DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 06/12/2024 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venghaus (US 20120068040 A1) in view of Butterfield et al. hereinafter Butterfield (US 6645050 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Venghaus discloses a system for vibration mitigation at a sensor (vibration and shock isolation mount for a mobile satellite antenna system securable to a transport vehicle such as a truck or boat, Abstract) comprising:
a bracket (side support arrangement 11) configured to support at least one sensor (satellite antenna system 1, Fig. 2);
a structure (SMS) having a first major surface (top surface of SMS) along which the sheet metal structure extends, and a second major surface (bottom surface of SMS) opposite the first major surface (see Fig. 6 above); and
a backing plate (BP), wherein the bracket (11) is disposed adjacent to the first major surface of the sheet metal structure (BP is disposed adjacent to SMS), wherein the backing plate (BP) is disposed adjacent to the second major surface of the sheet metal structure (See reproduced Fig. 6), and wherein two or more fasteners secure the backing plate to the bracket through the sheet metal structure (Fasteners F secure BP with SMS).
Venghaus discloses the claimed subject matter except the structure is sheet metal.
Butterfield invention related to a method and apparatus for retaining a substrate discloses the structure is sheet metal (The metallic backing plate is preferably made of stainless steel, col. 12 lines 11-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to form the structure of Venghaus from sheet metal as taught by Butterfield because sheet metal structures were commonly used for brackets and backing plates, and such substitution would have been a predictable use of known materials according to their established functions.
With respect to claim 2, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the system of claim 1 above. Venghaus further discloses the at least one sensor is secured to the bracket using at least one fastener (the same antenna system 1 is shown mounted to the side 9 of such a transport vehicle 7 by a side support arrangement 11, para. [0020]).
With respect to claim 3, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the system of claim 1 above. Venghaus further discloses the sheet metal structure comprises a sheet metal component of a vehicle (The transport vehicle 7 in this regard can be virtually any form of transportation including a truck, recreational vehicle (RV), marine vessel, train car, or tractor, para. [0020]).
With respect to claim 7, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the system of claim 1 above. Butterfield further discloses the backing plate is made of aluminum (The metallic backing plate is preferably made of aluminum, col. 12 lines 11-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to form the structure of Venghaus from sheet metal as taught by Butterfield because aluminum structures were commonly used for brackets and backing plates, and such substitution would have been a predictable use of known materials according to their established functions
With respect to claim 8, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the system of claim 7 above. Venghaus as modified by Butterfield is silent about the backing plate is greater than 0.125 inches in thickness. However, selecting an appropriate thickness for a backing plate would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending on desired strength, rigidity, and load-bearing requirement. I would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to selecta backing plate thickness greater than 0.125 inches as a result effective variable to provide sufficient structural support and vibration resistance. Discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 12, Venghaus discloses a method of mitigating vibration at a sensor (vibration and shock isolation mount for a mobile satellite antenna system securable to a transport vehicle such as a truck or boat, Abstract) comprising:
mounting at least one sensor (satellite antenna system 1, Fig. 2) on a bracket (side support arrangement 11);
positioning the bracket (11) on a first side of a structure (top surface of SMS);
positioning a backing plate (BP) on a second side of the sheet metal structure (bottom surface of SMS); and
securing the backing plate (BP) to the bracket (11) using two or more fasteners through the sheet metal structure to clamp the sheet metal structure between the bracket and the backing plate (Fasteners F secure BP with SMS).
Venghaus discloses the claimed subject matter except the structure is sheet metal.
Butterfield invention related to a method and apparatus for retaining a substrate discloses the structure is sheet metal (The metallic backing plate is preferably made of stainless steel, col. 12 lines 11-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to form the structure of Venghaus from sheet metal as taught by Butterfield because sheet metal structures were commonly used for brackets and backing plates, and such substitution would have been a predictable use of known materials according to their established functions.
