DETAILED ACTION
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 11-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 20180037267A1) and Blanche et al. (US 20220250555).
Regarding claims 11, 19-20, Williams discloses a fastening arrangement for a camera (200) on a vehicle (100) ([0032]), comprising: a spoiler (150) for the vehicle (figs 1-4); a camera holder (130) which is fastened in a water-tight manner to an outer side of a vehicle body (120) or to a tailgate panel of the vehicle before the spoiler is mounted ([0038], figs 1-4), wherein the camera holder has the camera (figs 1-4), fastened in a water-tight manner, arranged therein such that a lens of the camera looks out of the vehicle, fasteners for fastening to the vehicle body or to the tailgate panel ([0036], figs 1-4), and the spoiler, upon mounting, is fastened over the camera holder and the camera such that, after mounting, the spoiler is aligned on the lens in relation to the vehicle body or the tailgate panel ([0034]-[0036], fig 4).
Williams appears to be silent regarding a recess for the lens of the camera.
Blanche teaches that the spoiler is formed to have a recess (recess containing 7) for the lens (7) of the camera ([0062], figs 1-2).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Williams and Blanche and before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Williams to include the recess for the lens of the camera as taught by Blanche in order to achieve a camera module that is integrated, lightweight, can be produced in a few steps, in which the risk of fogging from water vapor is minimized, and/or in which the integrated camera module is as invisible as possible from the outside ([0013]).
Regarding claim 12, Williams further discloses that the camera support terminates in a water-tight manner with respect to the vehicle body or the tailgate panel and with respect to the camera ([0038]).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 20180037267A1) and Blanche et al. (US 20220250555) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hayato (US 20220250555)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Williams and Blanche is silent regarding the fact that the fasteners are formed as slide nuts, and the vehicle body or the tailgate panel has screw connections which correspond to the slide nuts.
Stoeckl teaches that the fasteners are formed as slide nuts (26), and the vehicle body or the tailgate panel has screw connections which correspond to the slide nuts (fig 5).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Williams, Blanche and Stoeckl and before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Williams and Blanche to include slide nuts as taught by Stoeckl in order to help adjust the position of a sensor module (abstract).
Claims 14-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 20180037267A1) and Blanche et al. (US 20220250555) as applied to claims 11and 20 above, and further in view of Minikey (US 20170272624)
Regarding claims 14 and 21, the combination of Williams and Blanche is silent regarding a sleeve which is to be applied over the lens to the camera or the camera holder before mounting of the spoiler, the sleeve being in contact with the recess of the spoiler at least on part regions thereof after mounting and not being in contact with the lens.
Minikey teaches a sleeve (14) which is to be applied over the lens (16) to the camera or the camera holder before mounting of the spoiler (figs 1-6, [0019]), the sleeve being in contact with the recess of the spoiler at least on part regions thereof after mounting and not being in contact with the lens(figs 1-6, [0019]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Williams, Blanche and Minikey and before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Williams and Blanche to include the sleeve as taught by Minikey in order to form a sealed enclosure for the camera ([0020]).
Regarding claim 15, Williams further discloses the sleeve has clips, by way of which the sleeve is fastenable to the camera holder in order to fix the camera on the camera holder ([0036]).
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 20180037267A1) and Blanche et al. (US 20220250555) as applied to claim 11 and 20 above, and further in view of Langlais et al. (US 20230075491)
Regarding claims 16 and 22, the combination of Williams and Blanche is silent regarding a washer nozzle fastened to the vehicle body or the tailgate panel adjacently to the camera, wherein the spoiler has a separate recess for the washer nozzle.
Langlais teaches a washer nozzle (24) fastened to the vehicle body or the tailgate panel adjacently to the camera, wherein the spoiler has a separate recess (recess inside 28, fig 4) for the washer nozzle (figs 1-3, [0046]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Williams, Blanche and Langlais and before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Williams and Blanche to include a rear spoiler as taught by Langlais in order to help clean a sensor ([0006])
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 20180037267A1) and Blanche et al. (US 20220250555) and Yamagushi et al. (US 20120242833).
Regarding claims 17-18, the combination of Williams and Blanche teaches utilizing the fastening arrangement according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Williams is silent regarding the fact that the spoiler is arranged as an upper or lower rear spoiler.
Yamagushi teaches that the spoiler is arranged as an upper or lower rear spoiler (abstract, figs 1-2).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Williams, Blanche and Yamagushi and before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Williams and Blanche to include a rear spoiler as taught by Yamagushi in order to capture the image of the surroundings of the vehicle (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant states that Williams does not disclose the camera holder has the camera ,fastened in water-tight manner, arranged therein. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact in [0038] clearly states that “the receptacle may be coupled to roof panel 120, or other vehicle roof structure 101 components, such that a seal between the roof panel 120, or other vehicle roof structure 101 components, and the receptacle 130 is water-tight.”.
Applicant states that Blanche is silent regarding the presence of a recess for the camera lens. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact , figs 1-2 clearly shows that the lens 7 is located in a recess (cavity containing 8 as disclosed in [0094]). In Blanche reference, [0062] clearly recites that the structure can be a spoiler.
Applicant states that in Minikey reference, the housing is in direct contact with the lens through the seal. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact, the seal creates a barrier between the housing and the lens and therefore the housing is not in direct contact with the lens ([0020], figs 1-4)
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 DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
09/22/2026
Prosecution Insights