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 .
This action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/23/2026
Application is a 371 of PCT/KR2023/000788 01/17/2023
Application claims a FP date of 01/27/2022
Claims 11, 26 and 30 are independent
Claims 11-12, 16, 25-27 and 30 have been amended
Claims 11-30 are pending
Response to Arguments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with regards to drawings and specifications have been fully considered and are persuasive. In view of the amendments made, these objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
In view of the arguments presented with regards to amendments and prior art rejections Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of independent claims under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim and a detailed explanation and rejection is presented in the following action.
In view of the above arguments, Examiner would like to maintain the rejections as detailed in the following 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 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.
Claims 11-16, 19-22 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Number 12,238,418 B1 which has an effective filing date of Sep 23, 2021 and therefore prior art) in view of Xia et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0214681 A1 which has an effective filing date of May 31, 2021 and therefore prior art) and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0021744 A1)
Regarding Claim 11, Yang discloses a camera device (Fig 1- camera 100) comprising:
a first substrate (Fig 1A, 1B – Base 165 has been interpreted as “a first substrate”);
a second substrate (Fig 1A, 1B – Substrate 2nd block 130 along with Substrate 1st block 125 has been interpreted as “a second substrate”) disposed on the first substrate (Figs 1A, 1B clearly discloses this);
a first stiffener (Fig 1A, 1B – Stiffener 175) disposed “in” the second substrate (Figs 1A, 1B clearly discloses this);
an image sensor (Fig 1A, 1B – Image sensor 110) disposed on the first stiffener (In Fig 1A, 1B and in Col 6, lines 18-22, Yang discloses that the stiffener 175 is used to further reinforce mounting of image sensor 110);
a connection substrate connecting the first substrate and the second substrate (In Col 6, lines 1-30, Yang discloses that the first substrate block 125 and a second substrate block 130 may be joined together and has therefore been interpreted as “the second substrate”. Further he also discloses that the inner frame suspension structure 150 may be affixed to substrate block 125 and the outer frame suspension structure 150 maybe fixedly coupled with the base 165 (which has been interpreted as the first substrate); and
a drive unit configured to move the image sensor with respect to the first substrate (In Col 6, lines 40-45, Yang discloses that image sensor 110 may be controlled using one or more actuators),
wherein the first stiffener (Fig 1A, 1B – Stiffener 175) comprises:
a first surface disposed with the image sensor (The upper surface of the stiffener 175 has been interpreted as the first surface on which the image sensor 110 is disposed – See Fig 1A, 1B);
a second surface opposite to the first surface (The opposite side has been interpreted as a second surface);
Yang discloses stiffener 175 however, Yang fails to clearly disclose a plurality of grooves formed on the second surface and spaced apart from each other.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Xia discloses a plurality of grooves formed on the second surface and spaced apart from each other (In Fig 4 Xia teaches about the bottom plate 112 and the annular sealing plate 19 with the transfer fluid 18; In Fig 16 and in ¶0156-¶0157, Xia teaches about elongated groves 192).
Yang and Xia are combinable because both are related to imaging devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the annular sealing plate 19 as taught by Xia behind the stiffener as disclosed by Yang.
Yang in view of Xia fails to clearly disclose wherein the plurality of grooves of the first stiffener overlap the image sensor in a direction of an optical axis of the image sensor.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Kim discloses wherein the plurality of grooves of the first stiffener overlap the image sensor in a direction of an optical axis of the image sensor (In Fig 4 Kim teaches the protruding portion 901-1 to 901-n. These are spaced apart from each other and Fig 1-3 and 5-6 clearly teaches that the image sensor overlaps the grooves of the stiffener in the optical axis direction)
Yang, Xia and Kim are combinable because all are related to imaging devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the stiffener overlapping the image sensort as taught by Kim in the device as disclosed by Yang in view of Xia.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “increase the bonding between the image sensor and a stiffener” as disclosed by Kim in ¶0004 and throughout Kim’s disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yang, Xia and Kim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses wherein each of the plurality of grooves of the first stiffener is formed in a first direction perpendicular to the (Xia: Xia teaches this in Fig 16 where he teaches about the grooves 192. Since the sealing plate is in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis, it is clear that the grooves are in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis. Xia’s groove could be interpreted to be greater than a length of the image sensor. However, even though Xia does not clearly disclose the length, examiner would like to state that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the length greater than the length of image sensor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.).
Regarding Claim 13, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses wherein the first stiffener comprises a first groove and a second groove disposed furthest from each other in a second direction perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first direction (Xia: Xia teaches this in Fig 16 where he teaches about the grooves 192 that are in two directions perpendicular to each other and also perpendicular to the optical axis direction), and wherein a distance between the first groove and the second groove is shorter than a length of the image sensor in corresponding direction (This feature is clearly disclosed in Fig 16 and 17 where it can be seen that the distance between the grooves are shorter than the length of the image sensor in the corresponding direction).
