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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 11/26/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 1 and 4-6, and the cancellation of Claim(s) 3 and 7, filed 12/24/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 4-5 of Remarks, Applicant argues “Figure 4 of Zhang show a gap after the wedge unit is inserted into the groove. Accordingly, Zhang fails to teach or suggest that "a radially-outer dimension of the wedge unit is greater than a radially-inner dimension of the wedge settling unit, such that the wedge unit and the wedge settling unit form a press-fit structure" (emphasis added), as recited in claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to (https://engineerfix.com/what-is-a-press-fit-and-how-does-it-work/#google_vignette), the definition of press-fit (also known as an interference fit or friction fit), is a mechanical joint created by forcing two components together where one part is intentionally made slightly larger than the hole it is meant to fit into. Merriam-Webster defines press-fit as “the fit of a shaft driven into a hole slightly smaller than itself and held tight and motionless.” The claim limitations nor the definitions of press-fit mention not having gaps. Therefore, Zhang discloses a radially-outer dimension of the wedge unit (1021, Figure 4) is greater than a radially-inner dimension of the wedge settling unit (2021, Figure 4), such that the wedge unit (1021, Figure 4) and the wedge settling unit (2021, Figure 4) form a press-fit structure. Unless the claim limitation indicated no gaps are allowed, Zhang teaches the limitations of the claim.
On Page 5 of Remarks, Applicant argues “Independent claim 6 is directed to a method of manufacturing a camera apparatus. While of different scope than claim 1, independent claim 6 is amended to include subject matter from dependent claim 7 and recitations substantially similar to those argued above in relation to claim 1. Hence, claim 6 and the claims dependent thereupon are allowable over the cited prior art for at least reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to (https://engineerfix.com/what-is-a-press-fit-and-how-does-it-work/#google_vignette), the definition of press-fit (also known as an interference fit or friction fit), is a mechanical joint created by forcing two components together where one part is intentionally made slightly larger than the hole it is meant to fit into. Merriam-Webster defines press-fit as “the fit of a shaft driven into a hole slightly smaller than itself and held tight and motionless.” The claim limitations nor the definitions of press-fit mention not having gaps. Therefore, Zhang discloses a radially-outer dimension of the wedge unit (1021, Figure 4) is greater than a radially-inner dimension of the wedge settling unit (2021, Figure 4), such that the wedge unit (1021, Figure 4) and the wedge settling unit (2021, Figure 4) form a press-fit structure. Unless the claim limitation indicated no gaps are allowed, Zhang teaches the limitations of the claim.
On Page 6, regarding Claim 5, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 12/24/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 10/01/2025. Newly amended claims are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., (hereafter Zhang) (CN210142251U).
With respect to Claim 1, Zhang teaches a camera apparatus comprising: a unibody (1, Figure 1) including a lens barrel (101, Figure 1) and a front body (102, Figure 1); and a rear body (2, Figure 1) coupled with the unibody (1, Figure 1), wherein the lens barrel (101, Figure 1) and the front body (102, Figure 1) are integrated with each other to form one body (Figure 2) and not separable from each other, the unibody (1, Figure 1) and the rear body (2, Figure 1) are welded together (1 and 2 are connected by laser welding, ¶[0041]) by a laser beam (Figure 2) irradiated (¶[0051]) toward an outer portion of the rear body (2, Figure 1), the unibody includes a wedge unit (1021, Figure 4) on an outer portion thereof, and the rear body includes a wedge settling unit (2021, Figure 4) on an inner portion thereof (see Figure 4), and a radially-outer dimension of the wedge unit (1021, Figure 4) is greater than a radially-inner dimension of the wedge settling unit (2021, Figure 4), such that the wedge unit (1021, Figure 4) and the wedge settling unit (2021, Figure 4) form a press-fit structure (2021 and 1021 fit within one another in Figure 4).
Moreover, the further limitations of claim 1 are directed to method steps of making the device, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as use of spacers, retaining rings, and other mechanical means to hold the lens elements in place. The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.' In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”
With respect to Claim 2, Zhang further teaches wherein the unibody (1, Figure 1) is made of a non-transmissive material (laser-absorbing plastic, ¶[0041]) through which a laser beam cannot pass (laser-absorbing plastic, ¶[0041]), and the rear body (2, Figure 1) is made of a transmissive material through which a laser beam can pass (¶[0051]).
With respect to Claim 4, Zhang further teaches wherein the wedge unit (1021, Figure 1) and the wedge settling unit (2021, Figure 1) are welded together (1 and 2 are connected by laser welding, ¶[0041]) by the laser beam (laser welding, ¶[0041]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN210142251U) in further view of Okazaki (US 2009/0206698 A1).
With respect to Claim 5, Embodiment One of Zhang teaches the camera apparatus of Claim 1 and the unibody (1, Figure 1).
Embodiment One of Zhang fails to teach a rigidity enhancing unit that surrounds the outer portion of the unibody and that is configured to enhance the rigidity of the unibody.
Embodiment Two of Zhang teaches a rigidity enhancing unit (C, Figure 10) that surrounds the outer portion of the unibody (see how C surrounds the outer portion in Figure 10) and that is configured to enhance the rigidity of the unibody (¶[0040]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Embodiment One of Zhang having the camera apparatus with the teachings of Embodiment Two of Zhang having the rigidity enhancing unit for the purpose of not allowing UV light to pass through the unit, (¶[0040]).
Embodiment One of Zhang and Embodiment Two of Zhang fail to teach wherein the rigidity enhancing unit is detachably coupled to the outer surface of the unibody.
Embodiment One of Zhang and Embodiment Two of Zhang teach the camera and Okazaki teaches a vibration device used within a camera.
Okazaki teaches wherein the rigidity enhancing unit (40, Figure 1) is detachably (detachably mounted, ¶[0116]) coupled to the outer surface of the unibody (42, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Embodiment One of Zhang and Embodiment Two of Zhang having the camera apparatus with the teachings of Okazaki having the rigidity enhancing unit detachably coupled to the outer surface of the unibody for the purpose of interchanging units for various shutter speeds and f-stops (well-known in the art).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN210142251U).
With respect to Claim 6, Zhang teaches a method of manufacturing a camera apparatus, comprising processes of: inserting a part of a unibody (1, Figure 1) including, a lens barrel (101, Figure 1) and a front body (102, Figure 1) that are integrated with each other and not separated from each other, into a rear body (2, Figure 1); and welding the part of the unibody (1, Figure 1) and a part of the rear body (2, Figure 1) together by irradiating a laser beam to an outer portion of the rear body (2, Figure 1), wherein the inserting process includes a process of pushing the unibody (1, Figure 1) into the rear body (2, Figure 1) forcibly so that a wedge unit (1021, Figure 4) formed on an outer portion of the unibody (1, Figure 1) and a wedge settling unit (1021, Figure 4) formed on an inner portion of the rear body (2, Figure 1) form a press-fit structure (see Figures 1 and 4), and a radially-outer dimension (outer dimension of 1021, Figure 4) of the wedge unit (1021, Figure 4) is greater than a radially-inner dimension (inner dimension of 1021, Figure 4) of the wedge settling unit (1021, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 8, Zhang further discloses wherein the laser beam is irradiated (¶[0051]) in a direction perpendicular (horizontally, ¶[0051]) to a central axis of the rear body (2, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 9, Zhang further discloses wherein, in the welding process, the rear body (2, Figure 1) rotates in situ while the laser beam is irradiated (¶[0051]) to the rear body (2, Figure 1) and the axis of the in-situ rotation (¶[0043]) of the rear body (2, Figure 1) corresponds to a central axis of the rear body (2, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 10, Zhang further discloses, wherein, in the welding process, a laser beam (laser A, Figure 1) is simultaneously irradiated (¶[0051]) toward an entire outer circumference (¶[0051]) of the rear body (2, Figure 1).
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 TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights