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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed August 20, 2025. Claims 1-8 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. (US 2019/0293485 A1) in view of Sugiura et al. (WO 2018052057 A1, of which an English translation is attached) and further in view of Wheatley et al. (US 2019/0137669 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Okumura et al. discloses a near-infrared ray sensor cover 17 comprising (see e.g. Figures 2-3):
a cover main body portion 19 that is arranged in front in a transmission direction of a near-infrared ray transmitted from a near-infrared ray sensor 16, and has near-infrared ray transmission properties (see e.g. paragraph [0032] and further note that “is arranged in front in a transmission direction of a near infrared ray transmitted from a near-infrared ray sensor” is intended use as the claim is drawn to a cover for a near-infrared sensor), wherein:
the cover main body portion 19 has a first resin layer 21 having a refractive index n1 (i.e. AES resin, see e.g. paragraph [0035]) and a second resin layer 22 formed on a front side of the first resin layer in the transmission direction and having a refractive index n2 (i.e. PC, PMMA, or COP resin, see e.g. paragraph [0036]) different from the refractive index n1, sets a rear surface of the first resin layer 21 in the transmission direction as an incident surface of the near-infrared ray, and sets a front surface of the second resin layer 22 as an emission surface of the near-infrared ray,
θ represents an angle formed by the near-infrared ray refracted when passing through the emission surface and a normal line with respect to the emission surface (see e.g. Figures 2-3 and note that for an incident light on the surfaces, these angles will exist),
x represents an angle formed by the incident surface and the emission surface (see e.g. Figures 2-3 and note that for an incident light on the surfaces, these angles will exist),
y represents an angle formed by a boundary surface between the first resin layer and the second resin layer and the emission surface (see e.g. Figures 2-3 and note that for an incident light on the surfaces, these angles will exist),
α represents an angle formed by the near-infrared ray refracted when passing through the incident surface and a normal line with respect to the incident surface (see e.g. Figures 2-3 and note that for an incident light on the surfaces, these angles will exist),
β represents an angle formed by the near-infrared ray incident on the boundary surface and a normal line with respect to the boundary surface (see e.g. Figures 2-3 and note that for an incident light on the surfaces, these angles will exist), and
δ represents an angle formed by the near-infrared ray refracted when passing through the boundary surface and the normal line with respect to the emission surface (see e.g. Figures 2-3 and note that for an incident light on the surfaces, these angles will exist),
the incident surface is inclined with respect to the emission surface by the angle x defined based on the following Equations:
sin (θ + x) = n1sinα;
n1sinβ=n2sin (δ-y);
n2sinδ=sinθ (see e.g. Figures 2-3 and note that for an incident light on the layers, the above equations are true based on Snell’s Law of Refraction and also note the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection cited above).
Okumura et al. fails to disclose
x + y – α – β =0 or x + y– α + β =0;
a reflection suppressing layer is provided on a rear surface of the cover main body portion, and
a hydrophilic film is formed on a rear side of the reflection suppressing layer.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using x + y – α – β =0 or x + y– α + β =0, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okumura et al. with x + y – α – β =0 or x + y– α + β =0.
Doing so would provide an optimized incident and emission angle for transmission and receipt of the near-infrared rays so that a more accurate measurement may be performed.
Okumura fails to disclose
a reflection suppressing layer is provided on a rear surface of the cover main body portion, and
a hydrophilic film is formed on a rear side of the reflection suppressing layer.
However, Sugiura et al. discloses
a reflection suppressing layer 27 is provided on a rear surface of the cover main body portion 21 (see e.g. page 4, last full paragraph of English translation).
Given the teachings of Sugiura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okumura with a reflection suppressing layer is provided on a rear surface of the cover main body portion.
Providing the reflection suppressing layer would prevent unwanted reflections and improve transmission through the layers.
Okumura, in view of Sugiura et al., fails to disclose
a hydrophilic film is formed on a rear side of the reflection suppressing layer.
However, Wheatley et al. discloses
using hydrophilic films on optical filters for optical systems including sensors (see e.g. paragraphs [0050] and [0080]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize utilizing such a film in areas where the beading of external moisture would be of concern or detrimental to the device.
Given the teachings of Wheatley et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okumura, in view of Sugiura et al., with a hydrophilic film is formed on a rear side of the reflection suppressing layer.
Providing a hydrophilic surface will prevent unwanted beading of moisture on the device which may be detrimental to the sensing function of the device.
