DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Response to Amendment
A. The response, filed October 28, 2025, has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
B. Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 has overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
III. Response to Remarks/Arguments
A. A translation of the text of CN 107948493 A (Xiao et al.) was furnished to Applicant and is currently of record. However, the cover page and drawings were not, which might have led to the confusion. Although that reference will not be used in rejection in this Office action, the translation with the cover page and drawings is attached to this action.
B. Regarding the simultaneous rejection and indication of allowability of claim 9, the examiner noted in the section VI of the previous Office action that its allowability was contingent on Applicant accepting the examiner’s proposed amendment.
C. Regarding the rejection of claims 12 and 13, this was a mistake on the examiner’s part. They should have been indicated allowable as dependent on allowable claim 11. The rejection to claims 12 and 13 has been withdrawn; they will be indicated allowable below.
D. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 and Xiao et al. have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on that reference. The examiner agrees that Xiao et al. fails to disclose the outward and upward extension of the intermediate portion of claim 1 and outward extension of the intermediate portion of claim 16. Also, the allowability of claim 15 has been withdrawn due to the amendment of claim 1, which necessarily implies differing regions of the intermediate portion (extending outward and upward and stepped).
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 8 requires that “the intermediate portion has a tapered profile,” while claim 1 (on which claim 8 depends) requires that the “intermediate portion extend[s] outward and upward from the seating portion beginning at a point higher than the seating portion and lower than an upper surface of the optical filter.” The examiner notes that Fig. 4 illustrates the outward and upward extension of the intermediate portion required by claim 1. Fig. 11 and its associated text support two tapering intermediate portions (“527a” and “527c”). Presumably, Fig. 4 illustrates that tapering nature of the intermediate portion(s). If this is indeed the case, requiring that the intermediate portion has a tapered profile in claim 8 is redundant of limitations already in claim 1. If not, it is unclear which embodiment that claim 8 is seeking to cover with the tapered profile language. Claim 15 is rejected as indefinite because it depends on claim 8 and fails to cure its ambiguity.
V. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6,8,10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the WIPO publication of Cha et al. (WO 2019/182308 A1).
As to claim 1, Cha et al. teaches a camera module (Fig. 1, camera module “200”) comprising:
a lens barrel (Fig. 1, lens barrel “400”);
a housing accommodating the lens barrel (Fig. 1, lens driving device/housing “100”);
an image sensor (Fig. 2a, image sensor “810”), disposed below the lens barrel in an optical axis direction (Fig. 2a), mounted on a main substrate (Fig. 2a, circuit board “810”; [91], lines 1 and 2);
an optical filter (Fig. 2a, filter “610”) disposed between the image sensor and the lens barrel (Fig. 2a); and
a sub-housing (Fig. 2a, filter holder “600”), disposed between the lens barrel and the main substrate (Fig. 2a), comprising a mounting region on which the optical filter is mounted (Fig. 10), and a rim region disposed around the mounting region (Fig. 3, unnumbered recess region positioned below stopper “506”),
wherein the mounting region comprises:
a seating portion (Fig. 10; [215], lines 1 and 2) on which at least a part of a lower
surface of the optical filter is seated (Fig. 10);
an intermediate portion (Fig. 10, first surface “601a” and second surface
“602a”)extending outward and upward from the seating portion beginning at a point higher than the seating portion and lower than an upper surface of the optical filter (Fig. 10; [216], lines 1 and 2); and
a protruding portion disposed on an outer side of at least a part of the intermediate
portion and protruding upward (Fig. 3, top surface “505”; {The convex portion of top surface “505” protrudes upward with respect to the recessed (rim) region.}).
As to claim 2, Cha et al. teaches the camera module of claim 1, wherein in the optical axis direction, the protruding portion is disposed closer to the lens barrel than the rim region is to the lens barrel (Fig. 3).
As to claim 3, Cha et al. teaches the camera module of claim 1, wherein in the optical axis direction, the protruding portion is disposed closer to the lens barrel than the intermediate portion is to the lens barrel (Fig. 10).
As to claim 4, Cha et al. teaches the camera module of claim 1, wherein the intermediate portion disposed within the protruding portion has an arc shape (Figs. 3,4, and 10; {Note the four smaller arced surfaces at four corners of the seating part “500.”}).
As to claim 5, Cha et al. teaches the camera module of claim 1, wherein the seating portion has a quadrangular shape (Fig. 3), and
the protruding portion comprises a pair of protruding portions disposed outside a pair of facing edges of the seating portion, respectively (Fig. 3; {The top surface is disposed outside all edges of the seating part “500.”}).
