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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnette et al. (U.S. 2022/0144185) in view of Holmes (U.S. 2007/0234500).
Regarding claim 1, Burnette discloses a sensor mounting structure (212, Fig. 2B; page 4, para [0066]) for a vehicle (page 1, para [0002]), the structure comprising:
a support arm (304, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0068]) that extends at a first end (left end of 304 adjacent to 308, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0068]) from the vehicle body (vehicle body, Figs. 3 and 4A; page 4, para [0068]); and
a sensor assembly (combination of: 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0060, 0067]) attached to a second end of the support arm (right end of 304, Fig. 3), wherein the sensor assembly comprises:
at least one mirror (114, Figs. 1B and 3; page 4, para [0060, 0067]) having a back side (back side of 102, Fig. 3) and a reflective side (reflective side of 114, Figs. 1B and 3) facing a first direction (facing direction of 114, Figs. 1B and 3); and
at least one sensor (such as combination of: 104, 106, 108, 110 and 112, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]) placed behind the back side of the mirror (such as the sensor portion 110 of the combination of: 104, 106, and 110 is placed behind the back side of the mirror 114, Figs. 1A-1B).
Burnette does not expressly disclose that the mirror (114, Fig. 1B) is a rotatable mirror. However, Holmes discloses a mirror (combination of: 26, 28, 30, Fig. 3; page 1, para [0016]) that is independently rotatable (Fig. 3; page 1, para [0017]) in order to allow for the adjustment of the field of view of the mirror for a driver (page 1, para [0005, 0017]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the at least one mirror (Burnette: 114, Fig. 1B) of Burnette to be a rotatable mirror (Holmes: such as 26, 28, 30, Fig. 3; page 1, para [0016-0017]) in order to obtain the benefits of allowing for the adjustment of the field of view of the mirror for a driver as taught by Holmes (page 1, para [0005, 0017]).
Regarding claim 2, Burnette as modified by Holmes discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor (Burnette: such as sensor portion 112, Fig. 3) has a field of view directed to the first direction (Burnette: such as 112 has field of view with a radius in a facing direction 114, Figs. 3 and 4A; page 4, para [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Burnette as modified by Holmes discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor (Burnette: such as sensor portion 112, Fig. 3) has a field of view directed to a direction different from the first direction (Burnette: such as 112 has a field of view with a radius in a direction opposite the facing direction of 114, Figs. 3 and 4A; page 4, para [0061]).
Regarding claim 4, Burnette as modified by Holmes discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor (Burnette: such as sensor portion comprising the combination of: 110 and 112, Fig. 3) comprises a plurality of sensors (Burnette: such as 110 and 112, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]) that each has a field of view directed to either the first direction or a different direction (Burnette: such as 112 having a field of view in the facing direction of 114, Figs. 3 and 4A; page 4, para [0061]; such as 110 having a field of view in the direction opposite the facing direction of 114, Figs. 3 and 4A: page 4, para [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Burnette as modified by Holmes discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors (Burnette: such as sensor portions 110 and 112, Fig. 3) is selected from the group of sensors consisting of a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (Burnette: such as 112, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]) and a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) (Burnette: such as 110, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnette et al. (U.S. 2022/0144185) in view of Holmes (U.S. 2007/0234500) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of De Wind et al. (U.S. 2018/0086272).
Regarding claim 6, Burnette as modified by Holmes discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein
in a first configuration the at least one sensor behind the back side of the at least one rotatable mirror (Burnette: such as the sensor portion 110 of the combination of: 104, 106, and 110 is placed behind the back side of the mirror 114, Figs. 1A-1B, 4A and 5-1; page 5, para [0069]) is disposed having a field of view directed to the first direction (Burnette: such as the field of view 400 of 104 in the facing direction of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 4A and 5-1; page 5, para [0069]) and the back side of the at least one mirror (Burnette: such as the field of view 406 of 106 in a direction opposite the facing direction of mirror 114, Figs. 1A, 1B, 4A and 5-1; page 5, para [0069]) disposed with the reflective side facing the first direction (Burnette: reflective mirror side of 114 facing the first direction, Figs. 1B, 3 and 4A).
