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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smirra (US 20100014224).
Regarding claim 1, Smirra teaches a sensor housing system (abs, “A housing for receiving an electronic assembly includes a housing body having two openings opposite to each other, and two housing covers for closing the openings”), comprising: a first housing portion; a second housing portion (abs, “The clamp spring can be placed onto the housing in such a way that the legs exert forces onto the housing cover that are opposite to one another and interact which each other, with which the housing covers are fixed to the housing body.”), a wire spring closure device having a closure feature configured to secure the first housing portion to the second housing portion (fig 1 and 2, item 4) and comprising: a first portion comprising a first retaining bar (fig 1, item 4); a spring portion coupled to the first portion (fig 2, item 3); and a second portion coupled to the spring portion and comprising a second retaining bar (fig 2, item 8 and 7).
Regarding claim 2, Smirra teaches the second housing portion comprises a retaining structure having receiving slots that receive the second portion of the closure feature (fig 2, item 9).
Regarding claim 3, Smirra teaches the second retaining bar abuts a surface of the retaining structure (fig 2, item 9).
Regarding claim 4, Smirra teaches the first housing portion comprises retaining notches that retain the first retaining bar when in an engaged position (fig 1, item 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 14, Smirra teaches a wire spring closure device (fig 1), comprising: a closure feature comprising: a first portion comprising a first retaining bar configured to bias a first housing portion toward a second housing portion (fig 1); a spring portion coupled to the first portion (fig 1 and 2); and a second portion coupled to the spring portion and comprising a second retaining bar configured to bias the second housing portion toward the first housing portion (abstract and figure 1 and 2).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirra as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hoffmann (DE 102007042173).
Regarding claim 5, Hoffman teaches the first housing portion comprises a sloped feature that directs the first retaining bar into the retaining notches during engagement of the closure feature (fig 1, item 6 and the edges of housing 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the first housing portion comprises a sloped feature that directs the first retaining bar into the retaining notches during engagement of the closure feature because it is merely a substitution of a design for the first housing of Smirra for the first housing portion of Hoffman to yield a predictable housing.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirra as applied to claim 2 or 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al (US 20090154108).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Guo teaches the spring portion, when stretched in an engaged position, biases the first retaining bar toward the first housing portion and biases the second retaining bar toward the retaining structure to secure the first housing portion to the second housing portion (fig 2, items 240 and 510 and 530). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the spring portion, when stretched in an engaged position, biases the first retaining bar toward the first housing portion and biases the second retaining bar toward the retaining structure to secure the first housing portion to the second housing portion because it would ensure the housing is tight together.
Regarding claim 7, Guo teaches the first housing portion comprises a heat sink comprising cooling fins (fig 2, item 12). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the first housing portion comprises a heat sink comprising cooling fins because it would give the sensor a way to disperse heat.
Regarding claim 8, Guo teaches the cooling fins comprise retaining notches that retain the first retaining bar when in an engaged position (fig 2, item 14). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the cooling fins comprise retaining notches that retain the first retaining bar when in an engaged position because it is merely a substitution of a design for the retaining bar of Smirra for the retaining bar of Hoffman to yield a predictable housing.
Regarding claim 9, Guo teaches the cooling fins comprise a sloped feature that directs the first retaining bar into the retaining notches during engagement of the closure feature (fig 2, item 510). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the cooling fins comprise a sloped feature that directs the first retaining bar into the retaining notches during engagement of the closure feature because it would ensure the housing is tight together.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirra as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Vetter et al (US 20110183553).
Regarding claim 10 and 16, Vetter teaches the wire spring closure device is formed of stainless steel wire (para 3, “contact springs are typically made of a stainless steel spring substance, for example 1.4310 (X10CrNi18-8). This substance has proved itself in the past in terms of its resistance to corrosion and its spring properties. This substance can be made into wire or a flat material”). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the wire spring closure device is formed of stainless steel wire because it is merely a substitution of a well know type of metal to make a spring of Smirra with the metal to make a spring of Vetter to yield a predictable spring.
Regarding claim 11 and 17, Vetter teaches the wire spring closure device is formed of 1.4310 stainless steel wire (para 3, “contact springs are typically made of a stainless steel spring substance, for example 1.4310 (X10CrNi18-8). This substance has proved itself in the past in terms of its resistance to corrosion and its spring properties. This substance can be made into wire or a flat material”). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the wire spring closure device is formed of 1.4310 stainless steel wire because it is merely a substitution of a well know type of metal to make a spring of Smirra with the metal to make a spring of Vetter to yield a predictable spring.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirra as applied to claim 1 a above, and further in view of Sickinger et al (DE 3330733).
Regarding claim 12, Sickinger teaches the sensor housing is a radar sensor housing (abs). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the sensor housing is a radar sensor housing because it is one of multiple implementations of the sensor housing of Smirra to yield a predictable radar device.
Regarding claim 13 and 18, Sickinger teaches the sensor employed on an autonomous vehicle (“The invention can also be used in autonomous or at least partially autonomous vehicles.”). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the sensor employed on an autonomous vehicle because it is one of multiple implementations of the sensor housing of Smirra to yield a predictable autonomous vehicle..
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirra in view of Hoffmann (DE 102007042173).
Regarding claim 19, Smirra teaches a method for operating a wire spring closure device to secure a housing (fig 1), comprising: inserting a first portion of the wire spring closure device into receiving slots in a retaining structure of a first housing portion (abstract and fig 1 and 2); biasing a first retaining bar on the first portion against the retaining structure on the first housing portion (fig 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 19, Smirra does not teach forcing a second retaining bar along a sloped mating feature on a second housing portion until the second retaining bar engages a retaining notch in the second housing portion. Hoffman teaches forcing a second retaining bar along a sloped mating feature on a second housing portion until the second retaining bar engages a retaining notch in the second housing portion (fig 1, item 6 and the edges of housing 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra to include the first housing portion comprises a sloped feature that directs the first retaining bar into the retaining notches during engagement of the closure feature because it is merely a substitution of a design for the first housing of Smirra for the first housing portion of Hoffman to yield a predictable housing.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirra in view of Hoffmann as applied to claim 1 a above, and further in view of Sickinger et al (DE 3330733).
Regarding claim 20, Sickinger teaches the housing is a radar sensor housing (abs). It would have been obvious to modify Smirra in view of Hoffmann to include the sensor housing is a radar sensor housing because it is one of multiple implementations of the sensor housing of Smirra to yield a predictable radar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648