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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/05/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 11/05/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In that remarks, applicant argues in substance:
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's interpretation that the "end face of the socket body" in claim 10 reads on the inner wall surface of Iwasaki's lens barrel mounting portion 20B. As explicitly stated in Iwasaki ([0019]), the positioning recesses 23 are "continuously formed at equal intervals on the same circumference of the inner wall surface of the lens barrel mounting portion 20B." The planar end face of Iwasaki is shown as flat in FIG. 1, and certainly does not include the undulating castellations as required by claim 10 and as depicted in Applicant's FIG. 5.
The claim language, supported by the specification (see, e.g., FIG. 5 and
corresponding description), requires that the castellations are disposed on the end face
of the socket body, arranged in an undulating manner defined by alternating peaks and valleys. The cited prior art does not disclose or suggest this arrangement. The Examiner's interpretation is unreasonably broad and not consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of "end face" as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, nor with the usage in Iwasaki.
Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms must be consistent with the specification and how the term is used in the art (see MPEP § 2111;In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's reading is not reasonable in light of the specification and the cited art.”
Claim 10 recites a socket including a socket body having 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 ..." Neither Iwasaki nor Maurinus teach this recitation.
In the office action, the Examiner relied upon the positioning recesses 23 of Iwasaki as allegedly meeting this recitation. Applicant respectfully disagrees. As stated in the specification of Iwasaki, the positioning recesses 23 are not formed in the end face as required by claim 10, but rather are "continuously formed at equal intervals on the same circumference of the inner wall surface of the lens barrel mounting portion 208."
Paragraph [0019]. Indeed, the end face itself of Iwasaki is shown as being planar in FIG. 1. In contrast, the end face of the arrangement defined by claim 10 is shown as having the undulating manner defined by the castellations. Accordingly, claim 10 is patentable over the cited combination.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim language does not define or limit what may be considered an "end face 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 FIG. 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites: “a socket including a socket body, the socket body defined by an annular wall member and including a plurality of castellations formed on an end face of the annular wall 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 the end face and wherein the socket fingers allow the socket body to transition between a deflected state and a non- deflected state”. However, Applicant’s specification and drawings do not describe a plurality of castellations formed on an end face of the annular wall and the socket fingers terminate at the end face. As seen in Figure 4 of applicant’s drawings the castellations are formed at a first end and the socket figures terminate at a second end different from the first end.
Claims 19-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 18.
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 and 6-9 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.
Conclusion
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