Burnette does not expressly disclose wherein in a second configuration the at least one mirror (Burnette: such as configuration of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 3 and 14C) is disposed outside of the field of view of the at least one sensor disposed having a field of view directed to the first direction (Burnette: such as the field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A and 5-1). However, Burnette discloses that the mirror (114, Fig. 1B) can be positionally adjusted (page 10, para [0120]). Furthermore, Burnette discloses that a distal end of a trailer (700, Fig. 7; page 5, para [0078]) of the vehicle is outside the field of view of the sensor in the first direction (distal end of trailer 700 is outside field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7; page 5, para [0078]). Additionally, De Wind discloses a side rearview mirror assembly (10, Fig. 1; page 2, para [0046]) that can be adjusted by rotating about an axis in order to provide a rearward field of view (page 8, para [0081]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the sensor mounting structure (Burnette: 212, Fig. 2B) of Burnette as modified by Holmes with a second configuration wherein in the second configuration the at least one mirror (Burnette: such as configuration of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 3, 4A, 5-1, and 7) is rotated around an axis such that the at least one mirror is disposed outside of the field of view of the at least one sensor disposed having a field of view directed to the first direction (Burnette: such as the mirror 114 rotated about an axis to be disposed outside the field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7) in order to obtain the benefits of providing a rearward field of view of the distal end of the trailer (Burnette: 700, Fig. 7; page 5, para [0078]) of the vehicle of Burnette as modified by Holmes that is outside the field of view of the sensor in the first direction (Burnette: distal end of trailer 700 is outside field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7; page 5, para [0078]) as taught by De Wind (page 8, para [0081]; Burnette: Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to recognize that the mirror 114 could be rotated in such a way to have the field of view 704, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Burnette as modified by Holmes and De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 6 above and further discloses wherein the at least one rotatable mirror (Burnette: 114, Fig. 1B) is disposed to rotate around an axis (De Wind: page 8, para [0081]) disposed through the sensor assembly from the first configuration (Burnette: direction in the facing direction of mirror 114, Figs, 1B, 3 and 4A) to the second configuration (Burnette: such as the mirror 114 rotated about an axis to be disposed outside the field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction to the field of view 704 of the distal end of the trailer 700, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Burnette as modified by Holmes and De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 6 above and further discloses wherein the at least one rotatable mirror (Burnette: 114, Fig. 1B) comprises a flat mirror and a convex mirror (Burnette: Figs. 1B and 18; page 10, para [0121]).
Regarding claim 9, Burnette as modified by Holmes and De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 6 above and further discloses at least an additional sensor (Burnette: such as 108, Figs. 1B and 4C; page 5, para [0069]) having a field of view (Burnette: such as field of view 408 of 108, Figs. 1B and 4C; page 5, para [0069]) directed to a direction different from the first direction (Burnette: facing direction of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 4A and 5-1).
Claim(s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnette et al. (U.S. 2022/0144185) in view of De Wind et al. (U.S. 2018/0086272).
Regarding claim 10, Burnette discloses a sensor mounting structure (212, Fig. 2B; page 4, para [0066]) for a vehicle (page 1, para [0002]), the structure comprising:
a support arm (304, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0068]) that extends at a first end (left end of 304 adjacent to 308, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0068]) from the vehicle body (vehicle body, Figs. 3 and 4A; page 4, para [0068]); and
a sensor assembly (combination of: 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0060, 0067]) attached to a second end of the support arm (right end of 304, Fig. 3), wherein the sensor assembly comprises:
at least one mirror (114, Figs. 1B and 3; page 4, para [0060, 0067]) having a back side (back side of 102, Fig. 3) and a reflective side (reflective side of 114, Figs. 1B and 3) facing a first direction (facing direction of 114, Figs. 1B and 3); and
at least one sensor (104, 106, 108, 110 and 112, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]); wherein
in a first configuration the at least one sensor (such as the sensor portion 110 of the combination of: 104, 106, 110, and 112 is placed behind the back side of the mirror 114, Figs. 1A-1B, 4A and 5-1; page 5, para [0069]) is disposed having a field of view directed to the first direction (such as the field of view 400 of 104 in the facing direction of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 4A and 5-1; page 5, para [0069]) and the back side of the at least one mirror (such as the field of view 406 of 106 in a direction opposite the facing direction of mirror 114, Figs. 1A, 1B, 4A and 5-1; page 5, para [0069]) disposed with the reflective side facing the first direction (reflective mirror side of 114 facing the first direction, Figs. 1B, 3 and 4A).
Burnette does not expressly disclose wherein in a second configuration the at least one mirror (such as configuration of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 3 and 14C) is disposed to rotate outside of the field of view of the at least one sensor disposed having a field of view directed to the first direction (such as the field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A and 5-1). However, Burnette discloses that the mirror (114, Fig. 1B) can be positionally adjusted (page 10, para [0120]). Furthermore, Burnette discloses that a distal end of a trailer (700, Fig. 7; page 5, para [0078]) of the vehicle is outside the field of view of the sensor in the first direction (distal end of trailer 700 is outside field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7; page 5, para [0078]). Additionally, De Wind discloses a side rearview mirror assembly (10, Fig. 1; page 2, para [0046]) that can be adjusted by rotating about an axis in order to provide a rearward field of view (page 8, para [0081]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the sensor mounting structure (Burnette: 212, Fig. 2B) of Burnette with a second configuration wherein in the second configuration the at least one mirror (Burnette: such as configuration of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 3, 4A, 5-1, and 7) is rotated around an axis such that the at least one mirror is disposed to rotate outside of the field of view of the at least one sensor disposed having a field of view directed to the first direction (Burnette: such as the mirror 114 rotated about an axis to be disposed outside the field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7) in order to obtain the benefits of providing a rearward field of view of the distal end of the trailer (Burnette: 700, Fig. 7; page 5, para [0078]) of the vehicle of Burnette that is outside the field of view of the sensor in the first direction (Burnette: distal end of trailer 700 is outside field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7; page 5, para [0078]) as taught by De Wind (page 8, para [0081]; Burnette: Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to recognize that the mirror 114 could be rotated in such a way to have the field of view 704, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Burnette as modified by De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein the at least one mirror (Burnette: 114, Fig. 1B) is disposed to rotate around an axis (De Wind: page 8, para [0081]) disposed through the sensor assembly from the first configuration (Burnette: direction in the facing direction of mirror 114, Figs, 1B, 3 and 4A) to the second configuration (Burnette: such as the mirror 114 rotated about an axis to be disposed outside the field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction to the field of view 704 of the distal end of the trailer 700, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Burnette as modified by De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein the at least one mirror (Burnette: 114, Fig. 1B) comprises a flat mirror and a convex mirror (Burnette: Figs. 1B and 18; page 10, para [0121]).
Regarding claim 13, Burnette as modified by De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors (Burnette: such as 110 and 112, Fig. 3) is selected from the group of sensors consisting of a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (Burnette: such as 112, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]) and a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) (Burnette: such as 110, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]).
Regarding claim 14, Burnette as modified by De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses at least an additional sensor (Burnette: such as 108, Figs. 1B and 4C; page 5, para [0069]) having a field of view (Burnette: such as field of view 408 of 108, Figs. 1B and 4C; page 5, para [0069]) directed to a direction different from the first direction (Burnette: facing direction of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 4A and 5-1).
