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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group II, namely claims 18-20 in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20120039060; “Kim” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 18: Kim discloses: a system comprising:
an optical module (100, fig. 1) comprising:
one or more optical components (121, fig. 1, image sensor, ¶[0026], ¶[0029]);
an optical module substrate (110, fig. 1), wherein the optical module substrate protrudes on at least one side of the module (figs. 1-3), wherein the protruding portion of the module substrate comprises one or more grounding pads (111, fig. 2); and
an EMI shield (130, fig. 1, ¶[0031]), wherein the EMI shield comprises at least one shield component (133, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 18, and further discloses:
wherein the EMI shield is coupled to the optical module substrate via at least one of:
conductive adhesive;
solder paste; or
jetted solder (140, fig. 4-5, ¶[0041]-[0043]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Zhao et al (US 20180020131; “Zhao” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the optical module substrate comprises grounded conductive vias which span across the thickness of the optical module substrate and wherein the conductive vias surround the perimeter of the optical module substrate.
However, Zhao discloses:
an optical module substrate (112, fig. 1A) comprises grounded conductive vias (124, 126, fig. 1A) which span across the thickness of the optical module substrate and wherein the conductive vias extends towards a perimeter of the optical module substrate (¶[0035], [0051], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine Zhao’s teaching into Kim, so that the optical module substrate comprises grounded conductive vias which span across the thickness of the optical module substrate and wherein the conductive vias surround the perimeter of the optical module substrate, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Zhao. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is:
US 20090021635 A1 Camera Module. This invention relates generally to a camera, and more particularly to a circuit board of the camera having an electromagnetic shielding device.
US 20220113608 A1 Camera Module. This invention generally relates to a camera module, comprising: a housing; an elastic member; a holder; a magnet; a coil; a lens module; and a filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841