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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1-6, 9, 10, 13-16, 19, and 20 in view of Grimes et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0287306; hereafter Grimes) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grimes and Clifford (Pub. No. US 2006/0049154).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the screws of Grimes do not constitute a “material connection,” Examiner concedes that the term “material connection” in the context of the art, does not reasonably include screw connections. However, in the combination with Clifford, Clifford teaches laser welding, which is a material connection, and the combination of Grimes in view of Clifford discloses utilizing a material connection, which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to obviate the need for additional components, like screws.
Applicant further argues that “the underlying discovery on which the present invention is based is that there is no necessity to provide an intermediate component arranged within the housing of the assembly in order to compensate for the final position of the connector due to image sensor and lens alignment” (see Applicant’s remarks p. 5). Even assuming, arguendo, that the combination of Grimes and Clifford would not reasonably provide a similar advantage, there is no limitation in the claim concerning any intermediate component (or lack thereof), nor any discussion of compensating for the position of the connector. Applicant’s arguments do not address how the proposed combination of Grimes in view of Clifford would fail to disclose the claimed limitations as recited in claim 1, as currently presented.
Applicant continues by pointing out further advantages of Applicant’s invention, however, Applicant has not pointed out how these advantages are unpredictable results, or would otherwise render the proposed combination non-obvious. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s arguments that the combination of Grimes in view of Clifford does not disclose all of the claimed limitations presented in claim 1 are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejection of claim 1 in view of Grimes and Clifford is presented below.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments rest on the perceived deficiency of Grimes in view of Clifford, addressed above, and therefore have similarly been addressed.
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) 1-6, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grimes et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0287306 A1; hereafter Grimes) in view of Clifford (Pub. No. US 2006/0049154; hereafter Clifford).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12, Grimes discloses a camera for use with road vehicles, the camera comprising: a housing comprising an aperture (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 6, 7, and 29); a circuit board configured to be coupled to the housing (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 16); a connector configured to be contacted to the circuit board (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 14); a connector housing configured to be coupled to the housing wherein the connector is further configured to protrude through the aperture and be coupled to the connector housing (see Grimes Figs. 6 and 9, items 6, 14, and 26).
Grimes does not disclose that the connector housing is coupled to the housing using a material connection, wherein the connector housing is manufactured of an at least partially optically transparent material; [claim 10] wherein the connector housing is coupled to the housing using a laser weld; [claim 12] wherein the at least partially optically transparent material is transparent for a wavelength of an applied laser.
Clifford discloses that it was well-known in the art at the time the invention was filed that “conventional laser welding techniques require an outer overlapping plastic layer to be transparent and the inner overlapping layer to opaque to absorb the laser radiation, thereby allowing the inner overlapping layer to heat to the melting point and bond with the outer overlapping layer when laser energy is applied” (see Clifford paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the plastic portion of Grimes as a transparent portion in order to enable the device to be welded together using conventional welding techniques to securely couple the components without requiring additional components like the screws of Grimes.
Regarding claim 2, Grimes as modified discloses the camera of claim 1, wherein the housing comprises a front housing section and a back housing section (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 7), wherein the circuit board is configured to be coupled to the front housing section (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 7 and 16), and wherein the connector housing is configured to be coupled to the back housing section (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 26 and 30).
Regarding claim 3, Grimes as modified discloses the camera of claim 2, wherein the connector is configured to not contact the back housing section (see Grimes Fig. 9, there is a gap between housing 6 and connector 14).
Regarding claim 4, Grimes as modified discloses the camera of claim 1, wherein the connector housing is configured as a floating component or wherein the connector housing is configured to be spatially adjustable (see Grimes Fig. 9, the connector 14 can be construed as floating with respect to the housing 6 due to the gap between the components).
Regarding claim 5, Grimes as modified discloses the camera of claim 2, wherein the back housing section comprises an outward facing surface (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 30), wherein the connector housing is configured to be coupled to the surface (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 26, Examiner believes that placing the portion 26 in the receiving space 30 can reasonably be interpreted as “coupling” to one another, however, Grimes also explicitly shows the connector housing being fastened to the back of the housing via screws 8 in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 6, as modified Grimes discloses the camera of claim 2, wherein at least one of the back housing section and connector housing is manufactured of a non-metallic material (see Grimes paragraph [0048] which discloses that “a connector envelope 26, which can for example be manufactured from plastic”).
Regarding claim 9, Grimes as modified discloses the camera of claim 1, wherein the connecter is configured as a FAKRA connector (see Grimes paragraph [0006] “ the coaxial plug can for example be a so called FAKRA connector”).
Regarding claim 13, Grimes as modified discloses the camera of claim 1, wherein the camera is a camera for a rear view device (see Grimes Fig. 1, item 2).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Grimes discloses a method of assembling a camera, the method comprising: providing a housing (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 6 and 7), a circuit board (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 16), a connector (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 14) and a connector housing (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 26), wherein the housing comprises an aperture (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 29); contacting the connector to the circuit board (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 14 and 16); coupling the circuit board to the housing (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 7 and 16); arranging the circuit board such that the connector protrudes through the aperture (see Grimes Fig. 9, items 6, 14, and 29); coupling the connector housing to the connector (see Grimes Fig. 9, items 14 and 26).
Grimes does not disclose coupling the connector housing to the housing by providing a material connection; [claim 17] wherein the step of providing a material connection comprises the following steps: Melting the connector housing by heating and melting the housing by a laser by means of heat conduction, wherein the housing absorbs energy from the laser; applying pressure to the connector housing or the housing.
Clifford discloses that it was well-known in the art at the time the invention was filed that “conventional laser welding techniques require an outer overlapping plastic layer to be transparent and the inner overlapping layer to opaque to absorb the laser radiation, thereby allowing the inner overlapping layer to heat to the melting point and bond with the outer overlapping layer when laser energy is applied” (see Clifford paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the plastic portion of Grimes as a transparent portion in order to enable the device to be welded together using conventional welding techniques to securely couple the components without requiring additional components like the screws of Grimes. Furthermore, while Clifford does not specifically disclose applying pressure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply pressure as the device components are bonded together so as to ensure that the components do not accidentally move or separate during bonding.
Regarding claim 15, Grimes discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the housing comprises a front housing section and a back housing section (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 6 and 7), wherein the method further comprises: arranging the circuit board on the front housing section, and arranging the connector housing on the back housing section (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 7 and 17, and 6 and 26).
Regarding claim 19, Grimes discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the step of coupling further comprises coupling a lens to the housing (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 10).
Regarding claim 20, Grimes discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the housing comprises an aperture (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 29); wherein the circuit board is configured to be coupled to the housing (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 7 and 16); wherein the connector is configured to be contacted to the circuit board (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 14 and 16); wherein the connector housing is configured to be coupled to the housing (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 6, 26, and 30) wherein the connector is further configured to protrude through the aperture and be coupled to the connector housing (see Grimes Fig. 9, items 14, 26, and 29).
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimes in view of Clifford as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Bingle et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0171704 A1; hereafter Bingle).
Regarding claim 7, Grimes in view of Clifford discloses the camera of claim 2, wherein the circuit board comprises a first side, wherein the first side is arranged and configured to be facing towards the front housing section (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 16, whichever side faces forwards can be construed as the first side); and wherein a lens is configured to be coupled to the front housing section (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 10).
Grimes as modified does not specifically disclose that an image sensor is configured to be arranged on the first side. Grimes discloses that the camera contains an image sensor (see Grimes paragraph [0046] “The camera 2 can be a CMOS (complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor) camera or else a CCD (charge-coupled device) camera or any image capturing device”) but does not specifically disclose that it is arranged on the first side of the circuit board.
Bingle discloses an image sensor on the first side of the circuit board (see Bingle Fig. 7, item 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the image sensor of Grimes on the front side of the circuit board of Grimes, like the configuration of Bingle, in order to enable the image sensor to detect the image focused by the imaging lens.
Regarding claim 8, Grimes in view of Clifford discloses the camera of claim 2, wherein the circuit board comprises a second side; wherein the second side is configured to be facing towards the back housing section (see Grimes Fig. 6, item 16, whichever side faces backwards can be construed as the second side).
Grimes as modified does not specifically disclose that the connector is configured to be soldered to the second side. Grimes discloses a connector connected to the circuit board (see Grimes Fig. 6, items 14 and 16) but does not disclose that they are soldered together.
Bingle discloses a connector that is soldered to the circuit board (see Bingle Fig. 7, item 14d and paragraph [0090] “ends of the pins or terminals may be soldered in place in their respective openings”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to solder the connector of Grimes to the rear side of the circuit board of Grimes, like the configuration of Bingle, in order to establish secure electrical connection between the components.
Regarding claim 18, Grimes discloses the method of claim 14, but does not specifically disclose that the step of contacting further comprises contacting an image sensor to the circuit board.
Bingle discloses an image sensor contacted on the first side of the circuit board (see Bingle Fig. 7, item 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the image sensor of Grimes on the front side of the circuit board of Grimes, like the configuration of Bingle, in order to enable the image sensor to detect the image focused by the imaging lens.
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 5/21/2026
Prosecution Insights