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.
Claims 1-5, 6-7, 10, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rostocki et al. (DE 102018104715 – cited on Applicant’s IDS, full machine translation attached).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Rostocki discloses (Figs. 4-7) a mounting device for mounting a sensor on a vehicle component (as shown in Figs. 4-5; see pars. [0001] and [0031]), comprising:
a mounting base 13/14 [0031] (Fig. 4) comprising an opening (the central opening in element 14) for a receiving element of a sensor 12 such that the sensor 12 can be arranged on the mounting base 13/14 in an axial direction (as shown in Figs. 4-7); and
at least one securing mechanism 4 [0033] distinct from the sensor 12 (i.e. holding means 4 is part of the housing 19 of the sensor 12 and is therefore distinct from the sensor itself, which can be an ultrasonic sensor, camera, or near-filed monitoring system: [0016]) and comprising (i) at least one fastening element 4 (holding means: [0036]; Fig. 5), wherein the mounting base 13/14 comprises (ii) the at least one fastening receptacle 14;
wherein the at least one securing mechanism 4 is coupled to the mounting base 13/14 by arranging the at least one fastening element 4 in the at least one fastening receptacle 14 ([0036]; as shown in Figs. 5-7), and wherein the at least one securing mechanism 4 is configured to positively secure the sensor 12 arranged on the mounting base 13/14 at least in the axial direction ([0036]; as shown in Figs. 5-7, by blocking movement in the axial direction),
wherein the at least one fastening element 4 and the at least one fastening receptacle 14 are configured to form a rotary closure ([0036]; as shown in Figs. 5-7) by inserting the at least one fastening element 4 into the at least one fastening receptacle 14 and rotating the securing mechanism ([0036]; as shown in Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 13, Rostocki further discloses a vehicle component [0001].
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Rostocki discloses (Figs. 4-7) the at least one fastening element 4 and the at least one fastening receptacle 14 are configured to form a rotary closure by rotating the securing mechanism ([0036]; as shown in Figs. 5-7) in a plane perpendicular to the axial direction ([0036]; as shown in Figs. 5-7) and/or wherein the rotating of the securing mechanism for forming the rotary closure is less than 20° (i.e. the rotating from the opeing 27b to the notch 34 appears to be less than 20° - see Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Rostocki discloses (Figs. 4-7) the at least one fastening receptacle 14 comprises an insertion opening (top opening of 14: see Fig. 4) and comprises a recess (central recess of 14: see Fig. 4) that is at least partially aligned in a circumferential direction of the mounting base 13/14 or of the securing mechanism 15 (as shown in Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Rostocki discloses (Figs. 4-7) the insertion opening (top opening of 14: see Fig. 4) is (i) oriented in the circumferential direction (i.e. is circular and thus has a circumference which defines the circle: see Fig. 4), or (ii) oriented in the axial direction (i.e. is circular and thus has an axis through the center around which the circle is oriented: see Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Rostocki discloses (Figs. 4-7) the at least one fastening receptacle 14 and the at least one fastening element 4 are configured to produce a latch connection (when projection 4 is in the notch 34: [0036]; Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Rostocki discloses (Figs. 4-7) the mounting base 13/14 comprises a receiving portion 14 for the sensor 12 extending in an axial direction away from the opening (i.e. inward: see Fig. 4), the at least one fastening element 4 is configured at an end facing away from the opening (i.e. the projections 4 are at a side end of the sensor holder and project away from the holder 14: see Figs. 4-5) such that a form-fitting portion of the securing mechanism engages behind the sensor 12 arranged in the receiving portion 14 on a side of the sensor facing away from the opening (as shown in Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 10, Rostocki discloses (Figs. 4-7) the securing mechanism comprises a receiving portion 14 for the sensor 12 extending substantially in the axial direction away from the opening (i.e. inward: see Fig. 4) when configured on the mounting base (as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the receiving portion 14 comprises form-fitting portions 34 at an end facing away from the opening (i.e. the outer sides of the engaging arms: see Fig. 4), the form-fitting portions 34 of the securing mechanism being configured to engage behind the sensor 12 arranged in the receiving portion on a side of the sensor facing away from the opening (as shown in Figs. 4-5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostocki et al. (DE 102018104715).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Rostocki is applied as above, but does not disclose the at least one fastening element comprises one of a pin, bolt, or plate (element 4, however, does take the form of a projection protruding from the side of the sensor 12, similar to a pin: see Fig. 5), and it would be merely a change in shape of the projection 4 to be in the form of a pin.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rostocki’s projection 15 to be in the form of a pin – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 8, Rostocki discloses (Figs. 4-7) the form-fitting portion being configured as a central part 12 of the pin or bolt, and wherein one fastening element 4 is configured at an end face of the central part 12 (as shown in Fig. 5), and wherein material thickenings are configured at the end face of the central part (i.e. the projections 4 could be considered thicker portions of the wall of sensor housing 19).
Rostocki does not disclose the securing mechanism comprises a pin or bolt (element 4, however, does take the form of a projection protruding from the side of the sensor 12, similar to a pin: see Fig. 5), and it would be merely a change in shape of the projection 4 to be in the form of a pin.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rostocki’s projection 15 to be in the form of a pin – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11-12 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-15-2025 have been fully considered but they are 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 separate, discrete securing mechanism (e.g., a pin, clip, or tongue structure) attaches to the base after (or in conjunction with) sensor placement to positively secure the sensor axially” – Remarks, p. 8; and “the securing mechanism is consistently described…as a separate entity” – Remarks, p. 9) 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).
Applicant’s remarks hinge on the argument that the claimed securing mechanism/fastening element must be separate from the sensor, however, the only limitation in claims 1, 13, and 20 which recites this feature is that the securing mechanism is “distinct from the sensor.” As Applicant points out, the Examiner is considering the holding means 4 of Rostocki as reading on the claimed securing mechanism/fastening element. Rostocki discloses that the holding means 4 are formed on the outer surface of the sensor housing 19, which the examiner argues is “distinct from” the sensor 12 itself, which can be an ultrasonic sensor, camera, or near-filed monitoring system: [0016] (the phrase “distinct from” simply means that one thing is recognizably different from another; in other words, there is a reasonable sense in which the actual sensing element is distinct from or recognizably different from the structure that houses it). Since claims 1, 13, and 20 do not further elaborate on how the securing mechanism/fastening element is “distinct from” the sensor, the examiner’s position is that Rostocki still reads on the claims.
Also, Applicant argues that the examiner’s mapping re-writes the claims and teaches away from the claimed arrangement. However, the examiner disagrees, and respectfully points out the art has been applied to the claims as written, with a detailed explanation on how the cited reference reads on the claim language. Further, an argument that a reference “teaches away” from the claimed arrangement is only applicable to a 103 type combination rejection, and the independent claims are all rejected under a 102 anticipation type rejection.
Therefore, for at least the reasons above, the examiner maintains the grounds of rejection.
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 Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852