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 Amendment
This action is responsive to correspondence filed March 24, 2026.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claim 8 has been added. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
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, 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2023/0039292) (hereinafter Kobayashi) in view of Irie et al. (US 2022/0397922) (hereinafter Irie).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a system for sensor driving voltage control, comprising:
a sensor (imaging device) (1), arranged on an outer side of a vehicle (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0025), wherein the sensor is a camera (see paragraph 0040);
temperature detector (temperature sensor) (43), detecting an temperature (see paragraph 0045); and
a control device (heater control unit) (40), controlling a voltage value of a driving voltage for driving the sensor (imaging device) (1) (see paragraph 0044-0047), wherein the control device (heater control unit) (40) comprises:
a voltage value determining unit (heater power supply unit) (41), determining a voltage value for current supply to the sensor (imaging device) (1) (see paragraph 0046-0047); and
a voltage value adjusting unit (control circuit) (42), adjusting the voltage value determined by the voltage value determining unit (heater power supply unit) (41), wherein the voltage value determining unit (heater power supply unit) (41) sets a high voltage value (V2) higher than a normal voltage value (V1) when the temperature detected by the temperature detector is below a predetermined temperature (Tth2) (see paragraph 0081 and 0092), and the normal voltage value (V1) is a voltage value set when the external temperature is above the predetermined temperature (see paragraph 0082 and 0095).
However, Kobayashi does not explicitly teach an external temperature detector detecting an external temperature.
Irie external temperature detector (ambient temperature sensor) (35) detecting an external temperature (see paragraph 0086 and 0088).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system as taught by Kobayashi with an external temperature detector detecting an external temperature as taught by Irie. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide accurate exterior temperature measurement and more effectively control the voltage value provided to the sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi in view of Irie teaches all the limitation claim 1, Kobayashi further teaches the control device further comprises a high voltage supply time measuring unit (timer) (44) for measuring a time of current supply with the high voltage value (V2), wherein the voltage value determining unit (heater power supply unit) (41) sets a low voltage value lower than he normal voltage value (“the control circuit 42a controls the heater power supply unit 41 so as not to apply the voltage to the PTC heater 21 (S209)”; see paragraph 0096) when the time measured by the high voltage supply time measuring unit (timer) (44) exceeds a first predetermined time (predetermined time period) (see paragraphs 0081-0082 and 0095-0096).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi teaches a method for sensor driving voltage control, comprising: detecting, by a temperature detector (temperature sensor) (43), a temperature (see paragraph 0045);
controlling a voltage value of a driving voltage for driving a sensor arranged on an outer side of a vehicle (imaging device) (1) (see paragraph 0044-0047), wherein the sensor is a camera (see paragraph 0040) comprising:
determining a voltage value for current supply to the sensor (imaging device) (1) (see paragraph 0046-0047); and
adjusting the determined voltage value, wherein a high voltage value (V2) higher than a normal voltage value (V1) is set when the temperature detected by the temperature detector is below a predetermined temperature (Tth2) (see paragraph 0081 and 0092), and the normal voltage value (V1) is a voltage value set when the external temperature is above the predetermined temperature (see paragraph 0082 and 0095).
However, Kobayashi does not explicitly teach an external temperature detector detecting an external temperature.
Irie external temperature detector (ambient temperature sensor) (35) detecting an external temperature (see paragraph 0086 and 0088).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method as taught by Kobayashi with an external temperature detector detecting an external temperature as taught by Irie. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide accurate exterior temperature measurement and more effectively control the voltage value provided to the sensor.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Irie in further view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2005/0190702) (hereinafter Yamamoto)
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi in view of Irie teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Kobayashi as modified by Irie does not explicitly teach the high voltage value determined by the voltage value determining unit is determined by a maximum value within a guaranteed operating range.
Yamamoto teaches the high voltage value determined by the voltage value determining unit is determined by a maximum value within a guaranteed operating range (see paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system for sensor driving voltage control as taught by the prior combination with the high voltage value determined by the voltage value determining unit is determined by a maximum value within a guaranteed operating range as taught by Yamamoto. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to ensure secure and reliable performance of the system for sensor driving voltage control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 3 of the Remarks that :
“Kobayashi does not teach or suggest "controlling a voltage of a driving voltage for driving the sensor".
Claim 1 recites a control device that directly controls a voltage value of a driving voltage for driving the sensor (i.e., the "sensor" itself is used as the heating element by adjusting its driving voltage), wherein the sensor is a camera, a radar, a laser radar (lidar), or an ultrasonic sensor.
Kobayashi, however, does not control a voltage of a driving voltage for driving the imaging sensor. Instead, Kobayashi explicitly discloses "a separate PTC heater (21)", distinct from "the imaging sensor"; and a heater power supply unit (41) that applies voltages V1 and V2 to "the PTC heater 21", not to "the imaging sensor" (see 0046-0047, 0081-0082).
Kobayashi repeatedly states that the control circuit causes the heater power supply unit to apply a voltage to "the PTC heater". Nowhere does Kobayashi disclose or suggest controlling a voltage of a driving voltage for driving "the imaging sensor" for anti-freezing purposes.
Accordingly, Kobayashi fundamentally differs from the present invention, which eliminates the separate heater and instead controls the driving voltage shared by the sensor to prevent freezing.
This structural and functional distinction is not a mere design choice; it reflects a different system architecture and technical principle.”
This argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 recites, “[a] system for sensor driving voltage control, comprising: a sensor, arranged on an outer side of a vehicle, wherein the sensor is a camera, a radar, a laser radar (lidar), or an ultrasonic sensor; an external temperature detector, detecting an external temperature; and a control device, controlling a voltage of a driving voltage for driving the sensor”. Kobayashi teaches in Figure 1 the sensor/imaging device (1) being a camera (see paragraph 0040) and the imaging device including a PTC heater (21). Therefore, providing a voltage to the PTC heater of the imaging device, meets the claimed language as claimed in claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., eliminating the separate heater and instead controls the driving voltage shared by the sensor to prevent freezing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in pages 3-4 of the Remarks that:
“There is no separate heater in the present invention.
The present invention is directed to a system that prevents camera freezing without providing a separate heater, by controlling the voltage supplied to the sensor itself.
In contrast, Kobayashi explicitly relies on a dedicated PTC heater and controls the heater voltage. Therefore, Kobayashi's voltage control target is "the PTC heater" while the voltage control target of the present invention is "the sensor (shared driving voltage)". These targets are technically and structurally distinct. Modifying Kobayashi to remove the heater and instead heat the sensor by adjusting its driving voltage would require a substantial redesign of the system architecture, not a routine substitution.”
This argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a system that prevents camera freezing without providing a separate heater, by controlling the voltage supplied to the sensor itself) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner did not set forth modifying Kabayashi to “remove the heater” as this limitation is not claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in page 4 of the Remarks that:
“Kobayashi teaches away from using the sensor as a heating element.
Kobayashi's design philosophy is to separate the imaging sensor from the heating element, which avoids thermal noise and reliability issues. This implicitly teaches away from using the sensor itself as a heating element. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to eliminate the dedicated heater and instead increase a driving voltage of a sensor, because such modification would risk degrading imaging performance and sensor lifetime. Thus, the combination proposed by the Examiner is not supported by any technical motivation.”
This argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., using the sensor as a heating element) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner did not set forth modifying Kabayashi to “eliminate the dedicated heater” or “using the sensor as a heating element” as these elements are not claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art alone or in combination does not explicitly teach or render obvious the control device further comprises a low voltage supply time measuring unit for measuring a time of current supply with the low voltage value, wherein the voltage value determining unit sets the high voltage value when the time measured by the low voltage supply time measuring unit exceeds a second predetermined time.
Claims 5-6 depend on claim 4, therefore the would be allowable at least for the same reasons as to claim 4.
Claim 8 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious the specific limitation of the voltage value determining unit sets the low voltage value when the time measured by the high voltage supply time measuring unit exceeds a first predetermined time and sets the high voltage value when the time measured by the low voltage supply time measuring unit exceeds a second predetermined time of independent claim 8, when combined with all the limitations of claim 8.
Hence, the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 8. The examiner cannot find teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine the elements of the references other than applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/JANICE M SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights