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 .
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 47 and 48 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.
Due to the improper dependent issue, claims 47 and 48 lack proper metes and bounds, and therefore are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, claim 47 is taken as depending from claim 46.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 47 and 48 depend from cancelled claim 45.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Note that the label of Claim 47 is incorrectly marked as “Original” in the 11/13/2025 claim set, and the present claim dependence differs from the prior claims set dated 2/28/2020 as examined. As a result, the present rejections are necessitated by the amendment and the claims are finally rejected.
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.
(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 46 – 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by patent application publication number US 20170240029 A1 to Moriyama.
Regarding Claim 46, Moriyama teaches a sensor apparatus for protecting a sensor device (car V in Fig. 1 represents a “sensor apparatus”, as a structure including at least the sensor of Para 0077, and providing protection to a sensor from outside elements e.g. weather, rain) in an environment where insulation material has been sprayed (car is capable of providing the protecting action including if/when sprayed by water, e.g. during rain or some other weather event), comprising:
a housing (structure / housing of car “V”, Fig. 1) having a directional sensor responsive to an environment of the directional sensor (“electric current sensor which detects an upper-limit position, a lower-limit position”, Para 0077, sensor is responsive to the relative position of a moving shutter 30), the directional sensor having a viewing window (opening shown covered by glass shutter 30, in Fig. 1) defining a viewing plane (e.g. inclined plane defined by the inner/right planar surface of glass/shutter 30 as oriented in Fig. 12) and a normal axis extending away from the viewing window (axis is perpendicular to the plane defined by 30 in Fig. 12, i.e. oriented sideways to the left);
a shutter (30); and
at least one actuator (39/49, Para 0077) configured to drive a shutter 30 in a plane of motion (e.g. inclined plane defined by the outer/left surface of glass shutter 30 as oriented in Fig. 12), wherein the plane of motion is substantially parallel to and spaced from the viewing plane in the direction of the normal axis (the spacing is equal to the glass shutter thickness, measured in the normal axis direction, Fig. 12),
wherein the shutter 30 is configured to be driven from a first position (Para 0077: “ upper-limit position”) substantially covering the viewing window to a second position (Para 0077: “ lower-limit position”) substantially clear from the viewing window, wherein the housing comprises a cutting edge (any edge of the weather strip 78, including inner or outer angular features as shown in Fig. 12, or any edge depicted, relative to which the glass shutter 30 is movable) spaced from the shutter 30 in the direction of the normal axis, and wherein relative motion (up and down movements of the shutter, relative to any stationary feature like any of the cutting edges identified) between the shutter and the cutting edge removes spray material adhered to the shutter (e.g. rain spray / water droplets is removed from the shutter as it moves it up and down, Para 0114).
Regarding claims 47 and 48, Moriyama discloses asensor apparatus according to claim 46;
[Claim 47] wherein the housing (structure / housing of car “V”, Fig. 1) comprises a shroud (door 1) having defined therein a viewing port (opening 70 through which glass 30 extends), and wherein an edge (the top edge of the door 1) of the shroud which defines the viewing port provides the cutting edge (any edge of the weather strip 78); and
[Claim 48] wherein the viewing port (opening 70 through which glass 30 extends) is formed within a recess (insertion hole 70) in the shroud (door 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 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese patent document number JP-S6169019-A to Totwu, in view of Chinese patent document number CN-101324708-A to Tanaka.
Regarding claim 60, Totwu discloses a sensor apparatus (Fig. 1) capable protecting a sensor device (camera 10) in an environment where insulation material has been sprayed, comprising:
a housing (casing 16) having a viewing window (opening 14) defining a viewing plane (a plane tangent to transparent support plate 20) and a normal axis extending away from the viewing window (the axis normal to support plate 20 and opening 14 and extending away from the device in Figs. 1 and 2);
a transparent film (transparent film 18) located over the viewing window and fed from a first reel (supply reel 22) of transparent film to a second reel (take-up reel 24); and
a motor (drive mechanism 26) configured to drive the second reel, whereby to replace a portion of transparent film located over the viewing window with clean transparent film from the first reel (“The take-up reel 24 is rotated intermittently by a drive mechanism 26 using a step motor or the like, so that the protective permeable film 18 is advanced frame by frame in accordance with the area of the frontage 14.” Page 1 of the Machine Translation),
wherein the housing includes an angled or bevelled surface (the convex surface of transparent support plate 20 which engages the transparent film 18, Fig. 1) configured to clear debris from the transparent film as the motor drives the transparent film across the viewing window.
However, Totwu does not disclose a directional sensor.
Tanaka disclose an imaging apparatus incorporating the use of a directional sensor (attitude sensor 135, Fig. 3, Page 6 of Machine Translation) detecting the direction of gravity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Totwu to include a directional sensor, as taught by Tanaka, so that the attitude (orientation) of the of the directional sensor can provide data about when the device is oriented for use and to provide clean transparent film for viewing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue Moriyama does not disclose the claimed sensor apparatus because Moriyama’s sensor is an electrical sensor and not a directional sensor, and the apparatus is for use with insulation, not water.
First, the electrical sensor disclosed by Moriyama is for sensing whether the glass is at an upper limit or a lower limit, so that it can determine the direction of travel of the window glass (“detects an upper-limit position, a lower-position”; Paragraph [0077]). Therefore, Moriyama’s sensor can detect direction.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed device is for use with sprayed insulation, not sprayed water, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the case of Moriyama, the sensor device is capable of being used with sprayed insulation. Similarly, for claim 60, Totwu’s device is also capable of protecting the lens from sprayed insulation. Additionally, note that the scope of claims 46-48 and 60 does not extend to the insulation material itself, in other words the apparatus does not comprise the insulation material as a sub-element. The recitation of “insulating material” merely points to an indirect capability of the sensor apparatus (which the prior art apparatus possesses, see details above) to be able to function in an environment where insulation material may have been sprayed. Note that the spraying of insulating material is not presently recited as a step of a method/process claim in which said step of spraying were required to have been performed.
Lastly, applicant has amended claim 60 to state “wherein the housing includes an angled or bevelled surface configured to clear debris from the transparent film as the motor drives the transparent film across the viewing window”. However, Totwu discloses at least one surface (20) that is curved or bevelled and capable of being used to clear debris from the surface of transparent film (18). Therefore, claims 46 – 48 and 60 are finally rejected.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Felicia L Brittman-Alabi whose telephone number is (313)446-6512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/Felicia L. Brittman-Alabi/
Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611