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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200135778 A1 to Li et al. in view of US 20220217226 A1 to Jing et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Li discloses a lens module comprising: a connecting board (See Fig. 2 portion 101) comprising a first surface, and the first surface defining a first groove (See Fig. 2 area within borders of layer 31); a circuit board (See Fig. 2 chip 20) at least partially disposed in the first groove and protruding from the first surface (as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4); a first adhesive layer disposed on the first surface besides the first groove (See Fig. 2 adhesive layer 31); a bracket (Fig. 2 bracket 30) adhered to the first adhesive layer (See at least Fig. 2 and Fig. 4); and a lens mounted on the bracket and facing the photosensitive film (Fig. 2 lens 60).
Li does not specifically disclose a photosensitive film disposed on the circuit board, although one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a photosensitive film disposed in at least a portion of a photosensitive chip.
However, Jing discloses the components of a photosensitive chip wherein a photosensitive film disposed on the board of the photosensitive chip (See para 663 and Fig. 47 showing layers 322B to 324B constitute a photosensitive layer of a photosensitive chip), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a photosensitive film disposed on the circuit board.
Regarding Claim 2. Li further discloses a second adhesive layer disposed in the first groove (See Fig. 2 and Fig.4 adhesive layer 21), wherein the circuit board is adhered to the second adhesive layer (See Fig. 2 and Fig.4).
Regarding Claim 3. Li further discloses a sum of a thickness of the second adhesive layer and a thickness of the circuit board is greater than a depth of the first groove (as shown in at least Fig. 4).
Li does not specifically disclose a photosensitive film disposed on the circuit board, although one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a photosensitive film disposed in at least a portion of a photosensitive chip.
However, Jing discloses the components of a photosensitive chip wherein a photosensitive film disposed on the board of the photosensitive chip (See para 663 and Fig. 47 showing layers 322B to 324B constitute a photosensitive layer of a photosensitive chip), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a photosensitive film disposed on the circuit board.
Regarding Claim 4. Li or Jing do not specifically disclose a height of the circuit board protruding from the first surface is equal to the thickness of the first adhesive layer.
However, the thickness of the first adhesive layer is a result-effective variables. In that, a thickness too thin will be insufficient to provide the proper adhesive strength and reduces clearance between components leading to damage, while a thickness too large will lead to an undesirable thickness in the overall device and would lead to optical components failing to work in conjunction due to the distance between each.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that a height of the circuit board protruding from the first surface is equal to the thickness of the first adhesive layer is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 5. Li further discloses an optical filter disposed between the lens and the photosensitive film (See Fig. 2 light filter 40).
Regarding Claim 6. Li further discloses a connecting base fixed on the circuit board (See at least Fig. 2 photosensitive chip 20), wherein the connecting base defines an opening, the connecting base comprising a flange protruding from an inner wall of the opening (See at least Fig. 2 lead 22), and the optical filter is fixed on the flange (See Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7. Li further discloses a third adhesive layer disposed on the flange (See at least Fig. 2 adhesive layer 41), wherein the optical filter is adhered to the third adhesive layer (See Fig. 2 or Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11. Li discloses an electronic device comprising: a lens module, the lens module comprising: a connecting board (See Fig. 2 portion 101) comprising a first surface, and the first surface defining a first groove (See Fig. 2 area within borders of layer 31); a circuit board (See Fig. 2 chip 20) at least partially disposed in the first groove and protruding from the first surface (as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4); a first adhesive layer disposed on the first surface besides the first groove (See Fig. 2 adhesive layer 31); a bracket (Fig. 2 bracket 30) adhered to the first adhesive layer (See at least Fig. 2 and Fig. 4); and a lens mounted on the bracket and facing the photosensitive film (Fig. 2 lens 60).
Li does not specifically disclose the lens module mounted to the casing and a photosensitive film disposed on the circuit board, although one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a photosensitive film disposed in at least a portion of a photosensitive chip.
However, Jing discloses a lens module mounted to the casing (See at least Fig. 1A or Fig. 26) and the components of a photosensitive chip wherein a photosensitive film disposed on the board of the photosensitive chip (See para 663 and Fig. 47 showing layers 322B to 324B constitute a photosensitive layer of a photosensitive chip), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the lens module mounted to the casing and a photosensitive film disposed on the circuit board, although one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a photosensitive film disposed in at least a portion of a photosensitive chip.
Regarding Claim 12. Li further discloses a second adhesive layer disposed in the first groove (See Fig. 2 and Fig.4 adhesive layer 21), wherein the circuit board is adhered to the second adhesive layer (See Fig. 2 and Fig.4).
Regarding Claim 13. Li further discloses a sum of a thickness of the second adhesive layer and a thickness of the circuit board is greater than a depth of the first groove (as shown in at least Fig. 4).
Li does not specifically disclose a photosensitive film disposed on the circuit board, although one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a photosensitive film disposed in at least a portion of a photosensitive chip.
However, Jing discloses the components of a photosensitive chip wherein a photosensitive film disposed on the board of the photosensitive chip (See para 663 and Fig. 47 showing layers 322B to 324B constitute a photosensitive layer of a photosensitive chip), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a photosensitive film disposed on the circuit board.
Regarding Claim 14. Li or Jing do not specifically disclose a height of the circuit board protruding from the first surface is equal to the thickness of the first adhesive layer.
However, the thickness of the first adhesive layer is a result-effective variables. In that, a thickness too thin will be insufficient to provide the proper adhesive strength and reduces clearance between components leading to damage, while a thickness too large will lead to an undesirable thickness in the overall device and would lead to optical components failing to work in conjunction due to the distance between each.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that a height of the circuit board protruding from the first surface is equal to the thickness of the first adhesive layer is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 15. Li further discloses an optical filter disposed between the lens and the photosensitive film (See Fig. 2 light filter 40).
Regarding Claim 16. Li further discloses a connecting base fixed on the circuit board (See at least Fig. 2 photosensitive chip 20), wherein the connecting base defines an opening, the connecting base comprising a flange protruding from an inner wall of the opening (See at least Fig. 2 lead 22), and the optical filter is fixed on the flange (See Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17. Li further discloses a third adhesive layer disposed on the flange (See at least Fig. 2 adhesive layer 41), wherein the optical filter is adhered to the third adhesive layer (See Fig. 2 or Fig. 4).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Jing as applied to claim 6 in view of US 20210397072 A1 to Ding.
Regarding Claim 8. As stated above Li and Jing discloses all the limitations of base claim 6.
Li and Jing do not specifically disclose the connecting base is adhered to the circuit board through the fourth adhesive layer.
However, Ding discloses the connecting base (Fig. 2 base 30) is adhered to the circuit board (Fig. 2 circuit board 50) through the fourth adhesive layer (Fig. 2 adhesive 52), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include the connecting base is adhered to the circuit board through the fourth adhesive layer.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Jing as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20210397072 A1 to Ding.
Regarding Claim 9. As stated above Li and Jing discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Li and Jing do not specifically disclose the connecting board comprised a metal plate.
However, Ding discloses the connecting board comprised a metal plate (Fig. 2 plate 80 para 19), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include the connecting board comprised a metal plate.
Regarding Claim 10. Ding further discloses the connecting board further defines a notch communicating with the first groove (See Fig. 2 with plate 80 with partial border and notch), the circuit board comprises a cable (See Fig. 2 circuit board 50), and the cable passes through the notch (as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Jing as applied to claim 16 in view of US 20210397072 A1 to Ding.
Regarding Claim 18. As stated above Li and Jing discloses all the limitations of base claim 16.
Li and Jing do not specifically disclose the connecting base is adhered to the circuit board through the fourth adhesive layer.
However, Ding discloses the connecting base (Fig. 2 base 30) is adhered to the circuit board (Fig. 2 circuit board 50) through the fourth adhesive layer (Fig. 2 adhesive 52), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include the connecting base is adhered to the circuit board through the fourth adhesive layer.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Jing as applied to claim 11 in view of US 20210397072 A1 to Ding.
Regarding Claim 19. As stated above Li and Jing discloses all the limitations of base claim 11.
Li and Jing do not specifically disclose the connecting board comprised a metal plate.
However, Ding discloses the connecting board comprised a metal plate (Fig. 2 plate 80 para 19), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include the connecting board comprised a metal plate.
Regarding Claim 20. Ding further discloses the connecting board further defines a notch communicating with the first groove (See Fig. 2 with plate 80 with partial border and notch), the circuit board comprises a cable (See Fig. 2 circuit board 50), and the cable passes through the notch (as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871