7, Lines 58 – 68).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to connect the first and second portions (14, 15) of Jang in the apparatus of Jang / Yan / Tochishita via a third portion (32) as taught by Yamamoto because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly described connection between the magnets and the vane of Jang with the specifically disclosed connection taught by Yamamoto, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 20, Jang, Yan and Tochishita disclose all the limitations of Claim 15, but they do not disclose that the vibrating portion (11) is encompassed by the first driving element (14 or 15).
However, Figure 3 of Yamamoto discloses a vibrating portion (14b) that is encompassed by the first driving element (32, 33, 34) (paragraph [0022]; Figures 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the driving element of Jan in the apparatus of Jang / Yan / Tochishita such that the vibrating portion is encompassed by the first driving element as taught by Yamamoto because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly described connection between the magnets and the vane of Jang with the specifically disclosed encompassing type connection taught by Yamamoto, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is not being relied upon, it is being made of record because it is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Nakamura (US Patent 5,493,157 A) discloses an FPC (flexible printed circuit board) (240) having drive coils (242); (Column 9, Lines 59 – 67; Figure 18).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights