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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. The specification (page 16, line 31) discloses a reference (WO 2020/017495) not cited in the IDS.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. 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
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 142 in view of Smith et al. (2007/0216768).
For claim 1, JP 2016-113142 (JP 142) discloses a vehicle member comprising:
a member (laminated glass shield 5, [0019]) having an opening that passes from a first surface on an outside of a vehicle to a second surface on an inside of the vehicle (where the opening is required for camera lens of camera body 6 at a portion facing the front of the mobile camera 2 (FIG.2));
a transmission member (lens of camera body 6 or a portion in front of the lens) exposed on the first surface through the opening; and
a sensor (sensor part in the depth of the camera lens) provided in a first direction from the first surface toward the second surface with respect to the transmission member,
wherein the vehicle resin member is attached to a window member of the vehicle such that the opening does not overlap the window member and is positioned out of reach of a wiper provided to the window member.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
348
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JP 142 discloses the member is a laminated glass material (laminated glass being well known as including a layer of glass with a layer of polymer).
JP 142 fails to provide the vehicle member being made of resin with the recited coefficient of linear expansion.
Smith et al. (2007/0216768) teaches using a resin material with the recited coefficient of linear expansion. Specifically, Smith teaches a vehicular resin member with:
a resin member ((paragraph [0035], FIG. 5), "plastic insert 80") having an opening passing from one surface on the vehicle outside up to the other surface on the vehicle inside,
a transmissive member ("window 82") that is provided exposed on the one surface through the opening, and
a sensor part ((FIGS. 3 and 5), "camera 46") provided farther toward a first direction from the one surface toward the other surface than the transmissive member.
PNG
media_image3.png
285
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
272
453
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The resin member is said to be made from a material such as germanium ([0027]) or like materials such as polycarbonate ([0036]). Looking to the prior art (see citation to ‘engineering toolbox’ https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html), it is known that germanium has a linear expansion coefficient of 6.1 x 10-6m/(m degrees C) while polycarbonate (PC) has a range of coefficients of 65-70 x 10-6m/(m degrees C). Both of these materials fall within the range recited and therefore satisfy the claim requirements.
In addition, if a claimed range and a prior art range do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, then there would be a prima facie case of obviousness and the set value in the claimed range is not deemed critical or inventive (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the member of JP 142 from a resin material as taught by Smith et al. as an obvious material alternative.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination since the court has held that the use of a different material is obvious over that of the prior art if it performs the same function. See MPEP 2144.07 and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
For claim 2, JP 142, as modified, provides the vehicle resin member disposed on an upper side of the window member (FIGS.1-2) in a vertical direction.
For claim 17, JP 142, as modified, discloses a vehicle window member comprising the vehicle resin member according to claim 1 and a window member (3),
wherein the resin member is attached to the window member of the vehicle such that the opening does not overlap the window member and is positioned out of reach of a wiper provided to the window member.
For claim 18, JP 142, as modified, discloses a vehicle (FIG.1) comprising the vehicle window member according to claim 17.
Claims 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 142, as modified above, and further in view of JP 2018-076075.
For claims 3-4, JP 075 teaches a gas supply unit for providing a compressed gas (high pressure air) to clean a camera lens (FIGS.11-12). The gas supply unit is configured to supply gas (air) toward an exposed surface of a transmission member exposed on a first surface, wherein the gas is discharged from an opening on the first surface.
For claim 8, JP 075 further teaches the opening is provided with a nozzle (22, 22C) in the gas supply unit, and the gas is injected from the nozzle toward the exposed surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the member of JP 142 with a gas supply unit and nozzle as taught by JP 075 in order to clean the camera lens.
PNG
media_image5.png
481
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 142, as modified above, and further in view of Carlson (12060012).
For claim 5, Carlson discloses a storage part (102) that houses a camera and an outer pipe (112) surrounding an outer peripheral surface of the storage part with a space (see gap in FIG.1) interposed between the outer pipe and an outer peripheral surface of the storage part, wherein a gas supply unit (HVAC duct 104) supplies gas (airflow 116) in the space from a first direction toward a second direction opposite the first direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
367
572
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the member of JP 142, as modified, with a storage part and outer pipe as taught by Carlson in order to better clear the surface of the camera.
For claims 6-7, Carlson is silent on the size and shape of the opening.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice based on available space and aesthetics to provide an opening in JP 142, as modified, substantially circular and smaller than 5 cm2 in area since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of the component. A change of this type is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and the specific configuration of the opening is deemed to have been an obvious matter of design as being in the purview of ordinary engineering technique for one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Evidence of this is applicant’s own disclosure wherein applicant specifically states [0054] that the opening need not be circular but may have “any desired shape” and presents a range of areas [0055] making the record clear that such configurations are design considerations.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 142, as modified above, and further in view of JP 2020-157893.
For claims 9 and 15, JP 142, as modified, lacks a vibration member on at least one of the surfaces of the transmission member, a feature (vibration exciter 100) taught by JP 893 (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the member of JP 142, as modified, with a vibration member as taught by JP 893 in order to aid in cleaning the camera.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 142, as modified above in view of the well known prior art.
For claim 10, JP 142, as modified, lacks the transmission member is provided with an anti-reflection film that suppresses reflection of an electromagnetic wave incident on the sensor on at least one of the exposed surfaces exposed on the first surface side and a surface opposite to the exposed surface.
The examiner takes official notice that anti-reflective (AR) coatings are well known in the prior art for use in minimizing reflection of electromagnetic waves (light). These coatings of the well known prior art are typically in the form of thin films applied to optical surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the transmission member of JP 142, as modified, with an anti-reflective film of the known prior art in order to minimize reflection on the sensor.
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 142, as modified above, and further in view of JP 6-258713 (JPH06258713A).
For claim 11, JP 142, as modified, lacks the transmission member provided with a conductive layer on a side closer to the second surface than the exposed surface exposed on the first surface, a feature taught by JPH 713 (heater member is made of a conductive film [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the conductive film as taught by JPH 713 to the transmission member of JP 142, as modified, in order to allow the conductive film to generate heat when energized and thereby clear moisture or frost adhering to the surface thereof during inclement or winter weather seasons leaving to an obstructed field of view.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 142, as modified above, and further in view of the well known prior art.
For claims 12 and 13, JP 142, as modified, lacks the exposed surface of the transmission member exposed on the first surface is water-repellent, hydrophilic, or water-absorbent.
Examiner takes official notice that water-repellent, hydrophilic, or water-absorbent properties for transmission surfaces are well known as seen for example with WO 2004/068164 (teaching a lens with a water-attracting or water-repellent coating) and with EP 1362741 (showing a hydrophilic coated film on cover (7)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the transmission member of JP 142, as modified, with any of the above listed properties of the well known prior art in order to repel debris from collecting on the exposed surface.
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 142, as modified above, and further in view of Smith et al. (2007/0216768).
For claim 14, JP 142, as modified, lacks the exposed surface of the transmission member exposed on the first surface is made of chalcogenide glass, colorless soda-lime glass, aluminosilicate glass, borosilicate glass, silica glass, or high infrared transmission glass.
Smith et al. teach a chalcogenide glass and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a chalcogenide glass as taught by Smith et al. in JP 142, as modified, in order to obtain a glass with far IR transmissible properties.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 142, as modified above, and further in view of JPH 6-37802.
For claim 16, JP 142, as modified, lacks the resin member comprising a conducting wire embedded around the opening, as taught by JPH 802 with the disclosure of a “thin ring-shaped heater 16” (FIG.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have used the heater of JPH 802 with the resin member of JP 142, as modified, in order to prevent frost, snow, or condensation thereon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614