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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16, 20-26, 34-37 and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi Hyun Yong (KR 20160078043 A) (Hereinafter Yong) and further in view of Alland et al. (US Pub. No.: 2011/0163904 A1) (hereinafter Alland).
Regarding claim 16, Yong discloses an apparatus for sensing surrounding of a motor vehicle, comprising: a laser sensing device (LiDAR) which can be mounted on a vehicle. The device can be mounted at the upper or lower end of the windshield glass of vehicle, radiator grill or headlamp (corresponding to outer skin component). Young is silent about the fixedly connecting the device.
Alland also discloses an apparatus for sensing surroundings for a motor vehicle (Title, abstract). The apparatus discloses a sensing module (20) employs a sensor module housing (100) comprising a plurality of walls as shown in Figs. 3 and 4). The sensor module (20) includes a camera component (22) located in the module housing (100) for capturing images based on light waves. Sensor module (20) also includes a radar sensor component (30) located within the module housing (100) (corresponding to holder) for emitting a radar beam and receiving reflected radar signals. The sensing module (20) further includes processing circuitry (50) for processing the captured images and the received reflected radar signals and providing an indication of the detection of the presence of one or more objects detected in the coverage zones (150) and (160) (Fig. 3-4; ¶0026). Alland further discloses the housing (100) is mounted to windshield (12) (corresponding to outer skin component) via an adhesive (corresponding to fixedly connected) (¶0035). Notice the holder (100) and outer skin (12) component each have one end face that faces toward one another, and the holder and the outer skin component are fixedly connected to one another at the end faces facing toward one another (Fig. 3-4) via adhesive (¶0035).
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize fixedly connecting the module housing to outer skin component as taught by Alland within the apparatus as taught by Yong. The benefit of doing so would have been to securely mount laser sensing device on vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, Alland discloses wherein the fixed connection at the end faces is formed completely circumferential around a sensing window (Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 21, Alland discloses wherein the end faces of the holder (100) and the outer skin component (12) are shaped complementary to one another (Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 22, Yong discloses wherein windshield (corresponding to the outer skin component) is also transmissive to laser radiation in an area of a projection of the end face of the holder in the outer skin component.
Regarding claim 23, Alland discloses wherein the laser sensing device comprises a housing (50), which is essentially closed, and the housing is mounted on the holder (100) of the laser sensing device (Fig. 3- 4; ¶0031-35).
Regarding claim 24, Alland discloses wherein the holder (100) is only connected via the outer skin component (12) to the motor vehicle (Fig. 3-4 ).
Regarding claim 25, Alland discloses the sensor module (20) is only fastened via the holder (100) on the motor vehicle (Fig. 3-4) (¶0035 -adhesive or attached).
Regarding claim 26, Alland discloses wherein the laser sensing device is only fastened via the holder on the motor vehicle (Fig. 3-4) (¶0035 -adhesive or attached).
Regarding claim 34, the combined teaching of Yong and Allen discloses the outer skin component is a vehicle body panel selected from the group consisting of a front skirt, an emblem panel, a radiator grill surface, a body flap, a fender, a side skirt, and a windowpane.
Regarding claim 35, Alland discloses wherein the outer skin component (12) spans a larger area than a projected area of the holder (100) on the outer skin component (Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 36, Yong discloses the outer skin component can be headlamp which is considered as opaque.
Regarding claim 37, Alland discloses the housing (100) may be metallic material (¶0035).
Regarding claim 40, Alland disclose the adhesive is applied circumferential around housing module (100) when the module is bonded to windshield (12). The bonding area would naturally create seal against moisture and dirt. Furthermore, the benefit of creating a seal against moisture and dirt would be to assure the path between the windshield and sensor is free of any dirt and moisture.
Regarding claim 41, Alland discloses wherein the outer skin component (12) extends over a larger area than the holder (100) such that a location of the laser sensing device is not recognizable from outside the motor vehicle (Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 42, Alland discloses the sensing device is a LiDAR unit comprising a laser emitter and a sensing sensor system.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 19 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong and Alland as applied to claims 16, 20-26, 34-37, 40-42 above, and further in view of Matthias Karl (DE 102016210436A1) (hereinafter Karl).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the limitations of claim 16 are taught by the combined teaching of Yong and Alland. They are both silent about limitations of claims 18 and 19.
Karl also discloses an apparatus for sensing surrounding of motor vehicle. The apparatus discloses the use of melting plastic to form a fixed connection (¶0007). Karl discloses the use of adhesive is not enough in few instances and welding is needed to form secure bond. The welding can be spot welding and/or weld seams.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the welding as means of fixing components together as taught by Karl within the apparatus as taught by the combined teaching of Yong and Alland. The benefit of doing so would have been to obtain secure bond between two components.
Regarding claim 17 and 39, Karl discloses the fixed connection is made in radial or ring-shaped configuration. Thus, if the holder is circular as opposed to rectangular, a radial and ring shape connection can be obtained.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong, Alland and Karl as applied to claims 16, 17-26, 34-37, 39-42 above, and further in view of Dr. Hornung Thorsten (EP 3308897 A1) (hereinafter Hornung).
Regarding claim 38, the limitations of claims 16 and 18, are taught by the combined teaching of Young, Alland and Karl. They are both silent about laser transmission welding of plastic component.
Hornung discloses method and apparatus of laser welding to vehicle components together (Abstract). By means of laser transmission welding, for example, the components made of plastic (for example, PMMA, polymethyl methacrylate, acrylic glass) and luminaire housing of a vehicle lamp in general, in particular a motor vehicle lamp and a motor vehicle tail lamp in particular, can be connected to one another in a material-locking manner as a joining partner. Thus, the use of laser welding to connect vehicle components are well known within the art. The benefit of doing so would have been to perform welding at precise location by applying laser.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize laser transmission weld as taught by Hornung within the apparatus as taught by the combined teaching of Young, Alland and Karl. The benefit of doing so would have been to perform welding at precise location by applying laser.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1:
The cited prior art of references alone or in combination fails to discloses “the holder and the outer skin component each have one end face that faces toward one another” and “ the holder and the outer skin component are fixedly connected to one another at the end faces facing toward one another”.
Response 1:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art of Alland discloses “the holder (100) and the outer skin component (12) each have one end face that faces toward one another” and “ the holder (100) and the outer skin component (12) are fixedly connected to one another at the end faces facing toward one another” via adhesive (Alland; Fig. 3-4; ¶0035).
Argument 2:
The applied art fail to disclose “the fixed connection at the end faces is formed completely circumferential around a sensing window”
Response 2:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Alland discloses “the fixed connection at the end faces is formed completely circumferential around a sensing window” . The adhesive is used to fix the end faces formed completely circumferential around a sensing window 150 within holder (100) (Fig 3 and 4, ¶0035).
Argument 3:
Related to claim 23.
Response 3:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Alland discloses wherein the laser sensing device comprises a housing (50), which is essentially closed, and the housing is mounted on the holder (100) of the laser sensing device (Fig. 3- 4; ¶0031-35).
Argument 4:
Related to claims 24-26.
Response 4:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art of references discloses the use of adhesive to fasten the holder to motor vehicle part as cited in claim rejection above.
Argument 5:
Related to claim 36.
Response 5:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The headlamp lens can be opaque.
Argument 6:
Related to claims 17-19 and 39.
Response 6:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Karl discloses the use of adhesive is not enough in few instances and welding is needed to form secure bond. The welding can be spot welding and/or weld seams.
Argument 7:
Related to claim 38.
Response 7:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hornung provides adequate support for claimed limitations recited in claim 38.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights