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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 12/11/2025 in which claims 1 and 7 have been amended. No claims have been added. Claims 10 and 18 have been cancelled. Currently claims 1-7, 11-17, and 19-20 are pending for examination in this application.
In response to this reply:
The previous claim objection is withdrawn.
The previous 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 12 regarding the reason to combine Horner and Andren, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to claims 1-7, 11-17, and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claims 1-7, 11-17, and 19-20 has been withdrawn.
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 1-7, 11-17, and 19-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an upper surface or lower surface" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is intended to reference the same “upper surface” which is present in line 10. For clarity, it is recommended that this limitation be updated to “the upper surface or [a] lower surface”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other one of the plurality of second connection parts" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of “one” of the other second connection parts this is referring to. As best understood by the examiner, altered phrasing such as, “and at least another one of the plurality of the second connection parts has a long hole…” would fit the intention of the applicant more clearly and match the intended meaning.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first connection part" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of the “at least one first connection part” is being referenced.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first connection part and the second connection part" in lines 14 and 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of the “at least one first connection part” and the “at least one second connection part” is being referenced.
Claim 7 recites the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-6, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected due to claim dependency.
Several of the issues listed above stem from a failure to particularly distinguish elements which are interacting in their pluralities. There are likely many paths towards bringing the claim limitations into consistency on this matter. One such possibility is presented below, using claim 1 as an example, in which the plurality of the connection parts is introduced at the beginning of the claim, now that the amended language no longer leaves open the possibility that there could be only one of each connection part. The other edits recommended by the examiner above have been included as well, for completeness:
A board structure for transmitting and receiving in a lidar device, which is installed to transmit or receive optical signals in the lidar device, the board structure comprising:
a lens barrel having a lens mounted on a first inner circumferential surface so as to be movable, and having a plurality of first connection parts provided on a first outer circumferential surface;
a guide barrel having a plurality of second connection parts each connected to a respective one of the plurality of first connection parts on a second outer circumferential surface, and having a first fixing hole formed to penetrate from the second outer circumferential surface to a second inner circumferential surface;
a transmission/reception board having a diode mounted on an upper surface and at least partially inserted into an inner space of the guide barrel; and
a first support member that penetrates through the first fixing hole and supports the upper surface or [a] lower surface of the transmission/reception board,
wherein each of the plurality of first connection parts and each of the plurality of second connection parts have a first through hole and a second through hole, respectively,
wherein each of the plurality of first connection parts and the respective one of the plurality of second connection parts are connected to each other by a first bolt passing through the first through hole and the second through hole, and a first nut coupled with the first bolt.
wherein any one of the first through hole and the second through hole is formed as a long hole in which the first bolt is movable in a direction perpendicular to the moving direction of the lens,
wherein the diode is a surface-mount diode,
wherein at least one of the plurality of another one of the plurality of
Claims 11 and 12 both recites the limitation "the second connection part having a long hole for the x-axis" and “the second connection part having a long hole for the y-axis” in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 indicates that there may be more than one second connection part having a long hole for each axis, thus it is unclear which of the potentially multiple connection parts is being referenced in these claims. The examiner recommends updating the language to, for example, “wherein among the plurality of one of the at least one second connection parts having a long hole for the x-axis” and “one of the at least one second connection parts having a long hole for the y-axis”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to contain reference to a claim previously set forth, as claim 10 has been cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 11-12 were likely intended to be amended such that they are dependent upon claim 1, instead of claim 10. Examination will proceed under this assumption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 11-17, and 19-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is:
Park (KR 102094767 B1), which teaches a lens barrel, as described in the previous office actions;
Shihoh (US 20140160566 A1), which teaches x and y-axis adjustment with long holes, but the x-axis long holes and the y-axis long holes are present on different structural pieces; and
Marques Lito Velez Grilo (US 8568055 B2), which teaches a nut and bolt mating of two structures with multiple slotted through holes providing adjustment of the lateral alignment of the two pieces. One of the two pieces contains long holes in orthogonal directions, but the invention relies on the presence of long holes on the corresponding second piece as well, such that any given bolt is being passed through two long holes.
None of the prior art teaches all of the limitations of the independent claims (claims 1 and 7), namely: connection parts with long holes in orthogonal “x-axis” and “y-axis” directions, where both the x-axis and the y-axis long holes are present on the same integrated, solid structure, and where only one of the through holes for a given bolt is formed as a long hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3603. 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.
/SEAN C. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645