Regarding claim 15, Burnette discloses a sensor mounting structure (212, Fig. 2B; page 4, para [0066]) for a vehicle (page 1, para [0002]), the structure comprising:
a support arm (304, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0068]) that extends at a first end (left end of 304 adjacent to 308, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0068]) from the vehicle body (vehicle body, Figs. 3 and 4A; page 4, para [0068]); and
a sensor assembly (combination of: 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0060, 0067]) attached to a second end of the support arm (right end of 304, Fig. 3), wherein the sensor assembly comprises:
a plurality of mirrors (114, Figs. 1B and 3; page 4, para [0060, 0067]; page 10, para [0121]) each having a back side (back side of 102, Fig. 3) and a reflective side (reflective side of 114, Figs. 1B and 3) facing a first direction (facing direction of 114, Figs. 1B and 3); and
at least one sensor (104, 106, 108, 110 and 112, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]); wherein
in a first configuration the at least one sensor (such as the combination of: 104, 106, 110, and 112, Figs. 1A-1B, 4A and 5-1; page 5, para [0069]) is disposed having a field of view directed to the first direction (such as the field of view 400 of 104 in the facing direction of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 4A and 5-1; page 5, para [0069]) and behind the back side of at least one of the plurality of mirrors (such as the sensor portion 110 of the combination of: 104, 106, 110, and 112 is placed behind the back side of at least one of the plurality of mirrors 114, Figs. 1A-1B, 4A and 5-1; page 5, para [0069]) disposed with the reflective side facing the first direction (reflective mirror side of 114 facing the first direction, Figs. 1B, 3 and 4A).
Burnette does not expressly disclose wherein in a second configuration the at least one of the plurality of mirrors (such as configuration of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 3 and 14C) is disposed outside of the field of view of the at least one sensor disposed having a field of view directed to the first direction (such as the field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A and 5-1). However, Burnette discloses that the at least one of the plurality of mirrors (114, Fig. 1B) can be positionally adjusted (page 10, para [0120]). Furthermore, Burnette discloses that a distal end of a trailer (700, Fig. 7; page 5, para [0078]) of the vehicle is outside the field of view of the sensor in the first direction (distal end of trailer 700 is outside field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7; page 5, para [0078]). Additionally, De Wind discloses a side rearview mirror assembly (10, Fig. 1; page 2, para [0046]) that can be adjusted by rotating about an axis in order to provide a rearward field of view (page 8, para [0081]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the sensor mounting structure (Burnette: 212, Fig. 2B) of Burnette with a second configuration wherein in the second configuration the at least one of the plurality of mirrors (Burnette: such as configuration of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 3, 4A, 5-1, and 7) is rotated around an axis such that the at least one of the plurality of mirrors is disposed outside of the field of view of the at least one sensor disposed having a field of view directed to the first direction (Burnette: such as the mirror 114 rotated about an axis to be disposed outside the field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7) in order to obtain the benefits of providing a rearward field of view of the distal end of the trailer (Burnette: 700, Fig. 7; page 5, para [0078]) of the vehicle of Burnette that is outside the field of view of the sensor in the first direction (Burnette: distal end of trailer 700 is outside field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7; page 5, para [0078]) as taught by De Wind (page 8, para [0081]; Burnette: Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to recognize that the mirror 114 could be rotated in such a way to have the field of view 704, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Burnette as modified by De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 15 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of mirrors (Burnette: 114, Fig. 1B) comprises at least a flat mirror and a convex mirror (Burnette: Figs. 1B and 18; page 10, para [0121]).
Regarding claim 17, Burnette as modified by De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 15 above and further discloses wherein the at least one of the plurality of mirrors (Burnette: 114, Fig. 1B) is disposed to rotate around an axis (De Wind: page 8, para [0081]) disposed through the sensor assembly from the first configuration (Burnette: direction in the facing direction of mirror 114, Figs, 1B, 3 and 4A) to the second configuration (Burnette: such as the mirror 114 rotated about an axis to be disposed outside the field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction to the field of view 704 of the distal end of the trailer 700, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Burnette as modified by De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 15 above and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor (Burnette: 104, 106, 108, 110 and 112, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]) comprises a plurality of sensors (Burnette: such as left and right pair of 112, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19 Burnette as modified by De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 18 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors (Burnette: such as left and right pair of 112, Fig. 3) is a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (Burnette: such as left and right pair of 112, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]).
Regarding claim 20, Burnette as modified by De Wind discloses a sensor mounting structure with all the limitations of claim 15 above and further discloses at least an additional sensor (Burnette: such as 108, Figs. 1B and 4C; page 5, para [0069]) having a field of view (Burnette: such as field of view 408 of 108, Figs. 1B and 4C; page 5, para [0069]) directed to a direction different from the first direction (Burnette: facing direction of mirror 114, Figs. 1B, 4A and 5-1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Burnette does not have sensors behind a mirror assembly pointing in the same direction as the mirror’s reflective surface, in an exchange relationship of functionality, which is either mirrors or sensors are used at any given time. However, Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing limitations that are not recited in the claims, in particular, sensors pointing in the same direction as the mirror’s reflective surface, in an exchange relationship of functionality, which is either mirrors or sensors are used at any given time. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot. However, in order to address Applicant’s arguments, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and notes that Burnette in view of the newly cited prior art reference of Holmes (U.S. 2007/0234500) discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection above. In particular, Burnette discloses “at least one sensor (such as combination of: 104, 106, 108, 110 and 112, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0061]) placed behind the back side of the mirror (such as the sensor portion 110 of the combination of: 104, 106, and 110 is placed behind the back side of the mirror 114, Figs. 1A-1B),” and Holmes discloses a mirror (combination of: 26, 28, 30, Fig. 3; page 1, para [0016]) that is independently rotatable (Fig. 3; page 1, para [0017]) in order to allow for the adjustment of the field of view of the mirror for a driver (page 1, para [0005, 0017]). Therefore, Burnette in view of Holmes discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection above.
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 15, Applicant argues that the rationale to modify Burnette’s mirror outside the field of view of the sensor in view of the teaching of De Wind of a mirror that rotates about an axis to adjust a driver’s rearward view would not work. Applicant argues that De Wind addresses rearview visibility and ergonomics, not sensor management and that De Wind does not teach nor suggest coordinating a mirror position with a predefined sensor field of view. However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and notes that Burnette discloses that “the mirror (114, Fig. 1B) can be positionally adjusted (page 10, para [0120])” and that “a distal end of a trailer (700, Fig. 7; page 5, para [0078]) of the vehicle is outside the field of view of the sensor in the first direction (distal end of trailer 700 is outside field of view 400 of 104 in the first direction, Figs. 1B, 4A, 5-1, and 7; page 5, para [0078]).” Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have recognized that a distal end of the trailer 700 of Burnette is outside the field of view 400 of the sensor 104 and that there is a need to provide something to supplement a field of view 704 that is outside the field of view 400 of the sensor 104 (Fig. 7). Since De Wind teaches that a side rearview mirror assembly (10, Fig. 1; page 2, para [0046]) can be adjusted by rotating about an axis in order to provide a rearward field of view (page 8, para [0081]), and Burnette teaches that the mirror 114 can be positionally adjusted (page 10, para [0120]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to recognize that Burnette’s mirror 114 can be configured to be rotatable about an axis to provide a field of view (Burnette: 704, Fig. 7) of Burnette that is “outside of the field of view of the at least one sensor [104] disposed having a field of view [400] directed to the first direction.” Examiner notes that De Wind teaches a solution to provide an adjustable mirror that is able to provide a rearward field of view 704 that is clearly lacking from the sensor 104 of Burnette, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to configure the mirror 114 of Burnette to be rotatable outside the field of view 400 of the sensor 104 in order to provide the solution of a rearward field of view 704 by the rotatable mirror to solve the problem of a rearward field of view 704 that is outside the field of view 400 of the sensor 104 of Burnette with a reasonable expectation for success. Moreover, Examiner notes that the claims do not recite Applicant’s arguments of limitations related to a “sensor management, coordinating a mirror position with a predefined sensor field of view, and method of switching between two configurations.” Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 H Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights