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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 17, 19-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 5-6, 9-10, 15-16 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 7-10) about amended Claim 1, Examiner disagrees because Mochizuki (‘758) discloses the claimed language:
1) wherein the cover member is detachably mounted on the first lamp device and the second lamp device { Fig.2 item 13 (or 21) is detachable from the structure relating to the two lamps (see marks below)},
PNG
media_image1.png
590
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2) a gap is provided between the cover member and the first lamp device, and between the cover member and the second lamp device {Fig.2 (see marks below)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
657
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, 3-4, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki (JP2010137758, hereafter Mochizuki) in view of Takeo et al. (JP2020038181, hereafter Takeo).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki (‘758) discloses that A mounting structure of an object detection device for detecting objects to a vehicle body { Fig.1; Fig.2 item 22 (radar); page 1 line 4 in abstract (millimeter-wave radar 22); page 3 lines 15-16 (radar 22 that detects an object in front of the vehicle) }, the mounting structure comprising:
a first lamp device mounted on a side of the vehicle body { Fig.2 item 16; page 3 lines 10-11 (light source units 16 and 17, each provide with, light source 18, a reflector 19, projection lens 20)};
a second lamp device mounted on the side of the vehicle body and disposed below the first lamp device {Fig.1 item 17 is below item 16; Fig.2 item 17 below item 16; page 3 lines 10-11 (light source units 16 and 17, each provide with, light source 18, a reflector 19, projection lens 20)};
a connection member that connects between a lower end of the first lamp device and an upper end of the second lamp device in an up-down direction { Fig.2 (see marks below)}; and
PNG
media_image3.png
671
375
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a cover member that covers the object detection device {Fig.2 items 22 (radar), 23 (design part), 13, 21 (cover); page 1 abstract lines 4 (radar 22), 8 (millimeter-wave radar 22 is shielded by the design part 23); page 3 lines 8 (front cover 13), 14 (lens portion 21),},
wherein
the object detection device is disposed between the first lamp device and the second lamp device in the up-down direction {Fig.1; Fig.2 items 16-17 (light source units), 22 (radar); page 1 abstract line 4 (millimeter-wave radar 22); page 3 lines 10-11 (light source units 16 and 17, each provide with, light source 18, a reflector 19, projection lens 20)},
wherein the cover member is detachably mounted on the first lamp device and the second lamp device { Fig.2 item 13 (or 21) is detachable from the structure relating to the two lamps (see marks below)},
PNG
media_image1.png
590
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a gap is provided between the cover member and the first lamp device, and between the cover member and the second lamp device {Fig.2 (see marks below)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
657
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Mochizuki (‘758) does not disclose “the object detection device is mounted on a side of a front surface of the connection member and is disposed in a space formed by the cover member and the connection member”. In the same field of endeavor, Takeo (‘181) discloses that
the object detection device is mounted on a side of a front surface of the connection member and is disposed in a space formed by the cover member and the connection member {Fig.2 items 30 (radar), 60 (radar cover), see marks below for connector; page 3 lines 11 (the radar devices 30), 10 from bottom (The radar cover 60)},
PNG
media_image4.png
502
439
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensor part in Mochizuki (‘758) with the teachings of Takeo (‘181) {install radar in a space formed between front side of a connector and a radar cover} to install radar in a space formed between front side of a connector and a radar cover. Doing so would avoid impact by heat generated from the light source, avoid dependency on the processing accuracy of vehicle body panel, secure high mounting accuracy of the radar device, and easy manage the irradiation direction of the radar so as to achieve sufficiently exhibiting the desired performance of the radar device , as recognized by Takeo (‘181) { page 1 abstract line 2 (sufficiently exhibiting the desired performance of the radar device); page 2 lines 28 (he radar device is hardly affected by heat generated from the light source), 31-33 (fixed to the housing of the lamp unit capable of managing the irradiation direction of the radar, the mounting position and the mounting angle of the radar device do not depend on the processing accuracy of the vehicle body panel, high mounting accuracy of the radar device can be secured)}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Mochizuki (‘758) and Takeo (‘181) discloses that in the mounting structure of the object detection device to the vehicle body
