DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/371,264 is responsive to communications filed on 06/20/2025, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 03/19/2025. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
In regard to claims 7, 12, 14, 18, and 19, these claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. The Applicant submits that the amendments to these claims removing the phrase “leading” surface and amended to recite a “first” surface that extends out and curves away from the forward direction of the vehicle are sufficient to overcome these rejections. The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the rejections of claims 7, 12, 14, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Thus, the rejections of claims 8 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon these claims and failing to remedy their deficiencies have also been withdrawn.
In regard to claim 9, this claim was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite due to the limitation regarding a plurality of sensors. The Applicant submits that the amendments to the claim changing this limitation to recite “one or more sensors” instead is sufficient to overcome this rejection. The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. Thus, the rejections of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon this claim and failing to remedy its deficiencies have also been withdrawn.
In regard to claim 1, the Applicant submits that the claim has been amended to include that the multiple sensors are installed within the structural support itself, and are not part of an extension of the structural support, and additionally claims that these sensors are adjustable. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In regard to claims 2 and 14, the Applicant submits that the claim has been amended to recite that the sensors are all generally pointed in the direction of forward travel to clarify the difference between the instant application and the teachings of Burnette, in which no sensor is on the same plane, and pointing in opposite directions. The Examiner respectfully submits that the limitations of claim 1 and 2 (and 14) reference “a plurality of first sensors” having a forward direction of travel, which limits the claim to have a minimum of two sensors that are facing forward. The Examiner submits that, as discussed regarding the previously presented claim 3 in the Non-Final Rejection of 03/19/2025, the teachings of Meyer note that cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in front of the vehicle, and additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have multiple cameras that can face the same direction. As such, claims 2 and 14 shall remain rejected.
In regard to claim 5, the Applicant submits that the field of view of the camera of Meyer is a mirror, and is not flush with the surface of the pillar. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is common knowledge in the art that lenses/mirrors/apertures and other components are used in cameras to manipulate the field of view of the camera, and does not prevent the field of view of the camera from being described as such. Additionally, the teachings of Meyer specify that line 228 as shown in Fig. 6 is the line of sight of the camera. As such, arguments relating to claim 5 have been found to be unpersuasive.
In regard to claim 7 and 12, the amendments to the claim now read in such a manner in which the teachings of Meyer read upon the claim limitations, as shown in the rejections below. As such, the claims shall remain rejected.
In regard to claim 9, the Applicant submits that the claim has been amended to recite other locations, including horizontally disposed adjacent to one or more of a vehicle hood, door, or windshield, and submits that the cited references do not include these positions. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation can still be read as a structural pillar horizontally adjacent to one of a vehicle windshield, which can refer to the A-pillars on either side of the vehicle windshield, which is described in the cited references. As such, claim 9 shall remain rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0319381), hereinafter referred to as Meyer.
In regard to claim 1, Meyer teaches a sensor mounting arrangement for a vehicle (Meyer paragraph 1 noting a camera, an A-pillar arrangement having the camera, and a vehicle having the A-pillar arrangement), comprising:
a vehicle body having a structural pillar disposed adjacent to a vehicle windshield (Meyer paragraph 22 noting the A-pillar is a left or a right A-pillar of the vehicle. The vehicle in particular has two A-pillars, which are arranged on the left and right of the windshield viewed from the vehicle front. The A-pillar has, for example, surrounds for the windshield);
wherein one or more first sensors is mounted in the structural pillar (Meyer paragraph 28 noting the camera is configured to be arranged in the A-pillar, and Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6).
However, Meyer does not expressly disclose adjustably mounted. It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to mount the camera in the structural pillar in an adjustable fashion, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). As such, modified to incorporate that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, the teachings of Meyer include all of the limitations presented in claim 1.
In regard to claim 5, Meyer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein a surface disposed across the field of view of each of the one or more first sensors is flush with an exterior surface of the structural pillar (Meyer Fig. 6 showing the direction of the field of view 228 of the camera 203 has a transparent cover surface 208 that is flush with the exterior surface of the A-pillar 207; and Meyer paragraphs 92-96 describing this embodiment).
