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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 12-15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huf Huslbeck (DE 10 2015 100039 A1, as recorded and provided in IDS dated 11/29/23, “Huf”) in view of Kishine (US Publication No.: US 2018/0024416 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Huf discloses an optical module for a vehicle (Figures 1-8), said optical module comprising:
A camera comprising a set of optical lenses (Figure 3a, camera 11, Paragraph 0070 discloses an optical lens assembly, a part of Paragraph 0070 translates to “a rigidly mounted camera 11 can always be in the resting position III remain in which the camera 11 has a substantially horizontal receiving area. However, it can nevertheless be controlled between the far-end mode F and the near-end mode N, for example with the aid of appropriate lens / lens systems or lens systems”; Paragraph 0033 also discloses an optical lens system, as it translates to “according to the invention, it can be advantageous if the camera device, in particular the cover element, can have one of the following elements: One or more optical lenses, An optical lens system, - a filter, - a residual light amplifier”),
A housing configured to receive said camera (Figure 3a, housing 13),
An outer lens placed facing said camera configured to conceal said camera from outside said vehicle (Figure 3A, outer lens 12; particularly Figure 7, outer lens 12.1), wherein
Said optical module further comprises an opaque element configured to absorb light coming from outside said vehicle in such a way as to reduce parasitic reflections of said light on said set of optical lenses of said camera (Figure 3a, opaque element 12, particularly Figure 7 discloses opaque element 12.2; Paragraphs 0011, which translates to “the control by changing the temperature is also advantageous. For this purpose, thermochromic materials can be used in the cover, the light absorption or light transmission can be varied depending on the temperature. When exposed to sunlight, such materials can heat, which can darken the cover independently…a function of the cover can be realized as a switchable thermochromic sunscreen to protect the camera from too much sunlight, especially from harmful UV radiation”; Paragraph 0081, which translates to “these layers 12.1 . 12.2 . 12.3 and / or the coating 15 can advantageously as: A protective layer, in particular a scratch-resistant coating, A decorative layer, An at least part of the light spectrum, in particular UV light, reflective or absorbing layer, A layer reflecting or absorbing at least part of the incident light, in particular a sunscreen layer”), wherein
The parasitic reflections come from reflections of light on an internal surface of said outer lens (Paragraph 0081 discloses the absorbing of UV light and reflecting incident light), and
Said opaque element is said outer lens (Figure 3A, outer lens and opaque element are both 12).
Huf fails to disclose that the outer lens comprises a first part and a second part and being opaque in a non-homogeneous manner, the first part being positioned above the second part relative to an optical axis of the camera.
However, Kishine discloses a similar optical module where the outer lens comprises a first part and a second part and being opaque in a non-homogeneous manner, the first part being positioned above the second part relative to an optical axis of the camera (Kishine, Figure 17, outer lens 10, first part 11, second part 15-3; Paragraph 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical module as disclosed by Huf to include an outer lens with first and second parts having non-homogeneous opacity as disclosed by Kishine. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light suppression (Kishine, Paragraphs 0107-0112).
Regarding Claim 4, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 3, wherein said first part of said outer lens is more opaque than said second part (Paragraph 0081 discloses a unidirectional opacity and transparency, which would mean that one part would be more opaque than another part).
Regarding Claim 5, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 4, wherein said first part is darker than the second part (Paragraph 0081 discloses a unidirectional opacity and transparency, which would mean that one part would be more opaque than another part).
Regarding Claim 6, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 4, wherein said first part has a thickness greater than said second part (Paragraph 0007 discloses a greater thickness in one part than in another part, as it translates to “ the cover may have different thicknesses”).
Regarding Claim 9, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 4.
Huf fails to disclose that said second part of said outer lens is between 75% and 80% transparent. However, Huf discloses a general environment of forming light transmissive areas to direct light as desired and optimize light transmittance (Huf, Paragraph 0007). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the transparent of the second part is the result-effective variable, and when this transparency is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given optical module, the recognized results of controlling light transmittance and direction are realized. While Huf does not directly disclose that the exact values of transparency, Huf does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Huf, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that said second part of said outer lens is between 75% and 80% transparent for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance and direction.
Regarding Claim 12, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical module further comprises an opaque cap positioned protruding from the housing of said camera (Huf, Figure 8 discloses the cap 12 protruding from the housing; Paragraph 0009 discloses its opacity).
Regarding Claim 13, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical module further comprises an opaque cap positioned above said set of optical lenses of the camera (Huf, Figure 8 discloses the cap 12 is positioned above the camera, where Paragraph 0009 discloses its opacity and Paragraph 0070 discloses the lenses of the camera).
Regarding Claim 14, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 1, wherein said housing comprises a non-reflective inner surface (Paragraph 0073 discloses “at least partially transparent and / or switched transparent”).
Regarding Claim 15, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 1, wherein said light is natural light or light from a street light (Paragraph 0011 discloses natural sun light).
Regarding Claim 18, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 5.
Huf fails to disclose that said second part of said outer lens is between 75% and 80% transparent. However, Huf discloses a general environment of forming light transmissive areas to direct light as desired and optimize light transmittance (Huf, Paragraph 0007). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the transparent of the second part is the result-effective variable, and when this transparency is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given optical module, the recognized results of controlling light transmittance and direction are realized. While Huf does not directly disclose that the exact values of transparency, Huf does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Huf, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that said second part of said outer lens is between 75% and 80% transparent for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance and direction.
Claims 7-8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huf in view of Kishine in further view of Shigematsu (US Publication No.: US 2021/0291750 A1 of record).
Regarding Claim 7, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 4.
Huf fails to disclose that said first part is made of a material that absorbs more light than the material of said second part.
However, Shigematsu discloses a similar optical module where said first part is made of a material that absorbs more light than the material of said second part (Shigematsu, Paragraphs 0074-0076 discloses a first part 41a made of a black paint and a second part 42a made of a metal film, where the first part 41a absorbs more light than the second part 42a, since the first part absorbs the light reflected off the second part as well).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second parts as disclosed by Huf to absorb a particular amount of light as disclosed by Shigematsu. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimize transmission characteristics of both parts (Shigematsu, Paragraphs 0074-0076).
Regarding Claim 8, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 4.
Huf fails to disclose that said first part of said outer lens is between 30% and 50% opaque.
Shigematsu also fails to explicitly disclose that said first part of said outer lens is between 30% and 50% opaque. However, Shigematsu discloses a general environment of insuring a level of opacity for controlling temperature within the vehicle (Shigematsu, Paragraph 0078). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the opacity of the first part is the result-effective variable, and when this opacity is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given optical module, the recognized results of controlling light transmittance and heat and optimizing temperature are realized. While Shigematsu does not directly disclose that the exact values of opacity, Shigematsu does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Shigematsu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that said first part of said outer lens is between 30% and 50% opaque for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance and temperature within a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 17, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 5.
Huf fails to disclose that said first part of said outer lens is between 30% and 50% opaque.
Shigematsu also fails to explicitly disclose that said first part of said outer lens is between 30% and 50% opaque. However, Shigematsu discloses a general environment of insuring a level of opacity for controlling temperature within the vehicle (Shigematsu, Paragraph 0078). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the opacity of the first part is the result-effective variable, and when this opacity is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given optical module, the recognized results of controlling light transmittance and heat and optimizing temperature are realized. While Shigematsu does not directly disclose that the exact values of opacity, Shigematsu does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Shigematsu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that said first part of said outer lens is between 30% and 50% opaque for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance and temperature within a vehicle.
Claims 10-11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huf in view of Kishine in further view of Nagahama et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0088969 A1 of record, “Nagahama”).
Regarding Claim 10, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 3.
Huf fails to disclose that said first part of said outer lens is arranged at an angle greater than or equal to 11° relative to an optical axis of said camera.
However, Nagahama discloses a similar optical module where said first part of said outer lens is arranged at an angle greater than or equal to 11° relative to the optical axis of said camera (Nagahama, Paragraph 0042 discloses an angle of 10° to 87°, which overlaps with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first part as disclosed by Huf to include an inclined angle as disclosed by Nagahama. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance and strengthening the surface of the layer (Nagahama, Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 11, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 3.
Huf fails to disclose that said first part of said outer lens is arranged at an angle greater than or equal to 21° relative to an optical axis of said camera.
However, Nagahama discloses a similar optical module where said first part of said outer lens is arranged at an angle greater than or equal to 21° relative to an optical axis of said camera (Nagahama, Paragraph 0042 discloses an angle of 10° to 87°, which overlaps with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first part as disclosed by Huf to include an inclined angle as disclosed by Nagahama. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance and strengthening the surface of the layer (Nagahama, Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 19, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 4.
Huf fails to disclose that said first part of said outer lens is arranged at an angle greater than or equal to 11° relative to an optical axis of said camera.
However, Nagahama discloses a similar optical module where said first part of said outer lens is arranged at an angle greater than or equal to 11° relative to an optical axis of said camera (Nagahama, Paragraph 0042 discloses an angle of 10° to 87°, which overlaps with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first part as disclosed by Huf to include an inclined angle as disclosed by Nagahama. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance and strengthening the surface of the layer (Nagahama, Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 20, Huf in view of Kishine discloses the optical module as claimed in claim 4.
Huf fails to disclose that said first part of said outer lens is arranged at an angle greater than or equal to 21° relative to an optical axis of said camera.
However, Nagahama discloses a similar optical module where said first part of said outer lens is arranged at an angle greater than or equal to 21° relative to an optical axis of said camera (Nagahama, Paragraph 0042 discloses an angle of 10° to 87°, which overlaps with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first part as disclosed by Huf to include an inclined angle as disclosed by Nagahama. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance and strengthening the surface of the layer (Nagahama, Paragraph 0059).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights