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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the prior art does not teach the newly added limitation. The examiner disagrees with the applicant and has addressed the new limitations in the below office action.
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.
1: Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0174087 A1 Kim et al in view of US 2020/0186684 A1 Chen et al.
2: As for Claim 1, Kim et al teaches in Paragraph [0024] and depicts in Figures 1-4, camera module comprising: a reinforcing plate (200); a circuit board (100, 102 and 104) disposed on the reinforcing plate (200) and having a first through hole (sensor mounting hole for image sensor 300) and an image sensor (300) disposed in the first through hole (sensor mounting hole) of the circuit board (100, 102 and 104), However, the camera module of Kim et al only depicts and teaches a single sensor chip which further includes driving circuitry (circuitry for controlling the output of the active pixel sensor) to drive the image sensor (see Paragraph [0031]) disposed on the reinforcement plate (200) and does not teach
a driver device disposed in a second through hole of the circuit board, wherein the image sensor and the driver device overlap each other along the horizontal direction.
Chen et al depicts in Figures 1 and 4 and teaches in Paragraphs [0014-0016] a circuit board assembly for a camera module and teaches that it is advantageous when designing camera modules to enable a camera system to include multiple camera modules with multiple image sensors disposed apart from each other in the horizontal direction that are supported by a reinforcement plate in order to provide an imaging system with multiple cameras and therefore, improve image quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the camera system of Kim et al to include two image sensors spaced apart from each other disposed in sensor mounting holes resting on the reinforcement plate and spaced apart from each other in the horizontal direction as taught by Chen et al in order to improve image quality. Furthermore, the sensor mounting hole for the first image sensor can be viewed as the claimed first through-hole and the second sensor mounting hole for the second image sensor can be viewed as the second mounting hole for the driver device, since image sensors include driving circuitry and the second image sensor can be viewed as including a driver.
Furthermore, Kim et al teaches in Paragraph [0030] and depicts in Figure 4 a first adhesive member (330) disposed between the reinforcing plate (200) and the image sensor (300). Furthermore, in combination with Chen et al as discussed above, the system includes multiple image sensors within the examiner views the first image sensor as the claimed image sensor and the second image sensor that includes driving circuitry as the claimed driver device. Therefore, the combination teaches a second adhesive member (330 of the second image sensor) disposed between the reinforcing plate (200) and the driver device (driving circuitry within the second image sensor). The examiner asserts that he claim does not specify that the claimed driver device drives the claimed image sensor.
3: As for Claim 2, Chen et al further depicts in Figures 1 and 4 wherein the driver device (viewed as the driving circuitry included in the second image sensor) and the image sensor (viewed as the first image sensor of the two image sensors) are non-overlapping with each other along a vertical direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 3-18 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach wherein the reinforcing plate includes a first region overlapping in the vertical direction with the circuit board, a second region overlapping in the vertical direction with the first through hole, and a third region overlapping in the vertical direction with the second through hole, wherein an upper surface of the first region is in contact with the circuit board, wherein an upper surface of the second region is in contact with the first adhesive member, and wherein an upper surface of the third region is in contact with the second adhesive member when taken in combination with all the limitations of the independent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES M HANNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7309. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Monday thru Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JAMES M HANNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
JMH
April 7, 2026