In regard to claim 6, Meyer teaches teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein each of the one or more first sensors is mounted in a protrusion extending outwardly from an exterior surface of the structural pillar (Meyer Fig. 4 showing the camera 103 mounted inside the A-pillar under protruding, dome-shaped cover 8 that extends outwardly from the surface of the A-pillar 107; and Meyer paragraphs 88-89).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 7-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0319381), hereinafter referred to as Meyer, in view of Burnette et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0053265), hereinafter referred to as Burnette.
In regard to claim 2, Meyer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein the one or more first sensors each having a cylindrical or frustoconical field of view (Meyer paragraph 74 noting the cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in the front of the vehicle; and Meyer Fig. 1 showing the field of view of the forward facing cameras having a frustoconical field of view, as the field of view expands as it gets farther away from the vehicle body) and generally facing the forward direction of travel of the vehicle (Meyer paragraph 74 noting the cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in the front of the vehicle).
However, Meyer does not expressly disclose a plurality of first sensors supported by one structural pillar.
In the same field of endeavor, Burnette teaches a plurality of first sensors supported by one structural pillar (Burnette paragraph 8 noting a sensor assembly including an arm that is attached to the A-pillar of a vehicle; and Burnette claim 30 noting wherein the arm is configured to support the one or more lidars laterally away from an A-pillar of the autonomous vehicle; and Burnette Figs. 1 showing sensor assembly that attaches to the A-pillar of a vehicle).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette because both disclosures provide sensor systems for autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles that have a plurality of sensors that provide external data to provide driver assistance functions. The teachings of Meyer include a system with multiple cameras, including two cameras in the windshield pillars of the vehicle, along with cameras in other positions to provide driver assistance functions, and the teachings of Burnette include that of providing additional sensor assemblies that can be attached to A-pillars. As such, modified to incorporate a sensor assembly as taught in Burnette, the A-pillars of the vehicle disclosed in Meyer would include multiple sensors supported by one structural pillar.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have multiple sensors in one pillar of the vehicle disclosed in Meyer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device only involves routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8.
As such, either with the inclusion of additional sensor assemblies attached to the A-pillar of a vehicle, or with duplication of the internal A-pillar sensors disclosed in Meyer, it can be seen that it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the one or more sensors supported by a structural pillar can comprise a plurality of sensors. Thus, modified to incorporate the teachings of Burnette, and that which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, the teachings of Meyer include all of the limitations presented in claim 2.
In regard to claim 3, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein the field of view of each of the plurality of first sensors is facing a common direction (Meyer paragraph 74 noting the cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in the front of the vehicle).
Additionally, the teachings of Burnette include wherein the field of view of each of the plurality of first sensors is facing a common direction (Burnette paragraph 4 noting a camera having a field of view in a direction of forward travel of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have multiple sensors in one pillar of the vehicle disclosed in Meyer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device only involves routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8. As such, it would have been obvious that these cameras could both face in the same direction (forward) as they would be duplicates of the disclosed camera facing forward. Additionally, it would have been obvious to combine the sensor assembly attached to the A-pillar of a vehicle as taught by Burnette as disclosed above in claim 1, and since the teachings of Burnette also includes cameras attached to the A-pillars that face forward, it would have been obvious that there could be a combination of a plurality of cameras attached to the A-pillars of the vehicle that face in a common direction, i.e., forward. As such, it can be seen that modified to incorporate the teachings of Burnette and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Meyer include all of the limitations presented in claim 3.
In regard to claim 4, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, Burnette teaches wherein the field of view of at least one of the plurality of first sensors is facing in a direction that is different than directions of the fields of view of other than the at least one of the plurality of first sensors (Burnette paragraph 4 noting a first camera having a field of view in a direction opposite a direction of forward travel of the vehicle; a second camera having a field of view in the direction of forward travel of the vehicle; and a third camera having a field of view in a direction substantially perpendicular to the direction of forward travel of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 7, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches further comprising one or more sensor supporting members extending from the vehicle body (Meyer Fig. 2 showing the domed protrusion extending from the structural pillar of the vehicle), wherein each of the one or more sensor supporting members has a first surface extending and curving away from a forward direction of travel of the vehicle (Meyer Fig. 2 showing the domed protrusion having a first surface (the curved surface of the dome) which when starting from the forward-most point of the dome, at the farthest point protruded out from the structural pillar, the surface extends in a curved fashion back towards the structural pillar, in the direction away from the direction of travel), and wherein one or more second sensors are mounted in each of the one or more sensor supporting members (Meyer Fig. 2 showing that the camera 3 is mounted within the protruding ‘supporting member’).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 8, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein each of the one or more first sensors is selected from the group of sensors consisting of an optical sensor, a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and a sonic sensor (Meyer paragraph 18 noting each camera is, for example, a high-resolution camera (high-definition camera (HD camera; and Meyer paragraph 80 noting image sensor 15 is, for example, a CCD (charged coupled device) camera or a CMOS sensor).
However, Meyer does not expressly disclose each of the one or more second sensors is selected from the group of sensors consisting of an optical sensor, a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and a sonic sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Burnette teaches each of the one or more second sensors is selected from the group of sensors consisting of an optical sensor, a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and a sonic sensor (Burnette paragraph 60 noting assembly 102 includes one or more of a radar, a lidar, and an inertial measurement unit (IMU). The side mirror assembly 102 schematically illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B includes a radar 110 and a lidar 112. According to one aspect, the lidar 112 includes an IMU integrated therein. However, the side mirror assembly 102 may include an IMU that is independent of the other sensors, or integrated into the cameras, the radar, or an additional sensor).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 9, Meyer teaches a sensor mounting arrangement for a vehicle (Meyer paragraph 74 noting the cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in the front of the vehicle), comprising: a vehicle body having a structural pillar horizontally disposed adjacent to one or more of a vehicle hood, vehicle door, or a vehicle windshield (Meyer paragraph 22 noting the A-pillar is a left or a right A-pillar of the vehicle. The vehicle in particular has two A-pillars, which are arranged on the left and right of the windshield viewed from the vehicle front. The A-pillar has, for example, surrounds for the windshield); wherein one or more first sensors each having a field of view is mounted in the structural pillar (Meyer paragraph 74 noting the cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in the front of the vehicle); wherein each of the one or more first sensors is mounted in a protrusion extending outwardly from an exterior surface of the structural pillar (Meyer Fig. 4 showing the camera 103 mounted inside the A-pillar under protruding, dome-shaped cover 8 that extends outwardly from the surface of the A-pillar 107; and Meyer paragraphs 88-89).
However, Meyer does not expressly disclose the one or more first sensor includes a plurality of first sensors.
In the same field of endeavor, Burnette teaches a plurality of first sensors supported by one structural pillar (Burnette paragraph 8 noting a sensor assembly including an arm that is attached to the A-pillar of a vehicle; and Burnette claim 30 noting wherein the arm is configured to support the one or more lidars laterally away from an A-pillar of the autonomous vehicle; and Burnette Figs. 1 showing sensor assembly that attaches to the A-pillar of a vehicle).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette because both disclosures provide sensor systems for autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles that have a plurality of sensors that provide external data to provide driver assistance functions. The teachings of Meyer include a system with multiple cameras, including two cameras in the windshield pillars of the vehicle, along with cameras in other positions to provide driver assistance functions, and the teachings of Burnette include that of providing additional sensor assemblies that can be attached to A-pillars. As such, modified to incorporate a sensor assembly as taught in Burnette, the A-pillars of the vehicle disclosed in Meyer would include multiple sensors supported by one structural pillar.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have multiple sensors in one pillar of the vehicle disclosed in Meyer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device only involves routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8.
As such, either with the inclusion of additional sensor assemblies attached to the A-pillar of a vehicle, or with duplication of the internal A-pillar sensors disclosed in Meyer, it can be seen that it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the one or more sensors supported by a structural pillar can comprise a plurality of sensors. Thus, modified to incorporate the teachings of Burnette, and that which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, the teachings of Meyer include all of the limitations presented in claim 9.
In regard to claim 10, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein the field of view of each of the plurality of first sensors is facing a common direction (Meyer paragraph 74 noting the cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in the front of the vehicle).
Additionally, the teachings of Burnette include wherein the field of view of each of the plurality of first sensors is facing a common direction (Burnette paragraph 4 noting a camera having a field of view in a direction of forward travel of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have multiple sensors in one pillar of the vehicle disclosed in Meyer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device only involves routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8. As such, it would have been obvious that these cameras could both face in the same direction (forward) as they would be duplicates of the disclosed camera facing forward. Additionally, it would have been obvious to combine the sensor assembly attached to the A-pillar of a vehicle as taught by Burnette as disclosed above in claim 2, and since the teachings of Burnette also includes cameras attached to the A-pillars that face forward, it would have been obvious that there could be a combination of a plurality of cameras attached to the A-pillars of the vehicle that face in a common direction, i.e., forward. As such, it can be seen that modified to incorporate the teachings of Burnette and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Meyer include all of the limitations presented in claim 10.
