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 .
Amendment
The Response, filed on December 16, 2025, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated September 16, 2025, claims 1-7 and 10-14 have been amended, claim 9 has been cancelled, and claims 15-17 have been newly added.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-14, Applicant has amended the claims to cure the overlapping statutory class issues. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-14 are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-14, Applicant has amended the claims to address the indefinite subject matter issues. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-14 are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-14, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 recites “the sensor part is bonded in a fixed roll orientation relative to the reference feature” (Remarks, p. 7) and that the lens unit 12 of Tokiwa is not bonded to the camera main body 11 (Remarks, p. 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Tokiwa teaches that the sensor part is bonded in a fixed roll orientation relative to the reference feature, as illustrated by figure 1 and described in paragraphs [0045-46], as the sensor part is bonded by either a friction of the bayonet connection or by the lock pin mechanism. As the Tokiwa reference can still be read on the claims are currently written, the Office stands behind the teaching of the art as applied.
* * * * * *
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
MPEP 608.01(i)(c) provides that one or more claims may be presented in dependent form, referring back to and further limiting another claim or claims in the same application. (also see 37 CFR 1.75). Claim 12 improperly depends from claim 16 and claim 13 improperly depends from claim 15; with claims 12 and 13 each reciting elements that are not introduced until presented in later numbered claims, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-8 and 10 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.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10, independent claim 1, from which claims 2-8 and 10 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, has been amended to recite “the sensor part is bonded in a fixed roll orientation relative to the reference feature.” Applicant has not specifically pointed out where the amended claim language is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as originally filed, i.e., the original disclosure has not been found to describe or disclose constitutes the newly added “a fixed roll orientation” and/or what constitutes or defines said newly added “fixed roll orientation”. Further, the original disclosure is not found to provide any clear guidance regarding the meaning or interpretation of the newly added “a fixed roll orientation” to where a person skilled in the art could make a clear and unequivocal determination as to the meaning or to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In view of the above, the claims are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8 and 10 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 claims 1-8 and 10, independent claim 1, from which claims 2-8 and 10 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, has been amended to recite “the sensor part is bonded in a fixed roll orientation relative to the reference feature.” It is unclear from the disclosure what constitutes “a fixed roll orientation” as well as what constitutes “the sensor part is bonded in a fixed roll orientation relative to the reference feature.” Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. In view of at least the above, the claims are 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0291842 to Tokiwa et al. (hereinafter "Tokiwa").
Regarding claim 1, Tokiwa teaches a sensor unit comprising a sensor part (e.g., fig. 1, element 12) including a lens (e.g., fig. 1, element 14; [0044]) and an imager (e.g., fig. 1, element 17; [0044]), and a housing (e.g., fig. 1, element 11) including a reference feature (e.g., fig. 1, this can be element 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, or 26) and an annular surface (e.g., fig. 1, see element 18; [0045-46]), wherein the annular surface is configured to engage with a mating annular surface of the sensor part for relative rotation about a longitudinal axis (e.g., fig. 1; [0045-46]), and the sensor part is bonded in a fixed roll orientation relative to the reference feature (e.g., fig. 1; [0045-46], bonded by either a friction of the bayonet connection or a lock pin mechanism).
Regarding claim 2, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the sensor unit further comprising a connector device configured to extend through a wall of the housing (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54], bayonet contacts), electrically communicate with a terminal portion of the sensor part at one end, and, at another end, being compatible with an external connector (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54]).
Regarding claim 3, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the reference feature is an opening formed through at least one of a closed end or a side wall of the housing (e.g., fig. 1), and the reference feature is configured to receive the connector device therethrough (e.g., fig. 1; [0045], bayonet feature).
Regarding claim 4, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 3, supra) including teaching wherein the opening is an elongate arc, and the opening is configured to delimit rotational movement of the connector device extending therethrough (e.g., fig. 1; [0045], [0054-55], bayonet functionality).
Regarding claim 5, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 3, supra) including teaching the sensor unit further comprising a connector cover configured to enclose the connector device and cover the opening (e.g., fig. 1, result of connection of external portions radially beyond bayonet).
Regarding claim 6, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the connector device is formed in a fixed position relative to the housing and the reference feature is roll adjustable relative to the sensor part (e.g., fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 6, supra) including teaching wherein the terminal portion includes contacts configured to maintain electrical connection to the reference feature (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54]).
Regarding claim 8, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 7, supra) including teaching wherein the contacts are arranged in an arcuate path (e.g., fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Tokiwa teaches a method of assembling a sensor unit, the method comprising providing a sensor part (e.g., fig. 1, element 12) including a lens (e.g., fig. 1, element 14; [0044]), an imager (e.g., fig. 1, element 17; [0044]), and an annular surface (e.g., fig. 1, associated with element 15; [0045-46]), providing a housing (e.g., fig. 1, element 11), including a reference feature (e.g., fig. 1, this can be element 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, or 26) and a mating annular surface (e.g., fig. 1, see element 18; [0045-46]), wherein the mating annular surface is configured to engage with the annular surface of the sensor part for relative rotation about a longitudinal axis (e.g., fig. 1; [0045-46], bayonet connectivity), engaging the annular surface of the sensor part and the mating annular surface of the housing (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0045-46], bayonet connectivity), rotating at least one of the sensor part or the housing to roll adjust the reference feature relative to the sensor part (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0045-46], bayonet connectivity), and fixing a relative roll orientation of the sensor part and the housing by bonding the sensor part to the housing (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0045-46], bayonet connectivity).
Regarding claim 14, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 11, supra) including teaching wherein roll adjustment of the sensor part relative to the reference feature into the relative roll orientation is facilitated by a jig or visual inspection system (e.g., [0045-46], absent more specific claim language, the bayonet features can be interpreted as a jig, and/or human connection can be interpreted as a visual inspection system, during connection or via contact functionality).
Regarding claim 15, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 11, supra) including teaching the method further comprising providing a connector device (e.g., fig. 1, element 15), wherein the connector device is configured to extend through a wall of the housing (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54], via bayonet lugs), electrically communicate with a terminal portion of the sensor part at one end (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54]), and at another end, be compatible with an external connector (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 18; [0053-54]).
Regarding claim 13, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 13 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 15, supra) including teaching the method further comprising, prior to engaging the annular surface and the mating surface, aligning the terminal portion of the sensor part with the connector device such that electrical engagement is achieved when the sensor part and the external connector are contacted (e.g., fig. 1; [0044-46], bayonet connectivity with contacts 16a/36 of fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 16 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 15, supra) including teaching wherein the reference feature is an opening formed through at least one of a closed end or a side wall of the housing (e.g., fig. 1, channel 19; [0044-46]), and the reference feature is configured to receive the connector device therethrough (e.g., fig. 1; [0044-46]).
Regarding claim 12, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 16, supra) including teaching the method further comprising providing a connector cover (e.g., fig. 1, flat annular portion of element 18, outward of bayonet features, on which element 20 is associated), and engaging the connector cover coaxially with the connector device to cover the opening and bond the connector device to the housing (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0044-46], bayonet connectivity).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa in view of Examiner’s Official Notice.
Regarding claim 10, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the sensor part is bonded to the housing by at least one of glue or a weld.
Nevertheless, Official Notice is taken regarding the use of a glue or epoxy to secure two structure elements together; a concept that is well-known and accepted in the mechanical and industrial arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed a glue to bond the sensor part and the housing part in order to prevent easy separation once mated; one skilled in the art might by motivated to do so to create a larger sensor unit that is now less easy to conceal as a singular unit, thus limiting possible theft opportunities, where possible loss of one or both parts may outweigh an owner’s desire for later easy separation.
Regarding claim 17, Tokiwa teaches all the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 11, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the sensor part is bonded to the housing by at least one of glue or a weld.
Nevertheless, Official Notice is taken regarding the use of a glue or epoxy to secure two structure elements together; a concept that is well-known and accepted in the mechanical and industrial arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed a glue to bond the sensor part and the housing part in order to prevent easy separation once mated; one skilled in the art might by motivated to do so to create a larger sensor unit that is now less easy to conceal as a singular unit, thus limiting possible theft opportunities, where possible loss of one or both parts may outweigh an owner’s desire for later easy separation.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638