Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/590,081

CAMERA DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 28, 2024
Priority
Mar 07, 2023 — TW 112108375
Examiner
THOMAS, BRANDI N
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Chicony Electronics Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
902 granted / 1094 resolved
+14.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1119
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
58.6%
+18.6% vs TC avg
§102
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.2%
-33.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1094 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 2/28/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 3/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant argues that the search and examination for both groups can be completed concurrently under the same procedure and search strategy and the search would not impose an undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because there is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct inventions due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The Examiner maintains that the restriction is proper and necessitated by the undue burden that would be imposed on the Examiner in conducting a comprehensive search and examination of all claimed inventions. The claims are drawn to distinct inventions and do not share a single general inventive concept sufficient to justify a unified search. Each group of claims requires a separate and independent search in different fields of classification and would involve a materially different examination, thereby constituting a serious search and examination burden. The Examiner notes that the elements of the apparatus claims 1-5 (for example, the lens holder having an axle hole) and the steps included in the method claims 6-10 (for example, portions of the assembling step, the focus-adjusting step, the curing step, and portions of the welding step) are distinct. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, as they do not adequately address the differences in scope and classification among the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, it is still seen that the search and the examination of all of the inventions would indeed place an undue burden on the examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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) 1-3 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 110753170), hereinafter ‘170. 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 the welding column passes through the through hole, and the welding column is welded and fixed to the circuit board. ‘170 discloses the welding column (21, connection pins) passes through the through hole (31, through hole) (abstract), and the welding column is welded and fixed to the circuit board (3, circuit board) (see figure 1 and abstract). 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 ‘170 for the purpose of affixing the lens holder to the circuit board. Regarding claim 2, ‘170 discloses wherein the lens holder (2, mirror base) has an outer peripheral portion, and the welding column (21, connection pin) integrally extends from the outer peripheral portion (see figure 1). Regarding claim 3, ‘170 discloses wherein the circuit board (3, circuit board) has a plurality of the through holes (31, through hole) (ABS) (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 (2, mirror base) comprises a plurality of the welding columns (21 connection pins) (figure 1 shows at least 2 connections pins), the welding columns respectively extends from two opposite sides of the outer peripheral portion, and each of the welding columns passes through a corresponding one of the through holes and is welded and fixed to the circuit board (ABS) (figure 1). 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 110753170), hereinafter ‘170 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 ‘170 does not specifically disclose wherein the welding column comprises a column body and a welding head, the column body is in the through hole, 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 wherein the welding column (252, adjusting part) comprises a column body (251, connecting part and 253, shoulder) and a welding head (252a, adjusting driver), the column body is in the through hole (215, cross-shaped groove), 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), 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 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12613358
OPTICAL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING AN OPTICAL SYSTEM
3y 0m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12611098
CONTROL SYSTEM FOR OCT IMAGING, OCT IMAGING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OCT IMAGING
2y 11m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12605066
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND DEVICES FOR MONITORING ANISOCORIA AND ASYMMETRY OF PUPILLARY REACTION TO STIMULUS
3y 6m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12607859
VIRTUAL AND AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 1m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12601897
OPTICAL LENS ASSEMBLY
2y 12m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+7.6%)
2y 10m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1094 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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