As to claim 6, Cha et al. teaches the camera module of claim 5, wherein the seating portion has a pair of long side surfaces and a pair of short side surfaces (Fig. 3; note, also, [145], line 1), and
the protruding portions are disposed on outside edges of the pair of long side surfaces (Fig. 3; {The top surface is disposed outside all edges of the seating part “500.”}).
As to claim 8, Cha et al. teaches the camera module of claim 5, wherein the intermediate portion is disposed outside an edge of each of four sides of the seating portion (Fig. 3), and the intermediate portion has a tapered profile (Fig. 10; [216], lines 1 and 2).
As to claim 10, Cha et al. teaches the camera module of claim 6, wherein the intermediate portion disposed within the protruding portion has an arc shape (Figs. 3,4, and 10; {Note the four smaller arced surfaces at four corners of the seating part “500.”}).
As to claim 15, Cha et al. teaches the camera module of claim 8, wherein the intermediate portion comprises a stepped portion (Fig. 10, second surface “602a” and third surface “603a”), and
the stepped portion has a portion protruding outward (Fig. 10, second surface “602a” is inclined; [216], lines 1 and 2).
As to claim 16, Cha et al. teaches an image sensor module (Fig. 1, camera module “200”) comprising:
a main substrate (Fig. 2a, circuit board “800”);
an image sensor (Fig. 2a, image sensor “810”) disposed on the main substrate ([91], lines 1 and 2);
an optical filter (Fig. 2a, filter “610”) disposed on the image sensor (Fig. 2a); and
a sub-housing (Fig. 2a, filter holder “600”), disposed on the main substrate ([121]), comprising a mounting region on which the optical filter is mounted (Figs. 5 and 6), and a rim region disposed around the mounting region (Fig. 3, unnumbered recess region positioned below stopper “506”), wherein the mounting region comprises:
a seating portion on which at least a part of a lower surface of the optical filter is
seated (Figs. 5 and 6, seating part “500”);
an intermediate portion extending outward from the seating portion and being
higher than the seating portion and lower than an upper surface of the optical filter over an entirety of the intermediate portion (Fig. 6, third surface “603”), and
a protruding portion disposed outside at least a part of the intermediate portion
and being convex outward in a plan view (Fig. 3, top surface “505”; {A convex portion of top surface “505” protrudes upward with respect to the recessed (rim) region.}).
As to claim 17, Cha et al. teaches the image sensor module of claim 16, wherein the protruding portion protrudes further than the rim region in a direction opposite to the main substrate (Fig. 3).
As to claim 18, Cha et al. teaches the image sensor module of claim 16, wherein the protruding portion protrudes further than the intermediate portion in a direction opposite to the main substrate (Figs. 5 and 6).
As to claim 19, Cha et al. teaches the image sensor module of claim 16, wherein the intermediate portion disposed inside the protruding portion has an arc shape (Figs. 3,4, and 6; {Note the four smaller arced surfaces at four corners of the seating part “500.”}).
As to claim 20, Cha et al. teaches the image sensor module of claim 16, wherein the seating portion has a quadrangular shape (Fig. 3), and
the protruding portion comprises a pair of protruding portions disposed outside a pair of facing edges of the seating portion, respectively (Fig. 3; {The top surface is disposed outside all edges of the seating part “500.”}).
VI. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7,9, and 11-14 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 the examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 7, Cha et al. discloses a rim region that is lower than a protruding portion but only outside the edge of a single long side. Moreover, while Xiao et al. illustrates what can be reasonably construed as a rim region around a protruding portion, the examiner does not find Xiao et al. combinable with Cha et al. to produce a rim region lower than a protruding region because components of Cha’s camera module are designed to sit flush on the upper surface of the filter holder “600” (e.g., base “210,” coil “230,” and driving circuit board “250”). The upper surface would have to lowered to create the rim region. Claims 9 and 11 are allowable for the reasons detailed in the previous Office action. Also, as to claim 9, the portion of Cha’s inclined first surface disposed outside the long sides increases toward the long sides not the short sides. As to claim 11, Cha’s rim region has a convex portion, but it protrudes outward only from a single edge of the long side surfaces. Claims 12 and 13 are allowable because they depend on claim 11. Claim 14 is allowable for the reasons detailed in the previous Office action. Also, the examiner cannot identify a portion that extends from an arc-shaped portion of Cha’s intermediate portion.
VII. 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 ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
2/7/2026