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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 12/19/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as they are drawn towards newly amended claim language.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose newly amended limitations of independent claim 1, including: “the sensor extending through the duct from the front panel to the rear panel, the sensor extending through the front panel and having a sensor window adjacent the front panel, and the sensor extending through the rear panel and having a plurality of fins exterior to the duct at the rear panel”.
See the rejection below for how the cited art in light of new/existing references reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner’s interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 11-13, 18-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. (US 20210063540 A1) (hereinafter Krishnan) in view of Kasarla (US 20220239817 A1) (hereinafter Kasarla).
Regarding claim 1, Krishnan discloses:
An assembly comprising:
a beam having a front panel and a rear panel spaced from the front panel; [See Krishnan, ¶ 0048-0052, Fig. 2 discloses a housing 14 and an interior wall 52.]
the beam defining a duct between the front panel and the rear panel; [See Krishnan, Fig. 2 illustrates a duct, or “chamber” 16 defined between a front panel of the housing 14 and the rear panel 52 as set forth in Fig. 2, for instance.]
a nozzle supported by the front panel and positioned to direct airflow exiting from the duct toward the sensor window of the sensor; [See Krishnan, ¶ 0046-0048, 0052, 0055, Fig. 5 illustrates a nozzle 26 formed to direct airflow across a sensor window 20,22.]
PNG
media_image1.png
576
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Krishnan discloses a blower 58, and air inlets/outlets to cooperate with directing air flow across an image sensor window, Krishnan does not appear to explicitly disclose:
a sensor supported by the beam, the sensor extending through the duct from the front panel to the rear panel, the sensor extending through the front panel and having a sensor window adjacent the front panel, and the sensor extending through the rear panel and having a plurality of fins exterior to the duct at the rear panel;
an outlet defined by the rear panel and shaped to direct airflow exiting from the duct toward the fins of the sensor; and
a blower in fluid communication with the nozzle and the outlet through the duct.
However, Karayacoubian discloses:
a sensor supported by the beam, [See Karayacoubian, annotated Fig. 7 (below) illustrates a sensor (108) supported by a beam or “frame” element 102.]
the sensor extending through the duct from the front panel to the rear panel, [See Karayacoubian, ¶ 0014, 0039-0040, annotated Figs. 5 and 6 (below) illustrate a sensor “extending through” a duct (222) whereby cross sectionally, a duct formed following the air flow of Figs. 5 and 6 clearly shows the sensor extending through said duct. In this case, a “front panel” and “rear panel” are formed by a front and rear surface of mounting portion, or “shelf” 218.] the sensor extending through the front panel and having a sensor window adjacent the front panel, and the sensor extending through the rear panel and having a plurality of fins exterior to the duct at the rear panel; [See Karayacoubian, annotated Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate said sensor extending through front panel, with sensor window (202) adjacent to the front surface of 218. As explained above, the rear portion of 218 illustrates a rear panel with cooling fins 240 of the sensor exterior to the duct at said panel.]
an outlet defined by the rear panel and shaped to direct airflow exiting from the duct toward the fins of the sensor; and [See Karayacoubian, annotated Figs. 5-7 (above) ¶ 0039-0040 discloses the housing 212 may define a duct 222 configured to vent air from the fan to the lens 202. The duct 222 may define an opening 232 adjacent the camera lens 202. The shelf 218 may define a shelf opening (now shown) configured to allow for air to be received therethrough by the fan 224. The fan 224 may pull air from below the shelf 218 and transmit it through the duct 222 onto the camera lens 202.]
a blower in fluid communication with the nozzle and the outlet through the duct. [See Karayacoubian, annotated Figs. 5-6 illustrates a fan (224) in communication with nozzle (216) and outlet defined by the duct as above explained.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Krishnan to add the teachings of Karayacoubian in order to provide a fan configured to provide airflow to the underside of a sensor head. The fan is configured to provide ambient and/or cool air through the bottom of the sensor head in order to cool the electrical components within the housing of a vehicle mounted camera.
PNG
media_image2.png
690
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Krishnan discloses:
wherein the sensor is a first sensor, the assembly further comprising a second sensor supported by the beam, the second sensor having a second sensor window adjacent the front panel and a plurality of fins adjacent the rear panel. [See Krishnan, Fig. 2 illustrates “first” and “second” sensors 60 (disposed at a front left and right end of the housing 14), each having sensor windows 22, and fins 62 adjacent the rear panel 52.]