With respect to claim 14, Venghaus discloses a vibration mitigation system for a vehicle (vibration and shock isolation mount for a mobile satellite antenna system securable to a transport vehicle such as a truck or boat, Abstract) comprising:
at least one sensor (satellite antenna system 1, Fig. 2);
a bracket (11) configured to support the at least one sensor (satellite antenna system 1);
a backing plate (BP); and
two or more fasteners (see Fig. 6), wherein the bracket (BP)is configured to be positioned on a first side of a structure (top surface of SMS) of the vehicle, wherein the backing plate(BP) is configured to be positioned on a second side of the structure (bottom surface of SMS) of the vehicle, opposite the first side (see Fig. 6), and wherein the two or more fasteners are configured to secure the backing plate to the bracket through the sheet metal structure (Fasteners F secure BP with SMS).
Venghaus discloses the claimed subject matter except the structure is sheet metal.
Butterfield invention related to a method and apparatus for retaining a substrate discloses the structure is sheet metal (The metallic backing plate is preferably made of stainless steel, col. 12 lines 11-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to form the structure of Venghaus from sheet metal as taught by Butterfield because sheet metal structures were commonly used for brackets and backing plates, and such substitution would have been a predictable use of known materials according to their established functions.
With respect to claim 15, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the vibration mitigation system of claim 14 above. Butterfield further discloses the sheet metal structure of the vehicle is a horizontal sheet metal structure (The metallic backing plate is preferably made of stainless steel, col. 12 lines 11-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to form the structure of Venghaus from sheet metal as taught by Butterfield because sheet metal structures were commonly used for brackets and backing plates, and such substitution would have been a predictable use of known materials according to their established functions.
With respect to claim 19, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the vibration mitigation system of claim 14 above. Venghaus further discloses a noise reducing material positioned between the backing plate and the sheet metal structure (The mount includes vibration and shock isolators 4 as shown in FIG. 1 mounted between the mobile satellite antenna system 1 and the roof 5 of the transport vehicle 7, para. [0021]).
With respect to claim 20, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the vibration mitigation system of claim 19 above. Venghaus further discloses a noise reducing material (shock isolators 4) positioned between the bracket (side support arrangement 11) and the structure (surface of SMS).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venghaus and Butterfield as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of GHANNAM et al. hereinafter GHANNAM (US 20190077347 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the system of claim 3 above. Venghaus as modified by Butterfield is silent about the at least one sensor comprises a localization sensor.
GHANNAM invention related to an attachment system for securing vehicle push bars to a front end of a vehicle discloses the at least one sensor comprises a localization sensor (The vehicle 10 may include systems for detecting conditions surrounding the vehicle such as Radar 70, Lidar 66, ultra-sonic sensors 68, cameras 70, and the like, para. [0025]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Venghaus to include a localization sensor as taught by GHANNAM in order to determine location information associated with detected conditions, Since GHANNAM teaches the use of radar and lidar for detecting surrounding conditions and determining object location. The combination would have been a predictable use of known sensor technologies to improve system functionality.
With respect to claim 5, Venghaus, Butterfield and GHANNAM disclose the system of claim 4 above. GHANNAM further discloses the localization sensor comprises an inertial measurement unit (the vehicle 10 may also include a crash sensor 72, e.g., an accelerometer, para. [0025]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use an inertial measurement unit in place of or in addition to the accelerometer disclosed by GHANNAM because inertial measurement units were well known to include accelerometers and gyroscopes for motion and localization sensing, and such substitution would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
With respect to claim 6, Venghaus, Butterfield and GHANNAM disclose the system of claim 5 above. Venghaus further discloses vibrations experienced by the vehicle are dampened by the backing plate before reaching the inertial measurement unit (each vibration and shock isolator 4 is mounted between the base portion 13 of the domed antenna system 1, para. [0024]). Venghaus discloses a domed antenna system instead of inertial measurement unit. GHANNAM further discloses inertial measurement unit is used (the vehicle 10 may also include a crash sensor 72, e.g., an accelerometer, para. [0025]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use an inertial measurement unit in place of or in addition to the accelerometer disclosed by GHANNAM because inertial measurement units were well known to include accelerometers and gyroscopes for motion and localization sensing, and such substitution would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venghaus and Butterfield as applied to claims 1, 10, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Wang et al. hereinafter Wang (US 11962905 B2).