In regard to claim 11, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. In addition, Burnette teaches wherein the field of view of at least one of the plurality of first sensors is facing in a direction that is different than directions of the fields of view of other than the at least one of the plurality of first sensors (Burnette paragraph 4 noting a first camera having a field of view in a direction opposite a direction of forward travel of the vehicle; a second camera having a field of view in the direction of forward travel of the vehicle; and a third camera having a field of view in a direction substantially perpendicular to the direction of forward travel of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 9.
In regard to claim 12, Meyer teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches further comprising one or more sensor supporting members extending from the vehicle body (Meyer Fig. 2 showing the domed protrusion extending from the structural pillar of the vehicle), wherein each of the one or more sensor supporting members has a first surface extending and curving away from a forward direction of travel of the vehicle (Meyer Fig. 2 showing the domed protrusion having a first surface (the curved surface of the dome) which when starting from the forward-most point of the dome, at the farthest point protruded out from the structural pillar, the surface extends in a curved fashion back towards the structural pillar, in the direction away from the direction of travel), and wherein one or more second sensors are mounted in each of the one or more sensor supporting members (Meyer Fig. 2 showing that the camera 3 is mounted within the protruding ‘supporting member’).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 9.
In regard to claim 13, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein each of the one or more first sensors is selected from the group of sensors consisting of an optical sensor, a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and a sonic sensor (Meyer paragraph 18 noting each camera is, for example, a high-resolution camera (high-definition camera (HD camera; and Meyer paragraph 80 noting image sensor 15 is, for example, a CCD (charged coupled device) camera or a CMOS sensor).
However, Meyer does not expressly disclose each of the one or more second sensors is selected from the group of sensors consisting of an optical sensor, a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and a sonic sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Burnette teaches each of the one or more second sensors is selected from the group of sensors consisting of an optical sensor, a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and a sonic sensor (Burnette paragraph 60 noting assembly 102 includes one or more of a radar, a lidar, and an inertial measurement unit (IMU). The side mirror assembly 102 schematically illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B includes a radar 110 and a lidar 112. According to one aspect, the lidar 112 includes an IMU integrated therein. However, the side mirror assembly 102 may include an IMU that is independent of the other sensors, or integrated into the cameras, the radar, or an additional sensor).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 9.
In regard to claim 14, Meyer teaches a sensor mounting arrangement for a vehicle (Meyer paragraph 74 noting the cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in the front of the vehicle), comprising:
a vehicle body having a structural pillar disposed adjacent to a vehicle windshield (Meyer paragraph 22 noting the A-pillar is a left or a right A-pillar of the vehicle. The vehicle in particular has two A-pillars, which are arranged on the left and right of the windshield viewed from the vehicle front. The A-pillar has, for example, surrounds for the windshield);
one or more sensor supporting members extending from the vehicle body (Meyer Fig. 2 showing the domed protrusion extending from the structural pillar of the vehicle), wherein each of the one or more sensor supporting members has a first surface extending and curving away from a forward direction of travel of the vehicle (Meyer Fig. 2 showing the domed protrusion having a first surface (the curved surface of the dome) which when starting from the forward-most point of the dome, at the farthest point protruded out from the structural pillar, the surface extends in a curved fashion back towards the structural pillar, in the direction away from the direction of travel)
wherein one or more first sensors each having a field of view and generally facing the forward direction of travel of the vehicle (Meyer paragraph 74 noting the cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in the front of the vehicle) is mounted in the structural pillar (Meyer paragraph 74 noting the cameras in the A-pillars of the vehicle have a field of view in the front of the vehicle).
However, Meyer does not expressly disclose, and wherein one or more second sensors each having a field of view is supported by each of the one or more sensor supporting members.
