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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 6/12/2026.
Amendments to claims 1, 3, 9, 12 , filed 6/12/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
The resubmitted abstract, filed 6/12/2026, is acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claims 13-15, filed 6/12/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the resubmitted abstract, the previous objection to the abstract is now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pgs. 5-6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose the amended limitation of claim 1, stating that
‘Applicant submits that Lee fails to disclose each and every element of claim 1. For
example, Lee fails to disclose "at least one electrical conductor embedded in the molded material of the base body," as recited in claim 1’.
However, Applicant’s arguments appear to simply assert their narrow interpretation of the term “molded”. Applicant is thus referred to the standard English dictionary of Merriam-Webster (see attached, pg. 2), which broadly defines “mold” as meaning:
“1: to knead or work […] into a desired consistency or shape”
“4: to give shape to”.
Applicant is now reminded that Lee’s base body included a front body 700 with an insulation coating. Clearly, front body 700 was shaped or molded into a suitable form. Naturally also, the insulation coating is a conformal coating that derives its shape and is molded by some underlying structure/substrate (i.e. serving as a mold, a shape-forming surface, for the coating). Considering these as matters of standard definition/usage that apply to the prior art, it would appear that Applicant’s insertion of the term “molded” into the claims fails to overcome the rejection of record, and that assertions such as
‘[Examiner’s] mapping erroneously equates a wrapping/coating of a structure to the
structure itself, and thus, misconstrues the language used in the claims […] Lee's insulating coating […] is in no way "molded."’ – Remarks, pg. 6
remain unpersuasive and of no further consequence to the rejections.
Troubling further, Examiner notes that above statements such as “[Examiner’s] mapping erroneously equates a wrapping/coating of a structure to the structure itself” continue to misrepresent the basic facts of record, detracting from Applicant’s arguments and delaying prosecution efforts. Setting aside that Applicant is addressing amended claims rather than the previous rejections they were presented with, Applicant is reminded that earlier arguments that were similarly based on such inaccuracies prompted a recent reminder (see ¶ 5 of the 1/5/2026 Final Rejection) that the coating itself is not “equated” to the claimed based body, but that the front body 700 together with the insulation coating were deliberately mapped instead.
On pg. 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that
“claims 13-15 include additional details about the base body, wherein the base body comprises a single material. As such, claims 13-15 are allowable”
However, the argument is directed at newly amended claims, filed 6/12/2026, not the Final Rejection, filed 1/5/2026. Newly amended claims are argued below.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 9, lines 5-7, the limitation is missing a line indentation and is misaligned with the other recited item for the contact sleeve (lines 3-4). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims not specifically addressed in the objection above inherit the objection of the claim from which they depend.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, 9, and 12, claim 1, line 4; claim 9, line 5; and claim 12, lines 6-7 each recite the "molded material" which lacks a proper antecedent basis and generates confusion as it is unclear whether it is meant to correspond to the “electrically non-conductive material” introduced in claim 1, lines 2-3; claim 9, lines 3-4; and claim 12, lines 4-5. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “the [electrically non-conductive] material”.
Regarding claims 13-15, line 2 of each claim recite “[the base body comprises] a single material”. However, for the base body, claim 1, lines 2-5; claim 9, lines 3-6; and claim 12, lines 4-7 had already introduced “an electrically non-conductive material” and, as discussed above, also refers confusingly to “the molded material”. It is therefore even further unclear whether the subsequent introduction of yet another material designation is intended to override the previously recited material(s?), introduce a different material, or merely redundantly/improperly reintroduce the same material(s?) using different terminology. For examination purposes, the “single material” shall be read to correspond to the “electrically non-conductive material”.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 20180239105 A1, hereinafter “Lee”)
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 12, Lee discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶s 77-83, 106-109) a contact sleeve for a camera objective (lens part 10), comprising:
a sleeve-shaped, molded base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”) made of an electrically non-conductive material (¶ 109: “it is preferable that the… front body (700) be formed with plastic, which is an insulation material”, “insulation coating that wraps the conductive part (320) … may further be included”); and
at least one electrical conductor (conductive part 320 in the written description, 820 in the figures) embedded in the molded material of the base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”), which has, at at least one end, an exposed contacting portion (i.e. of first conductive part 821) configured to electrically contact an electrical consumer (heating layer 200) integrated in the camera objective (lens part 10) (see also ¶s 87-95, 110-112 regarding current delivered to heating layer 200 via first/second conductive parts 821/822 (of conductive part 320) and heating wire 400).
Further regarding claims 9 and 12, Lee also discloses a camera objective (lens part 10) wherein the contact sleeve (front body 700 with conductive part 320/820) is arranged on a shaft (lens barrel 500) of the camera objective (lens part 10) (as shown in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the contact sleeve as recited in claim 1.
Lee further discloses (see FIGs. 2 and 9, ¶s 106-111) wherein at least two electrical conductors (i.e. opposing portions of (first/second conductive parts 821/822 of) conductive part 320/820) are provided, which furthermore extend in parallel to one another and/or are diametrically opposite to one another within the base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the contact sleeve as recited in claim 1.
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 2(A): FIG. 2 of Lee is annotated to highlight the first/second exposed contact portions)]
PNG
media_image1.png
855
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee further discloses (see FIG. 2(A), annotated below) wherein a first exposed contacting portion (i.e. of first conductive part 821) is formed by an end portion of the electrical conductor (conductive part 320/820) protruding beyond the base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the contact sleeve as recited in claim 1.
Lee further discloses (see annotated FIG. 2(A) above) wherein a second exposed contacting portion (i.e. of second conductive part 822) is formed by an exposed circumferential region (i.e. by an exposed surface) of the electrical conductor (conductive part 320/820) and is arranged in a region of a material recess of the base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the contact sleeve as recited in claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
849
1428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 2(B): Lee’s FIG. 2 is again annotated to highlight the cylinder and collar of front body 700)]Lee further discloses (see newly annotated FIG. 2(B) below) wherein the base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”) is a hollow cylinder with an annular collar, wherein the annular collar extends radially outward.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the contact sleeve as recited in claim 1.
Lee further discloses (see newly annotated FIG. 2(C) below) wherein the base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”) has, in a region of an end face and/or of an inner circumferential surface, at least one latching geometry, which can be brought into engagement with a geometry and/or recess of the camera objective (lens part 10) to secure a position of the contact sleeve (front body 700 with conductive part 320/820) on the camera
PNG
media_image5.png
867
1329
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 2(C): Lee’s FIG. 2 is again annotated to highlight geometries relevant to claims 8 and 10)]objective (lens part 10).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the camera objective as recited in claim 9.
Lee further discloses (see annotated FIG. 2(C) above) wherein, to secure a position of the contact sleeve (front body 700 with conductive part 320/820) on the shaft (lens barrel 500), at least one geometry is formed in a region of an end face and/or of an inner circumferential surface of the base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”), the geometry being a latching geometry, in engagement with a geometry and/or recess of the camera objective (lens part 10).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the camera objective as recited in claim 9.
Lee further discloses (see the previously annotated FIG. 2(B) above) wherein the contact sleeve (front body 700 with conductive part 320/820) is supported in an axial direction, via an annular collar of the base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”), on a radially extending shoulder of the shaft (lens barrel 500).
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, in further view of Soshi and Takebayashi (US 5328391, hereinafter “Soshi).
Regarding claim 2 and 4, Lee discloses the contact sleeve as recited in claim 1 and the contact sleeve as recited in claim 3.
Lee does not disclose wherein the electrical conductors are contact pins.
Lee and Soshi are related as being directed towards power delivery circuits for cameras.
Soshi discloses wherein the electrical conductors are contact pins. (contact pins 15). (See FIGs. 1-2; col 2, lines 3-12; col. 3 lines 13-51.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with Soshi’s contact assembly, in order to provide a simple circuit that is easy to assemble (Soshi col. 1, lines 54-57).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 12 above, in further view of Yanagisawa (WO 2019026689 A1).
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 15, Lee discloses the contact sleeve as recited in claim 1, the camera objective as recited in claim 9, and the method as recited in claim 12.
Lee further discloses wherein the base body (front body 700 with ¶ 109’s “insulation coating”) comprises “plastic, which is an insulation material, and an insulation coating” (¶ 109).
Lee does not explicitly disclose that the base body comprises a single material. However, Examiner notes this to be only a minor design detail amounting to a trivial choice of materials.
Lee and Yanagisawa commonly relate to plastic materials for wire insulation.
Yanagisawa discloses a resin composition suitable for molded structures and wire coatings alike (see ¶s 39-40), demonstrating that appropriate broad-use plastics were already known/available in the art and could have easily been used to produce a base body that comprises a single material.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Lee and Yanagisawa by using the latter’s resin composition for its advantageous mechanical and thermal properties and its broad applicability (Yanagisawa ¶s 2, 8, 38), thereby simplifying materials sourcing for manufacturing – since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights