Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/747,539

FIXING STRUCTURE OF HEATER FOR ONBOARD CAMERA

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 18, 2022
Examiner
PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V
Art Unit
2488
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Kojima Industries Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
152 granted / 237 resolved
+6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
245
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 237 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Applicant(s) Response to Official Action [1] The response filed on November 13, 2025 has been entered and made of record. Response to Arguments/Amendments [2] Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s). 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)(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. [3] Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kovach [US 2021/0094512]. Regarding claim 1, Kovach discloses the claim limitations as follows: A fixing structure of a heater for an onboard camera (i.e. fig. 2), the fixing structure comprising: a hood base (i.e. 18) that is fixed to an automobile (i.e. windshield) [figs. 1 and 2; para. 0022}; a hood plate (i.e. 20) that covers the hood base (i.e. 18) from above [fig. 2]; and a heater (i.e. 44) that is provided between the hood base (i.e. 18) and the hood plate (i.e. 20) [fig. 2], wherein the hood base (i.e. 18) and the hood plate (i.e. 20) form a hood structure (i.e. fig. 1) that allows a line of sight of an on-board camera (i.e. 12) to pass through an area between onboard glass (i.e. 16) and the hood structure (i.e. opening in 20 allows for line of sight of camera 12), while blocking undesired light to the on-board camera (i.e. this is an inherent property of the structure of fig. 2, since the narrow opening in 20 will block undesired light to the camera 12) [figs. 1 and 2], the heater (i.e. 44) is disposed below a lower surface of the hood plate (i.e. 20) [fig. 2], a lower surface of the heater (i.e. 44) is not contacted by another layer so that a space is defined directly below the lower surface of the heater (i.e. gap below 44 and above 18) [fig. 3], the hood base (i.e. 18) forms sidewalls, a rear wall and a bottom plate of the hood structure (i.e. 18 defines sidewalls, rear wall and is the bottom of the structure 10) [fig. 2], and the space is surrounded by the sidewalls and the rear wall (i.e. area above 18) and sealed between the hood plate, the lower surface of the heater, the sidewalls, the rear wall and the bottom plate extending from the sidewalls and the rear wall (i.e. 18 forms the bottom structure so it will be the sidewall, rear wall and bottom plate and all empty space between 20 and 18 are sealed [figs. 2 and 3]. Regarding claim 5, Kovach discloses the claim limitations as follows: The fixing structure of a heater for an onboard camera according to claim 1, wherein the hood base (i.e. 18) holds the onboard camera (i.e. 12) [fig. 2; para. 0022]. 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. [4] Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovach [US 2021/0094512] in view of Usami et al. (“Usami”) [US 2017/0334364]. Regarding claim 6, Kovach discloses the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Kovach does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations: The fixing structure of a heater for an onboard camera according to claim 1, the fixing structure further comprising: a bracket that is fixed to the automobile, wherein the hood base is fixed to the automobile via the bracket, and the bracket holds the onboard camera. However, in the same field of endeavor Usami discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows: The fixing structure of a heater for an onboard camera according to claim 1, the fixing structure further comprising: a bracket (i.e. 12) that is fixed to the automobile (i.e. windshield) [figs. 1 and 3], wherein the hood base (i.e. 76) is fixed to the automobile (i.e. windshield) via the bracket (i.e. 12) [figs. 1 and 3], and the bracket (i.e. 12) holds the onboard camera (i.e. 25) [figs. 1 and 3]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kovach with Usami and use a bracket, the reasoning being to secure a camera system to the windshield [para. 0002-0004]. Regarding claim 7, Kovach discloses the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Kovach does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations: The fixing structure of a heater for an onboard camera according to claim 1, wherein the hood plate is formed of a material that conducts heat more easily than the hood base. However, in the same field of endeavor Usami discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows: The fixing structure of a heater for an onboard camera according to claim 1, wherein the hood plate (i.e. 39) is formed of a material that conducts heat (i.e. facilitate heat transfer) more easily than the hood base [para. 0104-0108]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kovach with Usami and use a conductive hood plate, the reasoning being to enable better heat transfer to the windshield [para. 0104-0108]. Conclusion [5] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATH V PERUNGAVOOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-5 pm. 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, COLLEEN FAUZ can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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. SATH V PERUNGAVOOR Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 2488 /SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 18, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 16, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 03, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 10, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 23, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 30, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602761
IMAGE ANALYSIS APPARATUS, IMAGE ANALYSIS METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599357
ULTRASOUND AUTOMATED DETECTION AND DISPLAY METHOD OF CRANIAL ABNORMAL REGIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12518345
ACTIVITY DETECTION USING VIDEO ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12519925
Method of Visualizing Calibration State of Camera, System, and Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium Storing Computer Program
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12457328
Video Compression Using Template-Based Determination of Intra Prediction Mode
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.4%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 237 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month