In regard to claim 2, Okumura et al. discloses wherein:
the second resin layer 22 is made of a front base member formed of a transparent resin material (i.e. PC, PMMA, or COP resin, see e.g. paragraph [0036]) and composed of an uneven surface having irregularities in the transmission direction as a rear surface of the second resin layer 22 in the transmission direction (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that curved surface is considered “uneven”);
the first resin layer 21 is made of a rear base member formed of a resin material (i.e. AES resin, see e.g. paragraph [0035]), arranged on a rear side of the front base member in the transmission direction, and composed of an uneven surface having irregularities so as to be engaged with the uneven surface of the front base member as a front surface of the first resin layer 21 in the transmission direction (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that curved surface is considered “uneven”); and
a decorative layer 24+31 made of a material that reflects visible light and has near-infrared ray transmission properties is formed between the front base member and the rear base member (see e.g. paragraphs [0038]-[0039], Figure 3).
In regard to claim 3, Okumura discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and (see e.g. Figures 2-3):
the decorative layer 24+31 is in direct contact with the uneven surface of the front base member 22.
In regard to claim 4, Okumura discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and (see e.g. Figures 2-3):
a black presser layer 32 (denoted “shielding layer”, see e.g. paragraph [0038]) that allows the near-infrared ray to pass therethrough while suppressing transmission of visible light (see e.g. paragraph [0045]), the black presser layer 32 includes a black coating film layer, the black presser layer 32 is provided together with the decorative layer 24+31 between the front base member and the rear base member (see e.g. Figure 3).
In regard to claim 5, Okumura discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
a hard coat layer 23 having near-infrared ray IR transmission properties (see e.g. paragraph [0045]) and a hardness higher than that of the second resin layer 22 (see e.g. paragraph [0037]) is disposed on the front surface of the second resin layer 22 in the transmission direction (see e.g. Figure 3).
In regard to claim 6, Okumura discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
a water-repellant layer laminated on a front surface of the hard coat layer 23 in the transmission direction (see e.g. paragraph [0082]).
In regard to claim 7, Okumura discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a heater unit disposed on the rear surface of the first resin layer in the transmission direction, the heater unit including a heater wire in a transparent resin material.
However, Sugiura discloses
a heater unit 26, the heater unit 26 including a heater wire in a transparent resin material (see e.g. page 8, first full paragraph for wire in PC resin).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the heater unit disposed on the rear surface of the first resin layer in the transmission direction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Given the teachings of Sugiura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okumura with a heater unit disposed on the rear surface of the first resin layer in the transmission direction, the heater unit including a heater wire in a transparent resin material.
Providing a heater unit allow the surface of the film to produce heat that may suppress snow from adhering to the sensor cover or by melting the adhering snow (see e.g. page 5, 7th paragraph of Sugiura et al.).
In regard to claim 8, Okumura, in view of Sugiura et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
the heater unit is disposed between the first resin layer and the reflection suppressing layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the heater unit is disposed between the first resin layer and the reflection suppressing layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Given the teachings of Sugiura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okumura with the heater unit is disposed between the first resin layer and the reflection suppressing layer.
Providing the heat unit within the sensor cover in a position in which it can effectively suppress snow from adhering to the sensor cover or by melting the adhering snow would be considered within ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments on pages 7-10 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the newly cited rejection, necessitated by amendment, discloses or makes obvious all of the limitations of claim 1, as cited above.
In regard to newly added claim 3, applicant argues that the previously cited references fails to disclose the decorative layer is in direct contact with the uneven surface of the front base member. However, as cited above, Okumura discloses in Figure 3 that the decorative layer 24+31 is in direct contact with the uneven surface of the front base member 22.
In regard to newly added claim 4, applicant argues that the previously cited references fail to disclose the claimed black presser layer. However, as cited above, Okumura discloses in Figure 3, a black presser layer 32 (denoted “shielding layer”, see e.g. paragraph [0038]) that allows the near-infrared ray to pass therethrough while suppressing transmission of visible light (see e.g. paragraph [0045]), the black presser layer 32 includes a black coating film layer, the black presser layer 32 is provided together with the decorative layer 24+31 between the front base member and the rear base member (see e.g. Figure 3).
In regard to newly added claim 5, applicant argues that the previously cited references fail to disclose the claimed hard coat layer. However, as cited above, Okumura discloses a hard coat layer 23 having near-infrared ray IR transmission properties (see e.g. paragraph [0045]) and a hardness higher than that of the second resin layer 22 (see e.g. paragraph [0037]) is disposed on the front surface of the second resin layer 22 in the transmission direction (see e.g. Figure 3).
In regard to newly added claim 6, applicant argues that the previously cited references fail to disclose the claimed water-repellent layer. However, as cited above, Okumura discloses a water-repellant layer laminated on a front surface of the hard coat layer 23 in the transmission direction (see e.g. paragraph [0082]).
In regard to newly added claims 7-8, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of the claims. However, the newly cited rejection, necessitated by amendment, discloses or makes obvious all of the limitations of claims 7 and 8, as cited above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871