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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues
1) Smirra still does not anticipate amended claim 1 because the particular elements identified by the Examiner are not disclosed in Smirra as the closure feature that secures one housing portion to the other. The outstanding office action maps Smirra base 4, rod 8, and half-moon shaped region 7 to the claimed first retaining bar, spring portion, and second retaining bar. But Smirra explains that the housing is secured by other components that do not include the Smirra base 4, rod 8, and half-moon shaped region 7 also explains that half-moon shaped region 7 is a locking element that engages a depression 9 to prevent slippage. See Smirra Paragraphs [0006], [0008], and [0024]. Thus, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Smirra does not disclose the specific trio relied on by the Examiner as the closure feature that secures the first housing portion to the second housing portion.
Response: if the Structure of Smirra teaches engaging a depression to prevent slippage, it is being used to at the very least secure the housing face 2b to the housing 13.
2) Smirra also does not disclose claim 2 and amended claim 3. Claim 2 requires a retaining structure having receiving slots that receive the second portion of the closure feature. The outstanding office action points to Smirra item 9, but item 9 is described only as a depression or recess in housing cover 2b. See Smirra Paragraphs [0008], [0023], and [0024]. A depression is not a retaining structure having receiving slots.
Response: the depression are designed to receive the springs section of the retaining structure and therefore contain all the features of claim 2 which is used to prevent slippage which secures the first housing portion to the second housing portion.
3) The Abstract and Paragraph [0005] state that the U-shaped clamp spring has a base and two legs, and that the legs exert forces onto the housing covers by which the covers are fixed to the housing body. Paragraph [0021] is even more direct and states that the clamp springs have base 4 and legs 5, and that legs 5 exert the holding force on housing covers 2a and 2b. Thus, the force applying structure in Smirra is the legs 5, not a claimed pair of retaining bars connected by a spring portion as recited in claim 14.
Response: The claims to do not state a force is applied by the first or second portion of the wire spring closure, but merely bias the housing portions together. the top of the bar 4 keeps the first housing from twisting away from the second housing 2b and the bar 8 prevents the face 2b from twisting away from 13, therefore the two portions bias the housings toward each other.
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) 1-2 and 14-15 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 and 15, 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 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) 6-9 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, 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 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, 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, 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 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, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
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 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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
Prosecution Insights