In the same field of endeavor, Burnette teaches wherein one or more second sensors each having a field of view (Burnette paragraph 4 noting a first camera having a field of view in a direction opposite a direction of forward travel of the vehicle; a second camera having a field of view in the direction of forward travel of the vehicle; and a third camera having a field of view in a direction substantially perpendicular to the direction of forward travel of the vehicle) is mounted in each of the one or more sensor supporting members (Burnette paragraph 4 noting a first camera having a field of view in a direction opposite a direction of forward travel of the vehicle; a second camera having a field of view in the direction of forward travel of the vehicle; and a third camera having a field of view in a direction substantially perpendicular to the direction of forward travel of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 15, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. In addition, Burnette teaches wherein the field of view of at least one of the plurality of first sensors is facing in a direction that is different than directions of the fields of view of other than the at least one of the plurality of first sensors (Burnette paragraph 4 noting a first camera having a field of view in a direction opposite a direction of forward travel of the vehicle; a second camera having a field of view in the direction of forward travel of the vehicle; and a third camera having a field of view in a direction substantially perpendicular to the direction of forward travel of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 16, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein each of the one or more first sensors is mounted in a protrusion extending outwardly from an exterior surface of the structural pillar (Meyer Fig. 4 showing the camera 103 mounted inside the A-pillar under protruding, dome-shaped cover 8 that extends outwardly from the surface of the A-pillar 107; and Meyer paragraphs 88-89).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 17, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein a surface disposed across the field of view of each of the one or more first sensors is flush with an exterior surface of the structural pillar (Meyer Fig. 6 showing the direction of the field of view 228 of the camera 203 has a transparent cover surface 208 that is flush with the exterior surface of the A-pillar 207; and Meyer paragraphs 92-96 describing this embodiment).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 18, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. In addition, Burnette teaches wherein each of the one or more second sensors is mounted in a protrusion extending outwardly from the first surface (Burnette Fig. 1A showing the sensors of the sensor assembly mounted in protrusions extending outward from the leading surface of the sensor assembly).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 20, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. In addition, Meyer teaches wherein each of the one or more first sensors is selected from the group of sensors consisting of an optical sensor, a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and a sonic sensor (Meyer paragraph 18 noting each camera is, for example, a high-resolution camera (high-definition camera (HD camera; and Meyer paragraph 80 noting image sensor 15 is, for example, a CCD (charged coupled device) camera or a CMOS sensor).
However, Meyer does not expressly disclose each of the one or more second sensors is selected from the group of sensors consisting of an optical sensor, a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and a sonic sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Burnette teaches each of the one or more second sensors is selected from the group of sensors consisting of an optical sensor, a light direction and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, an infrared sensor, and a sonic sensor (Burnette paragraph 60 noting assembly 102 includes one or more of a radar, a lidar, and an inertial measurement unit (IMU). The side mirror assembly 102 schematically illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B includes a radar 110 and a lidar 112. According to one aspect, the lidar 112 includes an IMU integrated therein. However, the side mirror assembly 102 may include an IMU that is independent of the other sensors, or integrated into the cameras, the radar, or an additional sensor).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0319381), hereinafter referred to as Meyer, in view of Burnette et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0053265), hereinafter referred to as Burnette, in further view of Nichols et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0284233), hereinafter referred to as Nichols.
In regard to claim 19, Meyer and Burnette teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. However, Burnette doesn’t expressly disclose wherein a surface disposed across the field of view of each of the one or more second sensors is flush with the first surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Nichols teaches wherein a surface disposed across the field of view of each of the one or more second sensors is flush with the first surface (Nichols Fig. 1 showing sensor assemblies attached to the A-pillars of the vehicle; and Nichols paragraph 29 noting that the sensor assembly comprises a window 66 that may be flush or substantially flush with the side surface of the sensor assembly, and is disposed across the field of view of the sensor 64).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Meyer and Burnette for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2. Additionally, it would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine these teachings with the teachings of Nichols, because both Burnette and Nichols disclose sensor systems for autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles that have a plurality of sensors that provide external data to provide driver assistance functions and include that of providing additional sensor assemblies that can be attached to A-pillars. The teachings of Nichols would benefit the teachings of Burnette and Meyer by providing additional methods of constructing sensor assemblies that attach to A-pillars of vehicles, and provide 360 degree viewing windows that allow for sensors to have fields of view in different directions. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Nichols, the teachings of Meyer and Burnette include all of the limitations presented in claim 19.
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 TYLER B EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2738. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
/TYLER B. EDWARDS/
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488