the cover member covers at least a part of the object detection device on a side in a first direction, which is an object detection direction {see Mochizuki (‘758) Fig.2 items 13 and 21 in the direction that items 22 and 23 detect objects; page 3 lines 8 (front cover 13), 14 (lens portion 21), 15-17 (radar 22 that detects an object in front of the vehicle, an opaque design portion 23 that shields the millimeter wave radar 22 from the front of the vehicle body 1) for the “object detection direction” }.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1 and 3, the combination of Mochizuki (‘758) and Takeo (‘181) discloses that in the mounting structure of the object detection device to the vehicle body,
a surface of the cover member on the side in the first direction is disposed to be a continuous surface with at least one of a surface of the first lamp device on the side in the first direction and a surface of the second lamp device on the side in the first direction { see Mochizuki (‘758) Fig.2 item 13 and 21 cover items 16, 17, 22, and 23 ; page 3 lines 15-17 (radar 22 that detects an object in front of the vehicle, an opaque design portion 23 that shields the millimeter wave radar 22 from the front of the vehicle body 1) for “object detection direction}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claims 1 and 3, the combination of Mochizuki (‘758) and Takeo (‘181) discloses that in the mounting structure of the object detection device to the vehicle body,
the cover member is detachably mounted on the connection member { see Mochizuki (‘758) Fig.2 item 13 (or 21) is detachable from the connection structure (see marks below and Fig.2 with marks for the “connection member” in the rejections of claims 1-2)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Mochizuki (‘758) and Takeo (‘181) discloses that in the mounting structure of the object detection device to the vehicle body,
the first lamp device comprises a first light source and a first housing that accommodates the first light source { see Mochizuki (‘758) Fig.2 (see mark below); page 3 lines 10-11 (light source units 16 and 17, each provide with, light source 18, a reflector 19, projection lens 20)},
PNG
media_image5.png
590
335
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the second lamp device comprises a second light source and a second housing that accommodates the second light source { Fig.2 (see mark below); page 3 lines 10-11 (light source units 16 and 17, each provide with, light source 18, a reflector 19, projection lens 20)}, and
PNG
media_image6.png
590
335
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the connection member is formed integrally with at least one of the first housing and the second housing { Fig.2 (see mark below) }.
PNG
media_image7.png
667
378
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 13-14, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 11. Accordingly, claims 13-14 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 11, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Mochizuki (‘758) and Takeo (‘181) discloses that in the mounting structure of the object detection device to the vehicle body,
the first lamp device comprises a first light source and a first outer member that covers at least a side in a first direction, which is an object detection direction, of the first light source { see Mochizuki (‘758) Fig.2 items 16 (light source units), 18 (light source), and 20 (projection lens 20). Item 20 covers the side in the object detect direction (see mark below); page 3 lines 10-11 (light source units 16 and 17, each provide with, light source 18, a reflector 19, projection lens 20)},
PNG
media_image5.png
590
335
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the second lamp device comprises a second light source and a second outer member that covers at least a side in the first direction of the second light source { see Mochizuki (‘758) Fig.2 items 17 (light source units), 18 (light source), and 20 (projection lens 20). Item 20 covers the side in the object detect direction (see mark below); page 3 lines 10-11 (light source units 16 and 17, each provide with, light source 18, a reflector 19, projection lens 20)}, and
PNG
media_image6.png
590
335
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the connection member is formed integrally with at least one of the first outer member and the second outer member { see Mochizuki (‘758) Fig.2 (see mark below)}.
PNG
media_image7.png
667
378
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 19-20, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 17. Accordingly, claims 19-20 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 17, shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US11,858,429 discloses that “wherein the cover member is detachably mounted on the first lamp device and the second lamp device” {Fig.1 items 3 (front cover), 22 (radar), 51, 52 (light housing); col.3 lines 7-8 (a front cover which is detachably connected to the support body); col.4 lines 31 (a radar sensor 22), 52-53 (housings 51, 52 for accommodating the head lights.) } and “a gap is provided between the cover member and the first lamp device, and between the cover member and the second lamp device” {Fig.1 gaps between item 3 and items 51 and 52}, which further support the rejection of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/Examiner, Art Unit 3648