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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “vehicle camera comprising: a housing” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (claim 10). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-9, 11 , 17-20 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 claim 7, last line, it is unclear as to what “the protrusion” is actually referred to since there are the protrusion of the first body and the protrusion of the inner surface of the space portion of the second body.
Regarding claim 17, last line, it is unclear as to what “the protrusion” is actually referred to since there are the protrusion of the first body and the protrusion of the inner surface of the space portion of the second body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lane et al. (US 20170271815 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lane et al. discloses a connector module comprising:
a first connector 1102 comprising a first terminal (para.[0024]) and a first body 1108, 1109 in which the first terminal is disposed; and
a second connector 1104 comprising a second terminal 1150 electrically connected to the first terminal and a second body 1110 in which the second terminal is disposed,
wherein the second body 1110 comprises a space portion 1106 to which at least a part of the first body 1108 is coupled and a through hole 1182 formed from an inner surface of the space portion 1106 so as to pass through an outer surface of the second body 1110,
wherein the first body 1108, 1109 comprises a protrusion 1122 that protrudes from an outer surface thereof more than other areas so as to be coupled to the through hole 1182, wherein the connector module comprises a cover 1120 disposed outside the through hole 1182,
wherein the cover 1120 comprises a hole (adjacent 1121, see fig. 6) to which the protrusion 1122 is coupled, wherein a guide groove 1144 is arranged on the inner surface of the space portion 1106, which is recessed outwardly from other regions, and
wherein a guide projection 1142 is arranged on the outer surface of the first body 1108, 1109, which protrudes outwardly from other regions and is coupled to the guide groove 1144.
Regarding claim 3, Lane et al. discloses a spacing between an inner surface of the hole and an outer surface of the protrusion 1122 is larger than the spacing between an inner surface of the through-hole 1182 and the outer surface of the protrusion 1122 (see figures 5, 6).
Regarding claim 5, Lane et al. discloses the guide projection 1142 is provided in plurality and arranged symmetrically with respect to each other with respect to a center of the first body 1108.
Regarding claim 6, Lane et al. discloses the protrusion includes a first protrusion (see annotated drawing below) disposed in the through-hole 1182, a second protrusion 1124 disposed in the hole (adjacent 1121, see fig. 6), and an upper surface of the second protrusion 1124 includes an inclined surface 1140.
Regarding claim 7, Lane et al. discloses an inner surface of the space portion 1106 includes a protrusion (see annotated drawing below) projecting inwardly from other regions, and the space portion includes a first region (see annotated drawing below) to which the first body 1108 is coupled and a second region (see annotated drawing below) to which the protrusion is disposed.
Regarding claim 10, Lane et al. discloses a connector module comprising:
a first connector 1102 comprising a first terminal (para.[0024]) and a first body 1108, 1109 in which the first terminal is disposed; and
a second connector 1104 comprising a second terminal 1150 electrically connected to the first terminal and a second body 1110 in which the second terminal is disposed,
wherein the second body 1110 comprises a space portion 1106 to which at least a part of the first body 1108 is coupled and a through hole 1182 formed from an inner surface of the space portion 1106 so as to pass through an outer surface of the second body 1110,
wherein the first body 1108, 1109 comprises a protrusion 1122 that protrudes from an outer surface thereof more than other areas so as to be coupled to the through hole 1182, wherein the connector module comprises a cover 1120 disposed outside the through hole 1182,
wherein the cover 1120 comprises a hole (adjacent 1121, see fig. 6) to which the protrusion 1122 is coupled, wherein a guide groove 1144 is arranged on the inner surface of the space portion 1106, which is recessed outwardly from other regions, and
wherein a guide projection 1142 is arranged on the outer surface of the first body 1108, 1109, which protrudes outwardly from other regions and is coupled to the guide groove 1144.
The recitation regarding “A vehicle camera comprising: a housing” has not been given significant patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 13, Lane et al. discloses a spacing between an inner surface of the hole and an outer surface of the protrusion 1122 is larger than the spacing between an inner surface of the through-hole 1182 and the outer surface of the protrusion 1122 (see figures 5, 6).
Regarding claim 15, Lane et al. discloses the guide projection 1142 is provided in plurality and arranged symmetrically with respect to each other with respect to a center of the first body 1108.
Regarding claim 16, Lane et al. discloses the protrusion includes a first protrusion (see annotated drawing below) disposed in the through-hole 1182, a second protrusion 1124 disposed in the hole (adjacent 1121, see fig. 6), and an upper surface of the second protrusion 1124 includes an inclined surface 1140.
Regarding claim 17, Lane et al. discloses an inner surface of the space portion 1106 includes a protrusion (see annotated drawing below) projecting inwardly from other regions, and the space portion includes a first region (see annotated drawing below) to which the first body 1108 is coupled and a second region (see annotated drawing below) to which the protrusion is disposed.
[AltContent: textbox (1st protrusion)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
634
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2nd region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (protrusion)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
700
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al..
Regarding claim 2, Lane does not disclose a spacing between an inner surface of the through-hole 1182 and an outer surface of the protrusion 1122 is from 0 mm to 0.1 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the spacing, to the extent that Lane et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the spacing would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 4, Lane does not disclose a gap between a side surface of the protrusion and an inner surface of the through hole is 0 mm to 0.1 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the gap, to the extent that Lane et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the gap would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 8, Lane does not disclose a distance from an end surface of the first body coupled to the space portion to the projection is between 0.075 mm and 0.125 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the distance, to the extent that Lane et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the distance would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 12, Lane does not disclose a spacing between an inner surface of the through-hole 1182 and an outer surface of the protrusion 1122 is from 0 mm to 0.1 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the spacing, to the extent that Lane et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the spacing would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 14, Lane does not disclose a gap between a side surface of the protrusion and an inner surface of the through hole is 0 mm to 0.1 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the gap, to the extent that Lane et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the gap would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 18, Lane does not disclose a distance from an end surface of the first body coupled to the space portion to the projection is between 0.075 mm and 0.125 mm.
Regarding the particular dimensions of the distance, to the extent that Lane et al. does not specify exact dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the distance would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the distance would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 19, 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO D. TA whose telephone number is (571)272-2014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
Tdt
9/21/2026
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights