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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/23/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,159,701 B2 Han. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the claims of the present invention are taught by the below cited claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 1 is taught by the limitations of Claim 1 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 2 is taught by the limitations of Claim 1 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 3 is taught by the limitations of Claim 5 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 4 is taught by the limitations of Claim 6 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 5 is taught by the limitations of Claim 9 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 6 is taught by the limitations of Claim 10 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 7 is taught by the limitations of Claim 11 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 8 is taught by the limitations of Claim 2 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 9 is taught by the limitations of Claim 3 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 10 is taught by the limitations of Claim 4 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 11 is taught by the limitations of Claim 8 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 12 is taught by the limitations of Claim 12 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 13 is taught by the limitations of Claim 13 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 14 is taught by the limitations of Claim 14 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 15 is taught by the limitations of Claims 1 and 14 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 16 is taught by the limitations of Claim 5 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 17 is taught by the limitations of Claim 6 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 18 is taught by the limitations of Claim 15 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 19 is taught by the limitations of Claim 2 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim 20 is taught by the limitations of Claim 1 of USPN 11,159,701 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 16 is 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 3 and 16 recite the limitation "the contact part" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1: Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102015110262 A1 Shaw (for examination purposed the examiner has relied upon the provided English translation).
2: As for Claim 1, Shaw depicts in Figures 2 and 4 and teaches in Paragraphs [0001, 0038, 0040, 0007 and 0041] A camera module, comprising: a front body (9); a lens (11) disposed on the front body (9); a rear body (10) coupled to the front body (9); a first substrate (19) disposed at an inner space between the front body (9) and the rear body (10); an image sensor disposed on the first substrate (Paragraph [0007]); a second substrate spaced apart from the first substrate in the inner space and electrically connected to the first substrate (Shaw teaches in Paragraphs [0007 and 0011] the camera module can have multiple PCBs); a connector (16) coupled to the second substrate (Paragraph [0040] and depicts in Figure 4)) and a cover (21) fixed in the rear body (10), wherein the cover (21) comprises a bottom plate (22) comprising a hole (24) in which the connector (16) is disposed, a side plate (23) extending from the bottom plate (22), and a pressing unit (26) disposed on the bottom plate (22) to elastically support the connector (16), wherein the connector (16) comprises a first surface facing an inner surface (24) of the bottom plate (22) of the cover (21), and a second surface (26) extending from the first surface (22) and disposed on the hole (24), and wherein the pressing unit (26) presses the second surface of the connector (16).
3: As for Claim 3, Shaw depicts in Figures 5 and 7 and teaches on Page 4, Paragraphs [3 and 4] wherein, the pressing unit (26) comprises a third extension part (multiple extensions are depicted) outwardly slantly (they are deformed when 16 is inserted) extending from the contact part.
4: As for Claim 4, Shaw depicts in Figures 5 and 7 wherein the pressing unit (26) comprises four pressing pieces each mutually spaced apart, and wherein the four pressing pieces equidistantly disposed on a circumference of the second surface of connector (16).
5: As for Claim 5, Shaw depicts in Figures 5 and 7 and teaches on Page 4, Paragraphs [3 and 4] wherein at least one part of the pressing unit (26) is disposed at a position lower than (they are deformed when 16 is inserted and will deform upward or downward) the bottom plate (22) of the cover (21).
6: As for Claim 6, Shaw depicts in Figures 5 and 7 wherein the pressing unit (26) comprises a first pressing piece and second pressing piece disposed opposite the first pressing piece, and wherein a pressing direction of the first pressing piece of the pressing unit is opposite to a pressing direction of the second pressing piece of the pressing unit (the spring elements (26) are arranged circumferentially and a spring element (26) opposite to another spring element will push in an opposite direction (all elements push toward the center of the opening).
7: As for Claim 7, Shaw depicts in Figures 5 and 7 wherein the connector (16) is fixed by the pressing unit (26).
8: As for Claim 11, Shaw teaches in Paragraph [0019] wherein the cover and an outer surface of connector are grounded.
9: As for Claim 20, Shaw depicts in Figures 2 and 4 and teaches in Paragraphs [0001, 0038, 0040, 0007 and 0041] A camera module, comprising: a body comprising a front body (9) and a rear body (10) coupled to the front body (9); a lens (11) disposed on the front body (9); and a first substrate (19) disposed in the body.
Conclusion
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
June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights