14704521 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020)

Autoliv Development AB

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 2020

14704521 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/704,521 05/05/2015 Per Knutsson 16447-383 (P71215-US-01) 4333 40879 7590 05/04/2020 Dickinson Wright PLLC/Autoliv ASP 350 S. Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 EXAMINER KWAN, MATTHEW K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): dwpatents@dickinsonwright.com tgarrett@dickinsonwright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PER KNUTSSON, PETER FREDRIKSSON, BO MALMBORG, PER HOLMBERG, DANIEL TENSELIUS, PER-ANDERS EIDET, ROGER WIGREN, and MELIH GUNES Appeal 2019-001739 Application 14/704,521 Technology Center 2400 Before J. JOHN LEE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. LEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VEONEER SWEDEN AB. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-001739 Application 14/704,521 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The present invention relates generally to a system for mounting a camera module to a camera housing using a rotation-inhibiting locking means. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and recites: 1. An imaging system for a motor vehicle, comprising: a camera housing part and at least one camera module to be mounted to said camera housing part, wherein the camera module comprises an image sensor, said camera module comprises first rotation locking means, said camera housing part comprises second rotation locking means adapted to cooperate with said first rotation locking means, wherein said first and second rotation locking means cooperate to lock the camera module against rotation relative to the camera housing part. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Grimm US 2001/0050498 A1 Dec. 13, 2001 Ohsumi US 2008/0001727 A1 Jan. 3, 2008 Lu US 2010/0265048 A1 Oct. 21, 2010 Lai US 2012/0181315 A1 July 19, 2012 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 2, 7–10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohsumi. Final Act. 2–5. Claims 3–6 and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsumi and Grimm. Id. at 5–8. Appeal 2019-001739 Application 14/704,521 3 Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsumi and Lu. Id. at 8. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsumi and Lai. Id. at 8–9. Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1). ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1 and 13 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that Ohsumi discloses “a camera housing part and at least one camera module to be mounted to said camera housing part, wherein the camera module comprises an image sensor . . . said camera housing part comprises second rotation locking means,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 13. See Appeal Br. 6–8; see Reply Br. 1–3. Specifically, Appellant argues that Ohsumi’s “lens holder 19 cannot be considered as a camera module as it forms just a part of the camera, namely the lens objective.” Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues that, in Ohsumi, “sensor 12a is part of the camera housing part, not the camera module” as required by the claims. Appeal Br. 8. Still further, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s Answer “essentially argues that the camera module of Ohsumi includes both the stay 11, which has a sensor and a lens holder 19a” but, in that case, “Ohsumi would fail to disclose a camera housing part that has a rotational locking means.” Reply Br. 1. We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 9 of Ohsumi, reproduced below, highlighting the Appeal 2019-001739 Application 14/704,521 4 components that the Examiner relies on as disclosing the claimed “camera module” and “camera housing.” Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 9–10. Figure 9, as annotated by the Examiner, shows schematic views of the construction of a lens holder to be mounted onto a stay projection. Ans. 10–11; see Ohsumi, Fig. 9, ¶ 15. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that imaging element 12a and lens 13a of Ohsumi disclose “a camera module.” Ans. 9–10 (citing Ohsumi ¶¶ 33, 36, Fig. 9); Final Act. 2, 10. Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, stay projection 18a of Ohsumi discloses “a camera housing.” Ans. 9 (citing Ohsumi Fig. 9); Final Act. 10. Still further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Ohsumi’s locking pin 71 discloses a “rotation locking means” on Ohsumi’s stay projection 18. Final Act. 3, 10 (citing Ohsumi Fig. 9). Appellant’s argument that Ohsumi’s “lens holder 19 cannot be considered as a camera module as it forms just a part of the camera, namely the lens objective” (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2) does not address the Examiner’s stated rejection. The Examiner does not rely on Ohsumi’s lens holder alone to disclose “a camera module.” Instead, the Examiner finds Appeal 2019-001739 Application 14/704,521 5 that a collection of components—i.e., lens 13a and imaging element 12a— disclose “a camera module.” Ans. 9–11. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Ohsumi’s sensor 12a is part of the “camera housing part,” rather than part of the “camera module.” See Appeal Br. 8. As discussed above, the Examiner finds that Ohsumi’s stay projection 18a teaches a “camera housing part.” Ans. 9 (citing Ohsumi Fig. 9); Final Act. 10. Ohsumi states that sensor 12a, is “mounted from forward of the stay projection[] 18a.” Ohsumi ¶ 38. Thus, Ohsumi supports the Examiner’s finding that imaging element 12a is a separate component (i.e., the “camera module”) mounted onto stay projection 18a (the “camera housing”), and that imaging element 12a is not a part of stay projection 18a itself. See Ans. 9; Final Act. 10. Additionally, Appellant’s argument that the Examiner “essentially argues that the camera module of Ohsumi includes both the stay 11, which has a sensor and a lens holder 19a” (Reply Br. 1) mischaracterizes the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner does not rely on stay 11 (or stay projection 18a) as disclosing a “camera module” and, as discussed above, relies on imaging element 12a and lens 13a to disclose a “camera module.” Ans. 9–10; Final Act. 2, 10. To the extent that Appellant contends imaging element 12a and lens 13a cannot both disclose the recited “camera module,” such a contention is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Both claims 1 and 13 recite that the camera module “comprises” an image sensor. Thus, they do not preclude a camera module from also including a lens, nor do they preclude a camera module from including components that are physically separable (like imagine element 12a and lens 13a in Ohsumi). Appeal 2019-001739 Application 14/704,521 6 Appellant has not presented any persuasive evidence or argument indicating otherwise. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Ohsumi discloses “a camera housing part and at least one camera module to be mounted to said camera housing part, wherein the camera module comprises an image sensor . . . said camera housing part comprises second rotation locking means,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 13. Dependent Claim 10 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Ohsumi discloses “said camera module comprises a lens objective, a lens holder holding said lens objective, [and] an image sensor,” as recited in claim 10. Appeal Br. 8– 10; Reply Br. 3–4. Specifically, Appellant argues that “[i]f one assumes that the lens holder 19a is equivalent to the at least one camera module of claim 10, Ohsumi fails to disclose that the lens holder 19a includes not only the lens but also the image sensor.” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Appellant further argues, as above, “the image sensor (12a) of Ohsumi is part of the camera housing part, not the camera module (lens holder 19a).” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. As discussed above, the Examiner does not rely on the lens holder 19a alone to disclose a “camera module.” Instead, the Examiner finds that Ohsumi’s lens 13a, lens holder 19a, and imaging element 12a, together, disclose a “camera module.” Final Act. 4 (citing Ohsumi Fig. 9). Further, as discussed above, Appellant has Appeal 2019-001739 Application 14/704,521 7 not persuasively explained or shown why Ohsumi’s imaging element 12a is “part of the camera housing part,” rather than the “camera module.” Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Ohsumi discloses “said camera module comprises a lens objective, a lens holder holding said lens objective, [and] an image sensor,” as recited in claim 10. Appeal Br. 8–10. Remaining Claims 2–9, 11, 12, and 14–18 Appellant does not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2–9, 11, 12, and 14–18, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 13. See Appeal Br. 8, 10. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–9, 11, 12, and 14–18. Appeal 2019-001739 Application 14/704,521 8 CONCLUSION In Summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7–10, 13, 14 102(a)(1) Ohsumi 1, 2, 7–10, 13, 14 3–6, 15–18 103 Ohsumi, Grimm 3–6, 15–18 11 103 Ohsumi, Lu 11 12 Ohsumi, Lai 12 Overall Outcome 1–18 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED