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 .
Status of Claims
This is the second Office Action on the merits. Claims 1 and 3-4 are currently pending. Claim 1 is currently amended, claim 2 was cancelled, and claims 3-4 are new. This action is FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-067842, filed on 04/18/2023.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 09/23/2025 has been entered.
In view of the 35 USC 102 rejection, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 has been acknowledged.
In view of the 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant’s cancellation of claim 2 has been acknowledge and rejection has been withdrawn.
In view of the new claims, Applicant’s addition of claims 3 and 4 have been acknowledged.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blake et al. (EP2415623A1) in view of Stam et al. (US6262410B1), and further in view of Lynam et al. (WO2006029901A1), hereinafter Blake, Stam, and Lynam, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Blake teaches of a sensor mounted structure (FIG. 1) comprising: a sensor cover located on an inner surface of a front windshield of a vehicle ("mounting a sensor module having a housing inside of the windscreen", [0007]); a humidity sensor located in the first space ("A humidity sensor is located within the housing of the sensor module", [0005]); and a camera located in the second space ("The housing 30 encloses a plurality of operational sensors such as…a forward looking camera 42", [0009]), and an opening being configured to communicate the first space with a vehicle cabin ("The sensor module 22 further includes a humidity/temperature sensor 74 mounted in an opening 76 of the sensor module 22 so as to be exposed to ambient air", [0012]).
However, Blake does not teach of the sensor cover including an outer shell and a rectangle partition located inside the outer shell, the rectangle partition being configured integrally with the outer shell and defining a first space, and the outer shell defining a second space inside the outer shell excluding the first space; wherein the rectangle partition is further configured such that a gap is provided between the first space and the second space, the outer shell includes a slit at a position corresponding to the rectangle partition, the slit extends in a vehicle width direction, and a length of the slit is shorter than a long side of the rectangle partition.
Stam, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the sensor cover including an outer shell and a rectangle partition located inside the outer shell (FIGs. 1 and 2), the rectangle partition being configured integrally with the outer shell and defining a first space, and the outer shell defining a second space inside the outer shell excluding the first space (FIGs. 1 and 2, shows sensor being housed in a rectangular partition with separated first and second space); and wherein the rectangle partition is further configured such that a gap is provided between the first space and the second space (FIGs. 1 and 2, shows sensor being housed in a rectangular partition with separated first and second space indicative of a gap between spaces).
However, Stam does not teach that the outer shell includes a slit at a position corresponding to the rectangle partition, and the slit extends in a vehicle width direction, and a length of the slit is shorter than a long side of the rectangle partition.
Lynam, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of the outer shell includes a slit at a position corresponding to the rectangle partition (see at least FIG. 5, ventilation slots 56), and the slit extends in a vehicle width direction, and a length of the slit is shorter than a long side of the rectangle partition (see at least FIGs. 4-6).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the sensor mounted structure of Blake with the partitions, spaces, and gap of Stam and the slit of Lynam with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve performance by separating the sensors, thereby preventing interference in their respective data gathering and resulting in higher accuracy, as well as allowing ambient air to reach the sensors, which provide optical sensor performance (Lynam, Pg. 8 lines 10-31).
Regarding claim 3, modified Blake teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the humidity sensor is configured to detect humidity on the inner surface of the front windshield ("…humidity sensor for determining the relative humidity…at the windscreen", [0006]) for controlling an operation of an air conditioner of the vehicle ("A heating, ventilation, air condition system is operative with the windscreen and responsive to said control signal for controlling air flow and…humidity of in-flowing air so as to aid in preventing windscreen fogging", [0006]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Blake teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the sensor cover is located in a center of an upper end portion of the front windshield in the vehicle width direction ("…may be mounted in a module that is mounted against the inside of the windscreen in front of the rearview mirror", [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4 and 5, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blake in view of Stam, and further in view of Lynam.
Regarding Applicant’s argument for independent claim 1 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1), Applicant argues that Kim et al. (KR20040102972A) fails to teach at least “the rectangle partition [being] further configured such that a gap is provided between the first space and the second space”, in addition to, the size relationship between the slit and the long side of the rectangular partition. Examiner found argument persuasive; however, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blake, Stam, and Lynam, as discussed above.
Applicant’s argument, see Pages 5 and 6, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to the cancellation of claim 2 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to the addition of claims 3 and 4 have been fully considered. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blake in view of Stam, and further in view of Lynam. See rejections of claims 3 and 4 as discussed above.
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 ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657