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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 07/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 20210243342 A1, hereinafter, "Xu") in view of Woo & Jung (KR 20200046267 A, hereinafter, "Woo").
Regarding Claim 1, Xu teaches A camera module comprising: a base (Xu, Fig. 1, 30); and a filter unit disposed on the base (Xu, Fig. 1, 40); wherein the base includes: a first frame having a first opening and formed of an insulating material (Xu, Fig. 1, 31). Xu does not teach a second frame having a second opening, formed of a metal material and coupled to the first frame, wherein the first frame includes a receiving portion formed on an inner surface defining the first opening, wherein at least a portion of the second frame is inserted in the receiving portion, and wherein the filter unit is disposed on the second frame of the base. However, Woo teaches a second frame having a second opening, formed of a metal material and coupled to the first frame, wherein the first frame includes a receiving portion formed on an inner surface defining the first opening (Woo, Fig. 3, pg. 3, para. 11, ln. 1-2, "Referring to FIG. 3, the base 30 may include a first frame portion 310 made of a metal material, and a second frame portion 330 formed through insert injection into the first frame portion 310."), wherein at least a portion of the second frame is inserted in the receiving portion (Woo, Fig. 3, pg. 3, para. 11, ln. 1-2, "Referring to FIG. 3, the base 30 may include a first frame portion 310 made of a metal material, and a second frame portion 330 formed through insert injection into the first frame portion 310."), and wherein the filter unit is disposed on the second frame of the base (Woo, Fig. 3, pg. 3, para. 12, ln. 1, "In this case, a separate filter 350 may be mounted on the second frame unit 330."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Woo with those of Xu because it is widely known in the art to use two filter frame portions – one of metal and the other of an insulating material – and to mount an optical filter on the metal frame.
Regarding Claim 2, Xu and Woo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Woo teaches the second frame is coupled to the first frame by an insert injection method (Woo, Fig. 3, pg. 3, para. 11, ln. 1-2, "Referring to FIG. 3, the base 30 may include a first frame portion 310 made of a metal material, and a second frame portion 330 formed through insert injection into the first frame portion 310."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Woo with those of Xu and Woo because it is widely known in the art to form an insulating frame portion to a metal frame portion using an insert injection method.
Regarding Claim 3, Xu and Woo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Woo teaches at least another portion of the second frame protrudes toward the first opening of the first frame (Woo, pg. 4, para. 5, ln. 2-3, "The plurality of bent portions 313 may be formed in various lengths along the width and the side wall 311 protruding toward the inside from the top of the side wall 311."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Woo with those of Xu and Woo because it is widely known in the art to have a metal frame with portions protruding toward an inner opening.
Regarding Claim 4, Xu and Woo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 3 as noted above. Xu teaches an area of the second opening (Xu, Fig. 7, opening of 32) is smaller than an area of the first opening (Xu, Fig. 7, opening of 31 housing 40) and an area of the filter unit (Xu, Fig. 7, 102). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Xu with those of Xu and Woo because it is widely known in the art to have two differently sized openings in an optical filter frame wherein one opening is smaller than the area of the optical filter.
Regarding Claim 5, Xu and Woo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 3 as noted above. Woo teaches the receiving portion includes: a recess portion recessed in a horizontal direction from an inner surface of the first frame toward an outer surface of the first frame (Woo, Fig. 3, pg. 4, last para., ln. 1, "…the second frame portion 330 may have a stepped portion 334…"); and a hole portion penetrating the inner surface and the outer surface of the first frame along the horizontal direction (Woo, Fig. 3, pg. 4, last para., ln. 1-2, "…through which the filter 350 can be seated around the light passing hole 333."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Woo with those of Xu and Woo because it is widely known in the art to have a stepped portion in one optical filter frame and a passing hole through that frame.
Regarding Claim 12, Xu and Woo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 5 as noted above. Woo teaches the receiving portion is formed between an upper surface of the first frame and a lower surface of the first frame (Woo, Fig. 3, pg. 4-5, last para., ln. 2-3, "…the filter 350 can be stably fixed to the step portion 334 by bonding."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Woo with those of Xu and Woo because it is widely known in the art to affix an optical filter between two frames.
Regarding Claim 15, Xu and Woo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Woo teaches the second frame includes a non-magnetic metal material (Woo, pg. 3-4, last para., ln. 2-3, "The first frame portion 310 may be formed of a non-conductive or conductive metal material…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Woo with those of Xu and Woo because it is widely known in the art that optical frames can comprise either conductive or non-conductive materials.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Woo and Jung (KR 20150030906 A, hereinafter, "Jung").
Regarding Claim 16, Xu and Woo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Jung teaches the second frame includes a blackened coating layer (Jung, pg. 3, para. 4, ln. 3-4, "…the barrier member 100 may be formed of a matte black color which can easily absorb light so as to block the inflow of the noise."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Jung with those of Xu and Woo because it is widely known in the art that coloring an optical filter frame black absorbs light and blocks noise.
Claims 17, 18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Woo and Koh (US 5464979 A, hereinafter, "Koh").
Regarding Claim 17, Xu teaches A camera module comprising: an image sensor (Xu, Fig. 1, 10 & 20); an insulating frame disposed on the image sensor (Xu, Fig. 1, 33); a metal frame inserted in the insulating frame (Xu, Fig. 1, 32, [0052], ln. 3-4, "…the metal frame 32 embedded in the plastic platform 31 can greatly increase the strength of the support base 30 to form a better support."); and a lens disposed on the filter unit. Xu does not teach a filter unit disposed on the metal frame; wherein the insulating frame includes an inner surface defining a first opening, and wherein at least a portion of the metal frame protrudes inwardly toward the first opening than the inner surface of the insulating frame. However, Koh teaches a filter unit disposed on the metal frame (Koh, Fig. 4, Description [0009], ln. 2-3, "The optical filter/enclosure is preferably comprised of individual optical filters 32 disposed within a metal frame 33 having a base 34."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Koh with those of Xu because it is widely known in the art that an optical filter can be disposed on a metal frame. Woo teaches the insulating frame includes an inner surface defining a first opening (Woo, Fig. 3, pg. 3, para. 11, ln. 1-2, "Referring to FIG. 3, the base 30 may include a first frame portion 310 made of a metal material, and a second frame portion 330 formed through insert injection into the first frame portion 310."), and wherein at least a portion of the metal frame protrudes inwardly toward the first opening than the inner surface of the insulating frame (Woo, pg. 4, para. 5, ln. 2-3, "The plurality of bent portions 313 may be formed in various lengths along the width and the side wall 311 protruding toward the inside from the top of the side wall 311."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Woo with those of Xu and Koh because it is widely known in the art that a metal optical filter frame includes an inner surface defining an opening and that portions of said metal frame may protrude inward toward said opening.
Regarding Claim 18, Xu, Koh, and Woo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 17 as noted above. Xu teaches the insulating frame includes a receiving portion formed on the inner surface (Xu, Fig. 1, 34), wherein the metal frame includes a first portion inserted in the receiving portion, and a second portion protruding toward the first opening (Xu, Fig. 1, 32), and wherein an upper surface and a lower surface of the first portion of the metal frame are covered with an inner upper surface (Xu, Fig. 1, 34) and an inner lower surface (Xu, Fig. 1, 33 & 31) of the insulating frame defining the receiving portion (Xu, Fig. 1, 31, 33, & 34). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Xu with those of Xu, Koh, and Woo because it is widely known in the art that an insulating optical includes a receiving portion formed on an inner surface with a metal frame installed in said receiving portion and protruding toward an inner opening, and that said metal frame can be clamped in place from above and below with said insulating frame.
Regarding Claim 20, Xu, Koh, and Woo teach the limitations of dependent Claim 18 as noted above. Xu teaches at least a portion of the receiving portion penetrates the insulating frame along a horizontal direction from the inner surface of the insulating frame toward an outer surface of the insulating frame (Xu, Fig. 1, opening of 40 penetrates from the inside toward an outer surface of insulating frame 31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Xu with those of Xu, Koh, and Woo because it is widely known in the art for an opening to penetrate into an insulating layer toward the outside of the image filter frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 13, 14, 19, & 20 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. In addition to the prior art listed above, Junghwan (KR 20200052258 A, hereinafter, Junghwan"), Hack (KR 20200070176 A, hereinafter, "Hack"), and Chen et al (US 20210099695 A1, hereinafter, "Chen") were found by the Examiner as close relevant prior art. However, all were silent on the Claim limitations listed below.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fais to teach or render obvious the first frame includes a partition wall part dividing the receiving portion into a plurality of regions, and wherein the partition wall part penetrating the second frame inserted into the receiving portion.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious a sensor disposed on an upper surface of the reinforcement plate vertically overlapping the cavity of the circuit board and disposed in the cavity of the circuit board; and a connection member connecting between a terminal of the sensor and a pad of the circuit board, and wherein an uppermost end of the connection member is positioned higher than an upper surface of the circuit board.
Regarding Claim 8, it would be allowed because it is dependent on Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, it would be allowed because it is dependent on Claim 8 which is dependent on Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 10, it would be allowed because it is dependent on Claim 8 which is dependent on Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 11, it would be allowed because it is dependent on Claim 10 which is dependent on Claim 8 which is dependent on Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 13, it would be allowed because it is dependent on Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, it would be allowed because it is dependent on Claim 13 which is dependent on Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious the metal frame includes a second opening overlapping the first opening along an optical axis direction, and wherein a size of the second opening is larger than a size of the image sensor and smaller than a size of the first opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN DANIEL BARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1630.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 517-272-7372. 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.
/STEVEN DANIEL BARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights