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 .
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 04/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In that remarks, applicants argues in substance:
Applicant argues: “In the Office Action, the Examiner states that claim 10 "does not define or limit what may be considered an 'end face of the socket body,"' and that, in Iwasaki, the lens barrel mounting portion may be considered an end face. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms must still be
interpreted in light of the specification and how the term is used by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2111; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The interpretation adopted by the Examiner is not reasonable in view of the present specification.
As used throughout Applicant's application, an "end face" refers to an axial
termination surface of the socket body - that is, a surface that defines a boundary of the socket body in the axial direction. In the claimed invention defined by claim 10, that
axial end face itself is non-planar and undulating, being "defined by alternating peaks and valleys" formed by the castellations.
In Iwasaki, the positioning recesses 23 are expressly described as being "formed on the same circumference of the inner wall surface of the lens barrel mounting portion" (Iwasaki [0019]). These recesses are radial features formed in a cylindrical inner wall and do not define, modify, or constitute the axial termination surface of the socket body. The planar axial end face of Iwasaki's socket body remains flat, as shown in FIG. 1 of Iwasaki.
Thus, even under a broad interpretation, a circumferential inner wall surface cannot reasonably be equated with an axial end face, particularly where the claim requires that the end face itself be formed in an undulating manner. Accepting such an interpretation would effectively read the "end face" limitation out of the claim entirely.”
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim language does not recite the “end face of the socket body” refers to “an axial termination surface of the socket body. Claim language does not define or limit what may be considered an "end face of the socket body". The term “end face” is not used at all in applicant’s specification and no special definition is provided for the term “end face”.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (See MPEP 2111.01.I). As applicant’s specification does not use the term “end face” Examiner’s interpretation of “end face” is not inconsistent with the specification.
It is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004)” (See MPEP 2111.01.II). Applicant’s depiction of the castellations 412 disposed on an “axial termination surface of the socket body” (Applicant’s Drawings Figure 4) is not imported into the claims since it is not in the claim language.
With reference to Iwasaki Figure 1, "end face of the socket body" may be considered to be the lens barrel mounting portion 20B and the flat portion of the box-shaped mounting portion 20A facing lens barrel 10. Therefore, the castellations (plurality of recesses 23) are seen to be disposed on an end face of the socket body. Claim language does not require the "end face of the socket body" to be limited to applicant’s interpretation and depiction in Applicant's Figs. 4-5.
Applicant Argues: “Independent claim 10 recites, inter alia, "a socket including a socket body ... the socket body including a plurality of castellations disposed on an end face of the socket body, the castellations arranged in an undulating manner defined by alternating peaks and valleys."
In Applicant's application, the castellations are formed on an axial end face of an annular wall member and define a non-planar axial boundary surface, as shown for example in FIG. 5. The end face itself is undulating, with alternating peaks and valleys that collectively define the castellations.
Iwasaki does not disclose such a structure. To the contrary, Iwasaki explicitly states that its positioning recesses 23 are "continuously formed at equal intervals on the same circumference of the inner wall surface of the lens barrel mounting portion" (Iwasaki P[0019]). Thus, Iwasaki's recesses are formed along an inner circumferential wall surface, not on an axial end face. The end face of Iwasaki's lens barrel mounting portion is shown as planar (see Iwasaki FIG. 1) and lacks any undulating axial geometry.
An inner circumferential wall surface cannot reasonably be construed as an "end face," particularly where the claim requires castellations arranged in an undulating manner defined by alternating peaks and valleys on that end face. Interpreting "end face" to encompass an interior cylindrical wall would impermissibly broaden the claim beyond its ordinary mechanical meaning and beyond how the term is used in Applicant's specification.
Accordingly, Iwasaki fails to disclose or suggest the claimed castellations disposed on an end face of a socket body.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim language does not recite the “end face of the socket body” refers to “an axial termination surface of the socket body. With reference to Iwasaki Figure 1, "end face of the socket body" may be considered to be the lens barrel mounting portion 20B and the flat portion of the box-shaped mounting portion 20A facing lens barrel 10. Therefore, the castellations (plurality of recesses 23) are seen to be disposed on an end face of the socket body. Claim language does not require the "end face of the socket body" to be limited to applicant’s interpretation and depiction in Applicant's Figs. 4-5.
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.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2002/0089176 A1) in view of Maurinus (US 5,302,778).
Regarding claim 10, Iwasaki teaches an image sensor assembly (Iwasaki, Fig. 1), comprising:
a lens assembly including a lens housing and a lens barrel disposed around the lens housing (Iwasaki, Fig. 1, Lens barrel 10, Paragraph 0018, The lens housing may be interpreted as the inner section and the lens barrel may be interpreted as the outer section.); and
a socket including a socket body (Iwasaki, Fig. 1, holder 20) defined by an annular wall member (Iwasaki, Fig. 1, lens barrel mounting portion 20B, Paragraph 0019), the socket body including a plurality of castellations disposed on an end face of the socket body, the castellations arranged in an undulating manner defined by alternating peaks and valleys (Iwasaki, Fig. 1, plurality of positioning recesses 23, Paragraph 0019 and 0021).