Regarding claim 3, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Krishnan discloses:
further comprising a third sensor between the first sensor and the second sensor along a length of the beam. [See Krishnan, Fig. 2 illustrates a “third” sensor 60 disposed at a midpoint between the “first” and “second” sensors as set forth in the analysis for claim 2 above.]
Regarding claim 4, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Krishnan discloses:
wherein the sensor window is a first sensor window, and the third sensor has a third sensor window, [See Krishnan, Fig. 2 illustrates “third” sensor between “first” and “second” sensors, with a sensor window 22.]
the assembly further comprising a second nozzle supported by the beam and positioned to direct airflow toward the third sensor window of the third sensor. [See Krishnan, Figs. 1 and 5 illustrate a housing 14 “supporting” nozzles 26,28 positioned to direct airflow across each of the sensor windows. Krishnan’s disclosure accounts for teaching pressurizing ducts and chambers throughout the housing so as to force air across sensor windows and ultimately providing defogging/defrosting effects to the sensor windows.]
Regarding claim 5, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Krishnan discloses:
wherein the third sensor is supported by the front panel of the beam. [See Krishnan, Figs. 1 and 5 illustrate a housing 14 “supporting” each of the “first”, “second”, and “third” sensor units as they have been set forth in the analysis above.]
Regarding claim 6, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Krishnan discloses:
wherein the front panel of the beam defines a second outlet adjacent the third sensor, the blower being in fluid communication with the second outlet. [See Kasarla, ¶ 0048-0050, 0057-0060, Figs. 9 and 10 discloses a housing with a cooling fan assembly featuring heat dissipating fins. An airflow is created between the heat dissipating fins, whereby it is noted that the ECU is operated, such as to process image data captured by a camera of the vision system or driving assistance system; See Kasarla, ¶ 0053 discloses that optionally, a channel or duct may guide and direct airflow from a separate cooling fan assembly to a camera module; See Kasarla, ¶ 0048-0050, 0057-0060, Figs. 9 and 10 discloses a housing with a cooling fan assembly featuring heat dissipating fins. The cooling fan at the outer surface of the housing is configured to create an airflow between the heat dissipating fins – particularly, airflow is directed through an air discharge or outlet opening 120b and between and along heat dissipating fins 122 at the housing; See Kasarla, ¶ 0053 discloses that optionally, a channel or duct may guide and direct airflow from a separate cooling fan assembly to a camera module. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)]
Regarding claim 7, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Krishnan discloses:
further comprising:
a second nozzle supported by the front panel and positioned to direct airflow toward the second sensor window of the second sensor; and [See Krishnan, Figs. 1 and 5 illustrate a housing 14 “supporting” nozzles 26,28 positioned to direct airflow across each of the sensor windows. Krishnan’s disclosure accounts for teaching pressurizing ducts and chambers throughout the housing so as to force air across sensor windows and ultimately providing defogging/defrosting effects to the sensor windows.]
Karayacoubian discloses:
a second outlet defined by the rear panel and shaped to direct airflow toward the fins of the second sensor. [See Karayacoubian, Fig. 1 illustrates plural camera units each including ducting and fans for directing airflow towards the fins of each camera.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Krishnan discloses:
wherein the duct is elongated from the first sensor to the second sensor. [See Krishnan, Fig. 2 illustrates chamber 16 elongated between “first” sensor and “second” sensor at left and right front corresponding positions of camera housing 14.]
Regarding claim 9, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Krishnan discloses:
wherein the beam is elongated along a cross-vehicle axis. [See Krishnan, Fig. 1 illustrates housing being elongated across a “cross-vehicle” axis, or a “width” direction of the vehicle.]
Regarding claim 11, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Krishnan discloses:
wherein the nozzle defines a flow path across the sensor window. [See Krishnan, Fig. 5 clearly illustrates a nozzle defining a flow path across a sensor window (20).]
Regarding claim 12, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Karayacoubian discloses:
wherein the outlet defines a flow path across the fins. [See Karayacoubian, annotated Figs. 5-7 (above) ¶ 0039-0040 discloses the housing 212 may define a duct 222 configured to vent air from the fan to the lens 202. The duct 222 may define an opening 232 adjacent the camera lens 202. The shelf 218 may define a shelf opening (now shown) configured to allow for air to be received therethrough by the fan 224. The fan 224 may pull air from below the shelf 218 and transmit it through the duct 222 onto the camera lens 202.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Krishnan discloses:
wherein the nozzle is between the sensor window and the beam along a length of the beam. [See Krishnan, Fig. 5 clearly illustrates a nozzle defining a flow path across a sensor window (20), which observably “is between” the sensor window and the beam along a length portion.]