Regarding Claim 14, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses comprising a third substrate (Yang: Yang’s disclosure of Z protection structure 160 has been interpreted as “a third substrate”) disposed on a lower surface of the second substrate (Yang: exploded view of Fig 1A discloses that the Z protection structure 160 is disposed below substrate 2nd block and substrate 1st block 125 which has been interpreted as the second substrate) and comprising a hole (Yang: Fig 1A discloses the two ends of the Z protection structure 160. When viewed from top, it will clearly discloses the hole), wherein the first stiffener is disposed on a lower surface of the third substrate (Yang: exploded view of Fig 1A discloses that stiffener 175 is disposed on a lower surface of the Z protection structure 160), and wherein the image sensor is disposed on an upper surface of the first stiffener and disposed on the hole of the third substrate (Yang: Yang’s Fig 1A discloses this feature too).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses comprising a second stiffener disposed on an upper surface of the first substrate, wherein a gap is formed between the first stiffener and the second stiffener (Xia: Xia teaches this in Fig 15 where he teaches that sealing plate 19 is on the bottom plate 112 and since they are not fixed it is reasonable to interpret that there is a gap).
Regarding Claim 16, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 15 except for wherein in the direction of the optical axis, the gap between the first stiffener and the second stiffener is greater than a thickness of the second stiffener and smaller than a thickness of the first substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein in an optical axis direction, the gap between the first stiffener and the second stiffener is greater than a thickness of the second stiffener and smaller than a thickness of the first substrate, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 19, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses wherein the first stiffener comprises a protruding portion protruded from an upper surface and disposed on the hole of the third substrate (Xia: In Fig 15 and in ¶0151 Xia teaches that the sealing plate 19 maybe an uneven corrugated surface, and a recessed area between two adjacent protrusions of the corrugated surface is used to store the heat transfer fluid 18), and wherein the image sensor is disposed on an upper surface of the protruding portion of the first stiffener (Xia: In Fig 15, Xia also teaches that the image sensor 161 is disposed on top of the protrusion or corrugated surface).
Regarding Claim 20, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses a main body (Yang: Fig 5 – Device 500); the camera device (Yang: Fig 5 – cameras 504a, 504b) of claim 11 disposed on the main body; and a display (Yang: Fig 5 – display system 502) disposed on the main body and configured to output an image photographed by the camera device (Yang: Col 11).
Regarding Claim 21, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses wherein an upper surface of the image sensor (Yang: image sensor 110) is disposed at a height corresponding with an upper surface of the third substrate (Yang: Upper surface of Yang’s Z protection structure 160 – interpreted as the third substrate corresponds to the upper surface of the image sensor 110 as shown in the exploded view of Fig 1A).
Regarding Claim 22, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses wherein the drive unit comprises a coil (Yang: Fig 1B – OIS coil 135) disposed on the second substrate (Yang: Fig 1B discloses that this is disposed on Substrate 2nd block 130 – which has been interpreted as the second substrate) and a magnet (Yang: magnet 340) configured to interact with the coil (Yang: In Col 10, lines 5-20 Yang discloses that the magnets 340 interacts with the OIS coils 335 and AF coils to move the image sensor 310).
Regarding Claim 25, Yang in view of Xia and Kim discloses a lens (Yang: Fig 1A – lens 105) disposed on the image sensor (Yang: image sensor 110 is disposed below the lens 110); and a second drive unit configured to move the lens with respect to the image sensor in the direction of the optical axis (In Col 6, lines 40-55, Yang discloses that the movement of the lenes 105 may be controlled using one or more actuators).
Regarding Claim 26, this claims has limitations parallel to Claim 11. Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim11.
Regarding Claim 27, this claims has limitations parallel to Claim 12. Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim12.
Regarding Claim 28, this claims has limitations parallel to Claim 13. Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim13.
Regarding Claim 29, this claims has limitations parallel to Claim 14. Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim14.
Regarding Claim 30, this claims has limitations parallel to Claim 11. Claim 30 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim11.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Number 12,238,418 B1 which has an effective filing date of Sep 23, 2021 and therefore prior art) in view of Xia et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0214681 A1 which has an effective filing date of May 31, 2021 and therefore prior art) and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0021744 A1) as applied to Claim 15 above and further in view of Hsu et al (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0288022 A1)
Regarding Claim 17, Yang in view of Xia and Kim fails to clearly disclose wherein the first substrate comprises an insulation layer and a conductive layer, wherein the conductive layer of the first substrate comprises an open region where the insulation layer is omitted from a lower surface of the first substrate, and wherein an area of the open region of the conductive layer is more than 70% of a total area of the lower surface of the first substrate.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Hsu discloses wherein the first substrate (Fig 3-substrate 10) comprises an insulation layer (Fig 3-insulating layer 20 and 40) and a conductive layer (Fig 3-thermal conductive adhesive 50), wherein the conductive layer of the first substrate comprises an open region where the insulation layer is omitted from a lower surface of the first substrate (Fig 3 discloses the open region in the insulating layer 20 and 40), and wherein an area of the open region of the conductive layer is more than 70% of a total area of the lower surface of the first substrate (Fig 3 discloses the area of the conductive region and it is reasonable to interpret that this region is about 70% of the total area).
Yang, Xia, Kim and Hsu are combinable because both are related to imaging devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use insulating and conductive layer as taught by Hsu in the imaging device disclosed by Yang in view of Xia and Kim.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “prevent the circuit from being electrically connected to the circuit layer 30 to cause a short circuit problem” as disclosed by Hsu in ¶0045.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yang, Xia, Kim and Hsu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 23 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.
Claim 24 is objected as it depends on objected claim 23.
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 PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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, 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 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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 February 25, 2026