Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/928,185

IMAGING UNIT

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 28, 2024
Examiner
HENN, TIMOTHY J
Art Unit
2639
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Nidec Precision Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
910 granted / 1062 resolved
+23.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1083
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1062 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Interpretation Claim(s) 1-11 do not use “means for” (or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for "means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.[claims 6 and 8] Claim 6 recites “wherein the plurality of first connectors is shorter at positions closer to the main substrate in the first direction”. Claim 8 recites “wherein the plurality of second connectors is shorter at positions closer to the main substrate in the first direction”. The term “shorter” in claims 6 and 8 is a term of comparison which requires a point of reference, however the claims as written do not particularly define what the plurality of first/second connectors at positions closer to main substrate must be shorter than. Additionally, the term “closer” in claims 6 and 8 is similarly a term of comparison which lacks a particularly defined point of reference. Thus, it is unclear what the sections must be “shorter” than and “closer” to. For the purposes of applying prior art, claim 6 will be read as requiring “wherein a first one of the plurality of first connectors located at a position closer to the main substrate than a second one of the plurality of first connectors is shorter than the second one of the plurality of first connectors”. Similarly, for the purposes of applying prior art, claim 8 will be read as requiring “wherein a first one of the plurality of second connectors located at a position closer to the main substrate than a second one of the plurality of second connectors is shorter than the second one of the plurality of second connectors”. Clarification is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano (US 2016/0338579 A1) in view of Official Notice.[claim 1] Regarding claim 1, Amano discloses a imaging unit comprising: a main substrate (e.g. Figure 10, 501) having a first surface (e.g. Figure 10, 501b) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (e.g. Figure 10, 501a); a lens module including at least one lens having an optical axis in a first direction and an image sensor mounted on the first surface of the main substrate (Figure 2, 400; Paragraphs 0039, 0041-0042, 0046, 0048); and a flexible portion connected to the image sensor in the lens module (e.g. Figures 8-10, 507 and 509), the flexible portion including a first bent portion including bends and extending from the main substrate substantially in the first direction, the first bent portion having a first width in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figure 10, 507 extends substantially in the optical axis direction (Z) and has a width in both the X and Y directions (i.e. the directions perpendicular to Z, note that the second direction may be defined to be either X or Y)), and a second bent portion including bends and extending from the main substrate substantially in the first direction, the second bent portion having a second width in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and to the second direction (Figure 10, 509 extends substantially in the optical axis direction (Z) and has a width in both the X and Y directions (i.e. the directions perpendicular to Z, note that the third direction may be defined to be the other of X or Y)), wherein the first bent portion in the flexible portion includes a plurality of first spans extending in the third direction and arranged in the first direction (Figures 8-10, 507 includes spans extending in the other of X or Y directions), and at least one first connector connecting the plurality of first spans adjacent to each other in the first direction (Figures 8-10, 507 includes connectors extending in Z direction), and the second bent portion in the flexible printed circuit board includes a plurality of second spans extending in the second direction and arranged in the first direction (Figures 8-10, 509 includes spans extending in the X or Y directions), and at least one second connector connecting the plurality of second spans adjacent to each other in the first direction (Figures 8-10, 507 includes connectors extending in Z direction). Amano does not explicitly disclose that the flexible portions are printed circuit board containing wiring. However, it is noted that the flexible portions of Amano connect the image sensor (501) to image processing circuitry (503). Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art that flexible printed circuit boards (FPCBs) are commonly used to connect image sensors to processing circuits because FPCBs facilitate compact electronic assemblies and provide electrical connections between components arranged in three dimensions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use FPCBs as the flexible portions of Amano so that electrical connection could be made between the image sensor and image processing components while producing a tightly assembled package.[claim 2] Regarding claim 2, Amano discloses wherein the at least one first connector and the at least one second connector extend in the first direction (Figures 8-10; note that connectors 507 and 509 extend in both X and Y directions).[claim 3] Regarding claim 3, Amano discloses wherein the plurality of first spans has a same length in the third direction (Figures 8-10; note that the first spans have a consistent width in the A direction; note that depending on how the axes are defined the A direction might be either the X or Y direction and thus under one interpretation could be considered the “third direction” as claimed).[claim 4] Regarding claim 4, Amano discloses wherein the plurality of second spans has a same length in the second direction (Figures 8-10; note that the second spans have a consistent width in the A direction; note that the axes may be alternately defined such that the A direction is considered the “second direction” as claimed). Additionally note that while claims 3 and 4 require defining the axes in different ways, since claims 3 and 4 do not depend on each other no conflict is raised by using a differently defined set of axes for claim 3 as compared to claim 4.[claim 5] Regarding claim 5, Amano discloses wherein the at least one first connector includes a plurality of first connectors alternating with one another in the third direction across the plurality of first spans arranged in the first direction (Figure 10; note connectors are arranged on alternating sides).[claim 6] Regarding claim 6, Amano discloses wherein the plurality of first connectors is shorter at positions closer to the main substrate in the first direction (Figure 10, note a first one of the first connector in 507 is shorter at a position closer to the 501 than a second one of the first connector located at a position farther away from 501).[claim 7] Regarding claim 7, Amano discloses wherein the at least one second connector includes a plurality of second connectors alternating with one another in the second direction across the plurality of second spans arranged in the first direction (Figure 10; note connectors are arranged on alternating sides).[claim 8] Regarding claim 8, Amano discloses wherein the plurality of second connectors is shorter at positions closer to the main substrate in the first direction (Figure 10, note a first one of the first connector in 509 is shorter at a position closer to the 501 than a second one of the first connector located at a position farther away from 509).[claim 10] Regarding claim 10, Amano discloses wherein the plurality of second spans has middles in the second direction shifted in the second direction from a middle of the main substrate in the second direction (Figures 9 and 10; note middles of the spans do not perfectly align with the middle of the main substrate in the second direction).[claim 11] Regarding claim 11, Amano discloses wherein the first bent portion and the second bent portion are within the main substrate when viewed in the first direction (e.g. Figures 9-10; note that the claim as written does not require that the first and second bent portions be entirely within the main substrate when viewed from the first direction). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 9 is 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 9] Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the plurality of first spans has middles in the third direction aligned with a middle of the main substrate in the third direction. While Amano discloses a plurality of spans having a middle, the middle of the spans is not aligned with the middle of the main substrate as required by the claim (see e.g. Figures 8-10 of Amano). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shia et al. US 2025/0170362 A1 Heijne et al. US 2024/0364993 A1 Kim et al. US 2024/0048835 A1 Li et al. US 2023/0336855 A1 Ke et al. US 2023/0048452 A1 Gunji et al. US 2022/0124225 A1 Karavakis et al. US 2020/0296840 A1 Kim et al. US 2019/0132954 A1 Lim et al. US 2019/0097339 A1 Unsai US 2018/0317756 A1 Kajiya et al. US 2014/0102771 A1 Staiger US 2003/0061696 A1 Tanabe et al. EP 0541449 A2 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~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, 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. /Timothy J Henn/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604103
Multi-Factor Assessment to Detect Image Capture Device Smudges and Corresponding Electronic Devices and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596298
CAMERA MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593124
IMAGE ACQUISITION METHOD AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587753
IMAGE SENSOR AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587730
CAMERA MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+11.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1062 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month