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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the communication filed 7/10/2026.
The Amendments to Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5, filed 7/10/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
The Cancellation of Claim 2, filed 7/10/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Claims 6-10 are still withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (2021/0306530), hereinafter Wang in view of Zhang, Kou-wen (CN 211018953), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses, in figures 4, 6A, and 6B, a camera device (camera module) (paragraph 0295) comprising: a circuit board (1012, window-form circuit board which includes 10121, circuit board main body) having a through hole (10122, window) (paragraph 0308), a first surface, and a second surface opposite to the first surface (top and bottom surfaces of the circuit board) (figure 6A), wherein the through hole (10122, window) penetrates the first surface and the second surface (paragraph 0309 discloses the window is received in the circuit board), and the first surface is provided with a photosensitive element (1011, photosensitive element) (paragraph 0309); and a lens holder (1030, actuator) (paragraph 0297 discloses the lens 1020 is installed on the actuator 1030) having an axle hole (see annotated figure 6A) and an assembling surface (1013, packaging body) and comprising a welding column, wherein the assembling surface is fixed to the first surface of the circuit board through a light curing adhesive layer, so that the photosensitive element is in the axle hole (paragraph 0311 discloses an adhesive is used to adhere the components to the circuit board).
Wang does not specifically disclose wherein the lens holder has an outer peripheral portion, the welding column integrally extends from the outer peripheral portion, the welding column of the lens holder is made of thermoplastic material and comprises a column body and a welding head, the column body is in the through hole, the welding column passes through the through hole, and the welding head is welded and fixed to the circuit board.
Zhang discloses wherein the lens holder (12, lens seat) has an outer peripheral portion (121, leg) (paragraph 30), the welding column (121, leg) integrally extends from the outer peripheral portion (figures 1 and 2), the welding column (121, leg) of the lens holder (12, lens seat) is made of thermoplastic material and comprises a column body (14, supporting member) and a welding head, the column body (14, supporting member) is in the through hole (141, through hole), the welding column passes through the through hole (paragraph 30), and the welding head is welded and fixed to the circuit board (13, circuit board) (paragraph 30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Wang with the welding column and through hole of Zhang for the purpose of affixing the lens holder to the circuit board.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses wherein the circuit board (13, circuit board) has a plurality of the through holes (141, through hole) (paragraph 30) (figure 1 shows 2 of the through holes), the through holes are at two opposite sides of the lens holder (figure 1 shows the through holes are on opposing sides), the lens holder (12, lens seat) comprises a plurality of the welding columns (121 leg) (paragraph 30), the welding columns respectively extends from two opposite sides of the outer peripheral portion (1211, extension end and figure 1 shows the welding columns extend), and each of the welding columns passes through a corresponding one of the through holes and is welded and fixed to the circuit board (paragraph 30).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (2021/0306530), hereinafter Wang in view of Zhang, Kou-wen (CN 211018953), hereinafter Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang, Jian-Feng (CN 102540377), hereinafter ‘177.
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of ‘170 discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Wang in view of Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein a size of the welding head is greater than a size of the through hole, and the welding head is fixed to the second surface of the circuit board.
‘177 discloses a size of the welding head is greater than a size of the through hole (215, cross-shaped groove), and the welding head is fixed to the second surface of the circuit board (20, lens base) (figures 3 and 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Wang and ‘170 with the welding columns of ‘177 for the purpose of securing the lens holder to the base.
Regarding claim ‘177 discloses wherein the through hole (215, cross-shaped groove) has a first opening and a second opening opposite to the first opening see figure 2), the first opening is at the first surface, the second opening is at the second surface (see figure 2), the welding column comprises a welding head (252a, adjusting driver), and the welding head is fixed inside the through hole (215, cross-shaped groove) (see figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘177 does not specifically disclose a size of the first opening is less than a size of the second opening.
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a size of the first opening is less than a size of the second opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)) this being reasonably based upon fitting the connection pin in the through hole and affixing he lens holder to the base.
Regarding claim 5, ‘177 discloses and a second opening opposite to the first opening (see figure 2), the first opening is at the first surface, the second opening is at the second surface (see figure 3 above), and the welding head is fixed inside the through hole (215, cross-shaped groove) (see figure 3 above).
‘177 does not disclose a size of the first opening is less than a size of the second opening.
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a size of the first opening is less than a size of the second opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)) this being reasonably based upon fitting the connection pin in the through hole and affixing he lens holder to the base.
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 BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
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.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights