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
Newly submitted claims 21-22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The newly presented claims do not overlap in scope with the previously presented claims: “is geometrically similar” and “is geometrically different” are mutually exclusive and not obvious variants.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues US Publication 2013/0016273 to Mueller fails to disclose, “a geometric center of the photosensitive chip coincides with a geometric center of the slot”, as recited in amended claims 1 and 7.
Mueller (FIG. 4-5) discloses a slot (9, paragraph 32) is provided on a reinforcing plate (5), and a photosensitive chip (6) is located in the slot (9). Mueller does not expressly disclose “a geometric center of the photosensitive chip coincides with a geometric center of the slot” as recited in amended claims 1 and 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Mueller and arrange a geometric center of the photosensitive chip to coincide with a geometric center of the slot, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for alignment with the curvature of the lenses for better imaging and for greater clearance with peripheral connection pads.
Additionally, such an arrangement is a mere design choice, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.V.C. Rearrangement of Parts: citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)(Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)(the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Accordingly, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Drawings
A replacement drawing sheet was received April 23, 2026. The drawings are acceptable and the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller.
Claim 1
Mueller (FIG. 4-5) discloses a circuit board reinforcing structure, wherein:
the circuit board reinforcing structure is used in a circuit board assembly, the circuit board assembly comprises a circuit board (4, paragraph 26) and a photosensitive chip (6, paragraph 15, 26), the circuit board (4) comprises a first surface and a second surface that are opposite to each other, and the photosensitive chip (6) is disposed on the first surface of the circuit board (4) and is electrically connected to the circuit board (4); and
the circuit board reinforcing structure comprises a reinforcing plate (5, paragraph 26), the reinforcing plate (5) comprises a third surface and a fourth surface that are opposite to each other, the reinforcing plate (5) and the circuit board (4) are fastened to each other, the third surface and the first surface are in surface contact, and both the reinforcing plate (5) and the photosensitive chip (6) are located on a side of the circuit board (4) on which the first surface of the circuit board (4) is located (FIG. 5), wherein a slot (9, paragraph 32) is provided on the reinforcing plate (5), and the photosensitive chip (6) is located in the slot (9).
Mueller does not expressly disclose “a geometric center of the photosensitive chip coincides with a geometric center of the slot”, as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Mueller and arrange a geometric center of the photosensitive chip to coincide with a geometric center of the slot, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for better alignment with the curvature of the lenses and improved imaging and for greater clearance from the support plate of the peripheral connection pads of the photosensitive chip.
Additionally, such an arrangement is a mere design choice, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.V.C. Rearrangement of Parts: citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)(Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)(the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 3
Mueller teaches the circuit board reinforcing structure according to claim 1, wherein a shape of the slot (9) is geometrically similar to a shape of an outer contour of the photosensitive chip (6)(FIG. 5, paragraph 20).
Claim 4
Mueller teaches the circuit board reinforcing structure according to claim 3, wherein both the shape of the slot (9, paragraph 20) and the shape of the outer contour of the photosensitive chip (6; see FIG. 3) are rectangular, a size of the slot (9) is greater than a size of the outer contour of the photosensitive chip (6; FIG. 5, paragraph 20), and a gap exists between a periphery of the slot (9) and the outer contour of the photosensitive chip (6; FIG. 5, paragraph 20)
Claim 5
Mueller teaches the circuit board reinforcing structure according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing plate (5) and the circuit board (4) are fastened to each other in at least one of the following manners: bonded to each other by using an adhesive, fastened by using a threaded connection member, fastened to each other by soldering, or fastened to each other in an integrally formed manner (paragraph 17).
Claim 6
Mueller teaches the circuit board reinforcing structure according to claim 1, wherein the photosensitive chip (6) is electrically connected to the circuit board (4) through a solder joint (paragraph 21)
Claim 7
Mueller (FIG. 4-5) discloses a photosensitive apparatus, wherein the photosensitive apparatus comprises a circuit board reinforcing structure, and wherein:
the circuit board reinforcing structure is used in a circuit board assembly, the circuit board assembly comprises a circuit board (4, paragraph 26) and a photosensitive chip (6, paragraph 15, 26), the circuit board (4) comprises a first surface and a second surface that are opposite to each other, and the photosensitive chip (6) is disposed on the first surface of the circuit board (4) and is electrically connected to the circuit board (4); and
the circuit board reinforcing structure comprises a reinforcing plate (5, paragraph 26), the reinforcing plate (5) comprises a third surface and a fourth surface that are opposite to each other, the reinforcing plate (5) and the circuit board (4) are fastened to each other, the third surface and the first surface are in surface contact, and both the reinforcing plate (5) and the photosensitive chip (6) are located on a side of the circuit board (4) on which the first surface of the circuit board (4) is located (FIG. 5), wherein a slot (9, paragraph 32) is provided on the reinforcing plate (5), and the photosensitive chip (6) is located in the slot (9).
Mueller does not expressly disclose “a geometric center of the photosensitive chip coincides with a geometric center of the slot”, as recited in claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Mueller and arrange a geometric center of the photosensitive chip to coincide with a geometric center of the slot, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for better alignment with the curvature of the lenses and improved imaging and for greater clearance from the support plate of the peripheral connection pads of the photosensitive chip.
Additionally, such an arrangement is a mere design choice, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.V.C. Rearrangement of Parts: citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)(Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)(the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 8
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the photosensitive apparatus further comprises the circuit board assembly, a holder (2, paragraph 29), and an optical system (2.1, paragraph 29) configured to collect light, the optical system (2.1) and the reinforcing plate (5) are fastened to the holder (2), an optical axis of the optical system (2.1) is perpendicular to a photosensitive surface of a photosensitive chip (6) of the circuit board assembly, a path is formed in the holder (2), and light passing through the optical system (2.1) is capable of reaching the photosensitive surface through the path (FIG. 5, paragraph 28-29).
Claim 9
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 8, as shown above.
Mueller does not expressly disclose wherein the reinforcing plate and the holder are integrally formed, as recited in claim 9.
Such an arrangement, however, the integral forming of two assemblies, is a mere engineering choice, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.V.B. Making Integral quoting In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965): “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”.
Claim 10
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the optical system (2.1) comprises a housing (2; see also claim 11 below: housing and holder integrally formed) and a lens element (2.1), and the lens element (2.1) is accommodated and disposed in the housing (2).
Claim 11
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the housing (2) and the holder (2) are integrally formed (FIG. 5).
Claim 12
Mueller discloses the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the housing (2) and the holder (2) are integrally formed (FIG. 5).
Mueller does not expressly disclose wherein the housing, the reinforcing plate, and the holder are integrally formed, as recited in claim 12.
Such an arrangement, however, the integral forming of three assemblies, is a mere engineering choice, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.V.B. Making Integral quoting In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965): “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”.
Claim 13
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 10, as shown above.
Mueller (FIG. 1-2) teaches wherein the housing (2) and the holder (12) are separately manufactured, a flange part is disposed on the housing (2), and the flange part and a peripheral part of a first opening of the path are fastened to each other (FIG. 1-2).
Note the separate housing 2 and holder 3 arrangement of Mueller is disclosed as prior art (FIG. 1-2). While a separate housing and holder arrangement is described by Mueller as “complicated”, this does not preclude the use of a separate housing and holder combined with the rest of the disclosure of Mueller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a separate housing and holder as disclosed as known in the art by Mueller, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for adjusting parameters such as focal length, lens arrangement and thickness within the lens assembly without having to change the holder, and allows for utilizing pre-packaged lens assemblies, allowing for sourcing from vendors rather than assembling the lenses, holder, and housing in one process step.
Claim 14
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the reinforcing plate (5) and the holder (2) are separately manufactured, and the reinforcing plate (5) and a peripheral part of a second opening of the path are fastened to each other (FIG. 5, paragraph 10).
Claim 15
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the reinforcing plate (5) and the holder (2) are fastened to each other by using an adhesive (3, paragraph 10, 26) and the adhesive (3) is fully cured after active assembly (FIG. 5, paragraph 10, 26)
Claim 16
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the photosensitive apparatus is a lens module or a lidar apparatus (Abstract).
Claim 18
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 7, wherein a shape of the slot (9) is geometrically similar to a shape of an outer contour of the photosensitive chip (6)(FIG. 5, paragraph 20).
Claim 19
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 18, wherein both the shape of the slot (9, paragraph 20) and the shape of the outer contour of the photosensitive chip (6; see FIG. 3) are rectangular, a size of the slot (9) is greater than a size of the outer contour of the photosensitive chip (6; FIG. 5, paragraph 20), and a gap exists between a periphery of the slot (9) and the outer contour of the photosensitive chip (6; FIG. 5, paragraph 20)
Claim 20
Mueller teaches the photosensitive apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the reinforcing plate (5) and the circuit board (4) are fastened to each other in at least one of the following manners: bonded to each other by using an adhesive, fastened by using a threaded connection member, fastened to each other by soldering, or fastened to each other in an integrally formed manner (paragraph 17).
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 NATHAN MILAKOVICH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/NATHAN MILAKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Prosecution Insights