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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 35 and 36 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 33 and 34. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 28-31 and 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (U.S. 2020/0215988, hereafter referred to as Jackson).
Regarding claim 28-31, Jackson teaches an autonomous vehicle 105 comprising: a windshield (see figure 3); and a roof mounted sensor pod assembly 100 connected to the vehicle above the windshield, the roof mounted sensor pod assembly having a bracket 200 and a sensor pod, wherein the bracket is configured to support a weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the bracket, and wherein the bracket includes a connecting assembly. Jackson further teaches one or more hooks 211 (see figure 10A-10E) which engage with the sensor projections/recess 311 (see figures 10H-J).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Jackson since the examiner takes Office Notice of the equivalence of dovetail slot or T-slot and a hook for their uses in the sensor housing/bracket art, and the selection of any of these known equivalents to provide secure attachment of a sensor would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 33, 35 and 38, Jackson further wherein the bracket is permanently attached to the vehicle and the sensor pod is removably attached to the bracket (see para. 0041; see figure 5).
Regarding claims 34, 36 and 37, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-18, 20-27 and 41-49 are allowed.
The closest prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 1, 2, 4-18, 20-27 and 41-49 and the Examiner can find no teaching of the roof mounted sensor pod assembly, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 32, 39 and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)27-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855