However, Kim does not teach the socket body including a plurality of socket fingers, wherein the plurality of socket fingers allow the socket body to transition between a deflected state and a non-deflected state.
In reference to Maurinus, Maurinus teaches a socket body (Maurinus, Fig. 2-3, enclosure 15) including a plurality of socket fingers (Maurinus, Fig. 2-3, tabs 28 and 30, Column 5, Lines 52-59), wherein the plurality of socket fingers allow the socket body to transition between a deflected state and a non-deflected state (Maurinus, Column 6, Lines 45-64, A non-deflected state may be a state in which the socket is not attached. A deflected state may be an attached state.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kim with the socket fingers as seen in Maurinus since it is a known method of attaching a lens holder to a substate and would provide similar and expected results for connecting the socket (housing holder 20) to the substrate.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Iwasaki and Maurinus teaches the image sensor assembly as recited in claim 10 (see claim 10 analysis), further comprising an adhesive material disposed between the plurality of castellations (Iwasaki, Paragraph 0025)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Iwasaki and Maurinus teaches the image sensor assembly as recited in claim 10 (see claim 10 analysis), wherein the socket body comprises a plurality of grooves that define the plurality of socket fingers (Maurinus, Fig. 2, Multiple grooves around the tabs 28 and 30 may be considered to be the plurality of grooves).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Iwasaki and Maurinus teaches the image sensor assembly as recited in claim 10 (see claim 10 analysis), wherein the socket body further comprises an internal ridge portion that is displaced by the lens barrel when the socket body is in the deflected state (Maurinus, Fig. 2, Protruding portions of tabs 28 and 30 are considered to be internal ridge portions since they are considered to be on an internal side of the substrate 12.).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Iwasaki and Maurinus teaches the image sensor assembly as recited in claim 10 (see claim 10 analysis), wherein the lens barrel is integral with the lens housing (Iwasaki, Fig. 1, Lens barrel 10, Paragraph 0018, The lens housing may be interpreted as the inner section and the lens barrel may be interpreted as the outer section.).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2002/0089176 A1) in view of Maurinus (US 5,302,778) in view of Masuda et al. (US 2023/0048226 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Iwasaki and Maurinus teaches the image sensor assembly as recited in claim 10 (see claim 10 analysis). However, the combination of Iwasaki and Maurinus does not teach further comprising a housing that defines an opening for receiving the lens assembly.
In reference to Masuda et al. (hereafter referred as Masuda), Masuda teaches a housing (Masuda, Figs. 1 and 4, housing 1/portions 14), defining an opening (Masuda, Figs. 1 and 4, hole 14b); a lens assembly (Masuda, Figs. 2, lens barrel 32) received by the housing through the opening (Masuda, Paragraph 0031).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Iwasaki and Maurinus with the housing as seen in Masuda to allow the device to be used in vehicles (Masuda, Paragraph 0023).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 15, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor assembly as recited in claim 10, wherein the lens barrel comprises a spherical shape.”
With regard to claim 16, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The image sensor assembly as recited in claim 10, wherein the lens barrel and the socket form a ball and socket interface when the socket is positioned over the lens barrel.”
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per claims 1, the closest known prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest alone or in reasonable combination, the limitations (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
a lens assembly including a lens housing and a lens barrel disposed around the lens housing; and a socket including a socket body, the socket body defined by an annular wall member and including a plurality of socket fingers defined between grooves extending through the annular wall member, wherein the socket fingers terminate at a first end face of the socket body, and wherein the socket fingers allow the socket body to transition between a deflected state and a non-deflected state, and where in a ridge portion is positioned on an inside surface of the socket spaced from end first face, such that the ridge portion extends from an inside surface of the socket in a radially inward direction, wherein the internal ridge portion is displaced by the lens barrel when the socket body is in a deflected state.
Claims 2-3 and 6-9 depend on, and further limit, independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-3 and 6-9 are considered allowable for the same reasons.
As per claims 18, the closest known prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest alone or in reasonable combination, the limitations (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
“An image sensor assembly, comprising: a housing defining an opening; a lens assembly received by the housing through the opening, the lens assembly including a lens housing and a lens barrel disposed around the lens housing; and a socket including a socket body, the socket body defined by an annular wall member and including a plurality of castellations formed on a first end face of the annular wall member and a plurality of socket fingers, wherein the plurality of socket fingers are defined between grooves extending through the annular wall member, wherein the socket fingers terminate at a second end face of the annular wall member opposite the first end face, and wherein the socket fingers allow the socket body to transition between a deflected state and a non-deflected state.”
Claims 19-20 depend on, and further limit, independent claim 18. Therefore, claims 19-20 are considered allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights