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 Amendment
The amendment filed on December 29, 2025 in response to the previous Office Action (09/30/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 11 and 13 are currently pending.
Claims 4 and 12 are cancelled.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action:
Objection to Specification
Rejection under 112(b)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the cited art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach the features of amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that Gherardini does not disclose a connector device that is selectable received through one of the openings 22 of the housing 14 (see Remarks, p. 7). Applicant also submits that Gherardini teaches away from the claimed invention by disclosing integral, permanent connector interfaces (see Remarks p.7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gherardini teaches cable assembly 400 being used to physically and electrically connect two modules 10 together or module 10 to another electrical component (¶36). Cable assembly 400 can be inserted into opening 22 in housing 14 so as to engage a corresponding tab (¶38). Cable assembly 400 reads on the additional language of claim 1.
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 – 3, 5 – 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gherardini et al. (US 2009/0196034) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2018/0242427).
Regarding claim 1,Gherardini discloses, in at least figures 1 – 2, a housing for accommodating at least part of a device (figs. 1 – 2), the housing comprising: a plurality of opening positions (22) formed into the housing; and a connector device (400) configured to be received into the housing through one of the plurality of opening positions (¶36-38), wherein the plurality of opening positions enable selection of a position and direction of the connector device into the housing for, at one end (fig. 1), electrically communicating with a terminal portion of the device within the housing and, at another end, being compatible with an external connector (figs. 4, 6, 8; ¶36: cable assembly); and a plug (700) element for covering each unselected opening of the plurality of opening positions (figs. 7 – 9; ¶42-44). Gherardini teaches an LED module with a lens but fails to explicitly disclose a sensor device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention of Gherardini et al. with the teachings of Johnson. Gherardini et al. discloses an LED module with a lens that can be modified for particular situations (¶45) . Johnson teaches a sensor arrangement comprising one or more sensors, and an optical system/lens for focusing light emitted by the LED module. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of a sensor arrangement with and LED, as taught by Johnson, with the invention of Gherardini et al. would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 2, Gherardini in view of Johnson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Gherardini also teaches further comprising at least two side walls, wherein: the at least two side walls are disposed at an angle from each other, and each side wall includes an opening of the plurality of opening positions, enabling different directions of selectable position for the connector device (fig. 1; at least two side walls with openings).
Regarding claim 3, Gherardini in view of Johnson disclose the limitations of claim 2. Gherardini also teaches wherein: the at least two side walls meet at a corner (26) of the housing, and at least one of the plurality of opening positions is located on each of the side walls adjacent the corner. (fig. 1; ¶29: the housing 14 has a generally circular cross section, however, other cross sectional geometries including square, hexagonal, triangular, octagonal or other polygon, as well as curved profiles may be used for applications having different assembled system geometries).
Regarding claim 5, Gherardini in view of Johnson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Gherardini also teaches wherein the plug element is formed from at least one of plastic or rubber (fig. 7; ¶42: insertion portion 720, including sealing features 722 are formed of a soft polymer or compliant polymeric material, such as a thermoplastic elastomer).
Regarding claim 6, Gherardini in view of Johnson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Gherardini also teaches wherein the connector device includes an insertion end for inserting into the selected opening (fig. 4, 6).
Regarding claim 7, Gherardini in view of Johnson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Gherardini also teaches wherein the connector device includes an engagement feature (510) for securing to the external connector (fig. 4, 6; ¶41).
Regarding claim 8, Gherardini in view of Johnson disclose the limitations of claim 1. The combination also teaches wherein the sensor device includes a printed circuit board (PCB) having a plurality of terminal portions, one of which is alignable with a selected position of the connector device ((Johnson, figs. 8-9; element 77; Gherardini, fig. 2; ¶30-31, element 36).
Regarding claim 9, Gherardini in view of Johnson disclose the limitations of claim 8. The combination also wherein the PCB includes an imager for alignment with a lens barrel of the sensor device extending from the housing ((Johnson, figs. 8-9; element 70; lens ; Gherardini, fig. 1; ¶28, lens 12).
Claim 10 and 13 is rejected as applied to claims 1 and 9 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Gherardini et al. in view of Johnson et al. Gherardini also teaches the added limitations of the connector site (¶31, 36-38).
Regarding claim 11, Gherardini in view of Johnson disclose the limitations of claim 10. Gherardini also teaches wherein the connector device is fastened into the selected connector site by adhesive or welding to the housing (¶31: traces).
Conclusion
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights