Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10057467, 10750066, 11496659, 12096108 in view of the art used in the 103 below. The main differences between the limitations of current application and the patents appears to be the angles and directions of bending surfaces which, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to provide an alternate mechanism to attach the PCBs using fasteners that also can limit the movement of the portions of the PCB (Garman 2:20-31) and taught by Garman below with fasteners in order to ground circuits mounted in place (2:32-9).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-11 13-18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garman US 3066367 in view of Yang US 2006/0189183
Garman discloses:
1. A camera module, comprising: a first PCB (printed circuit board) (Figs. 1-6: A, B, 10); disposed below the first PCB (Figs. 1-6: A, B, 10); wherein the outer shield includes four sidewalls disposed between the first PCB and the second PCB, a hole extending from any one of the four sidewalls and coupled to a portion of a side of the second PCB, and an extension portion inclined at a predetermined angle from the hole formation area (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 17-22).
Garman does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yang teaches An outer shield, a second PCB disposed below the first PCB and coupled to the outer shield (Fig. 3: 22, 3, 13; 0031; 0036-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to metal layer is conductive so that it offers protection from electromagnetic interference (EMI) (Yang 0031)
2. The camera module of claim 1, wherein the outer shield has a support surface in surface contact with the second PCB (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22).
3. The camera module of claim 2, wherein the support surface is formed by bending at a right angle from the sidewall (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22).
4. The camera module of claim 2, wherein the support surface is formed by bending inward from the sidewall (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 17-22).
5. The camera module of claim 1, comprising: a first PCB (printed circuit board) including a first ground part; and a second PCB including a second ground part; wherein the outer shield includes a tension spring that is partially bent from the sidewall and disposed at positions corresponding to the first and second ground parts (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
6. The camera module of claim 5, wherein the first ground part and the second ground part are respectively disposed on a side surface, an upper surface, or a lower surface of the first PCB and the second PCB (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
7. The camera module of claim 6,
Garman does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yang teaches wherein a plurality of the first ground part and the second ground part are provided along a circumference of the first PCB and the second PCB, respectively. (Fig. 3: 22, 3, 13, 14; Fig. 5; 0029-0031; 0036-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to metal layer is conductive so that it offers protection from electromagnetic interference (EMI) (Yang 0031)
8. The camera module of claim 5, wherein the tension spring is in contact with the first ground part and the second ground part (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 112-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
9. The camera module of claim 5, wherein a hole is formed around the tension spring (Figs. 1-6: 17-22;.
10. The camera module of claim 8, wherein the tension spring includes a first pressing part in contact with the first ground part and a second pressing part in contact with the second ground part (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
11. The camera module of claim 10, wherein a pair of the first and second pressing parts are vertically (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
Garman does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yang teaches disposed on a side surface of the outer shield. (Fig. 3: 22, 3, 13, 14)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to metal layer is conductive so that it offers protection from electromagnetic interference (EMI) (Yang 0031)
13. The camera module of claim 1, wherein the outer shield supports at least three surfaces of the first and second PCBs (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
14. The camera module of claim 5, wherein the outer shield is electrically connected to the first and second ground parts, and the first and second PCBs are grounded through the outer shield (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
15. The camera module of claim 1, wherein the outer shield has a sidewall surface greater than a sum of a thicknesses of the first and second PCBs and a spacing therebetween (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
16. The camera module of claim 5, wherein a distance between the first PCB and the second PCB is determined by the tension spring (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
17. The camera module of claim 10, wherein a distance between the first PCB and the second PCB is determined by a distance between the first pressing part and the second pressing part (Figs. 1-6: 4 fasteners F, 12-22; 2:32-9; would be obvious to do two groundings considering combination).
18. The camera module of claim 5, wherein the tension spring (Figs. 1-6: 17-22;)
Garman does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yang teaches one body with a side wall of the outer shield (Fig. 3: 22, 3, 13, 14; Fig. 5; 0029-0031; 0036-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to metal layer is conductive so that it offers protection from electromagnetic interference (EMI) (Yang 0031)
Claim 12 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garman US 3066367 in view of Yang US 2006/0189183 and Nakamura US 2011/0199485.
12. The camera module of claim 1,
Garman does not explicitly disclose the following, however Nakamura teaches comprising: a lens module disposed over the first PCB and configured to transfer an image to the image sensor; and a cover member configured to cover a top of the lens module and the first PCB (Fig. 5: 20, 11, 12, 14, 15; 0050 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to the unit of the lens barrel and the imaging mechanism is commonly applicable to various housings fit for various vehicles having different external designs (Nakamura 0050).
19. Garman does not explicitly disclose the following, however Nakamura teaches A vehicle comprising the camera module of claim 1. (0050 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to the unit of the lens barrel and the imaging mechanism is commonly applicable to various housings fit for various vehicles having different external designs (Nakamura 0050).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2483