With respect to claim 9, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the system of claim 1 above. Venghaus as modified by Butterfield is silent about the at least one sensor comprises two localization sensors, wherein the two localization sensors comprise two inertial measurement units.
Wang invention related to apparatus for stabilizing an imaging device the at least one sensor comprises two localization sensors, wherein the two localization sensors comprise two inertial measurement units (plurality of inertial measurement units, claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Venghaus with Wang in order to provide two inertial measurement units because multiple sensors are commonly used to improve measurement accuracy, provide redundancy, and increase system reliability. The duplication of known sensor elements to obtain predictable results such as improved accuracy and reliability would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 10, Venghaus, Butterfield and Wang disclose the system of claim 9 above. Wang further discloses the bracket comprises a first plate supporting a first of the two inertial measurement units (227) and a second plate supporting a second of the two inertial measurement units (236, Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to support the two inertial measurement units on separate plates as taught by Wang to provide structural support, spacing, and stability for the sensors, since such structural arrangements were well known and would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to claim 11, Venghaus, Butterfield and Wang disclose the system of claim 10 above. Wang further discloses the second plate (201) is disposed above the first plate (231) relative to the sheet metal structure (227), and wherein the second plate (201) is supported above the first plate (231) by at least two supports of the bracket (222).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Venghaus to include the plate arrangement and supports as taught by Wang in order to support the second plate above the first plate using bracket supports, thereby providing structure support, spacing, and improved stability of the structure, since such structural arrangement were well known and would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to claim 13, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the method of claim 12 above. Venghaus as modified by Butterfield is silent about the at least one sensor comprises a first localization sensor and a second localization sensor, wherein the bracket supports the second localization sensor vertically above the first localization sensor relative to the sheet metal structure.
Wang further discloses the at least one sensor comprises a first localization sensor and a second localization sensor (plurality of inertial measurement units, claim 1), wherein the bracket (201) supports the second localization sensor vertically (231) above the first localization sensor relative to the sheet metal structure (222).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Venghaus with Wang in order to provide two inertial measurement units because multiple sensors are commonly used to improve measurement accuracy, provide redundancy, and increase system reliability. The duplication of known sensor elements to obtain predictable results such as improved accuracy and reliability would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 16, Venghaus and Butterfield disclose the vibration mitigation system of claim 15 above. Venghaus as modified by Butterfield is silent about the at least one sensor comprises a first localization sensor and a second localization sensor
Wang further discloses the at least one sensor comprises the at least one sensor comprises a first localization sensor and a second localization sensor (plurality of inertial measurement units, claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Venghaus with Wang in order to provide two inertial measurement units because multiple sensors are commonly used to improve measurement accuracy, provide redundancy, and increase system reliability. The duplication of known sensor elements to obtain predictable results such as improved accuracy and reliability would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 17, Venghaus, Butterfield and Wang disclose the vibration mitigation system of claim 16 above. Wang further discloses the bracket (201) is configured to support the second localization sensor (231) vertically above the first localization sensor (see Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Venghaus to include the plate arrangement and supports as taught by Wang in order to support the second plate above the first plate using bracket supports, thereby providing structure support, spacing, and improved stability of the structure, since such structural arrangement were well known and would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to claim 18, Venghaus, Butterfield and Wang disclose the vibration mitigation system of claim 17 above. Wang further discloses the first localization sensor is supported by a first plate (227), wherein the second localization sensor is supported by a second plate (236), and wherein the second plate is elevated above the first plate by two or more supports (see Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200328762 A1 discloses a roof panel of the vehicle 1 may include an antenna apparatus 100 for receiving wireless signals, such as radio signals, broadcasting signals, satellite signals, and the like, and transmitting and receiving signals to and from other vehicles, servers, and base stations. The antenna apparatus 100 may include a housing 101 having a bottom member 101a mounted to the roof panel of the vehicle 1 and a cover member 101b coupled to the bottom member 101a and covering internal components of the antenna apparatus 100. The housing 101 may have a shark fin shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEDEON M KIDANU whose telephone number is (571)270-0591. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/GEDEON M KIDANU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 4/2/26