Regarding claim 18, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Krishnan discloses:
wherein the beam is elongated from a first end to a second end, the sensor being supported at the first end of the beam. [See Krishnan, Fig. 2 illustrates chamber 16 elongated between “first” sensor and “second” sensor at left and right front corresponding positions of camera housing 14.]
Regarding claim 19, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 18.
Krishnan discloses:
further comprising a second sensor supported at the second end of the beam, [See Krishnan, Fig. 2 illustrates chamber 16 elongated between “first” sensor and “second” sensor at left and right front corresponding positions of camera housing 14.] the duct being elongated from the first end to the second end. [See Krishnan, Fig. 2 illustrates chamber/duct 16 elongated between “first” sensor and “second” sensor at left and right front corresponding positions of camera housing 14.]
Regarding claim 21, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Krishnan discloses:
further comprising a housing including an internal support wall supporting the beam and a frontal portion that conceals the beam between the frontal portion and the internal support wall. [See Krishnan, Fig. 1, ¶ 0027, 0029, 0032-0035 discloses/illustrates a housing 14 supporting an internal support wall 52 concealing a beam element supporting both image sensors (60) oriented towards a forward-facing portion of the vehicle camera apparatus.]
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian in view of Kasarla (US 20220239817 A1) (hereinafter Kasarla).
Regarding claim 14, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian does not appear to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a deflector supported by the rear panel, the deflector being adjacent the outlet.
However, Kasarla discloses:
further comprising a deflector supported by the rear panel, the deflector being adjacent the outlet. [See Kasarla, ¶ 0053, 0063-0064, Figs. 9-10 disclose first grouping of fins 122a being a “deflector”, adjacent an outlet 120.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the c laimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian to add the teachings of Kasarla in order to direct airflow along heat dissipating fins for a camera using a deflector element, providing a cooling effect and enhancing efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 15, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Kasarla discloses:
wherein the deflector includes a first portion elongated transverse to the beam and a second portion elongated parallel to the beam. [See Kasarla, ¶ 0053, 0063-0064, Figs. 9-10 disclose a second grouping of fins 122b being a “first portion of a deflector” elongated transverse, and a first grouping of fins 122a being a “second portion of a deflector” elongated parallel.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Kasarla discloses:
wherein the deflector is shaped to direct airflow from the outlet and over the fins. [See Kasarla, ¶ 0053, 0063-0064, Figs. 9-10 disclose first grouping of fins 122a being a “deflector”, adjacent an outlet 120.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Kasarla discloses:
wherein the outlet defines a flow path along the deflector and across the fins of the sensor. [See Kasarla, ¶ 0063-0064, Figs. 9-10 disclose first grouping of fins 122a being a “deflector”, adjacent an outlet 120; See Kasarla, ¶ 0053 discloses a channel or duct may guide and direct airflow from the separate cooling fan assembly to the camera module.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 14.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian in view of Sykula et al. (US 11279325 B2) (hereinafter Sykula).
Regarding claim 10, Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the nozzle includes a first portion elongated transverse to the beam and a second portion elongated parallel to the beam.
However, Sykula discloses:
wherein the nozzle includes a first portion elongated transverse to the beam and a second portion elongated parallel to the beam. [See Sykula, col. 5 lines 26-64 discloses “first and second nozzles” oriented to emit airstreams horizontally across a sensor lens. The direction of the airstream from the first nozzle 36 forms an acute angle with the sensor lens 34. The second nozzle 38 is positioned to emit the airstream substantially perpendicular to the axis A and substantially parallel to the exterior panel 50. The first and second nozzles 36, 38 are oriented to emit airstreams directed apart at an acute angle; See Sykula, Fig. 5 illustrates first and second nozzle portions, one elongated transverse to a “beam” 52, and one elongated parallel to beam 52.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Krishnan in view of Karayacoubian to add the teachings of Sykula in order to facilitate an acute angle between airstreams from first and second nozzles, which defines a gap and allows debris blown off of the sensor lens to settle before being blown clear.
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 PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 EST.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights