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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action for application #18/636474, Sensing Device Fixing Unit For An Individual Vehicle, filed 4/16/24. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 80.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Figure 2 fails to show the assembly mounted to the front beam and grille as described in the specification. Figure 2 should have the same assembly as depicted in Figure 3, shown mounted to the grille and beam. As explained below, the assembly orientation appears to be reversed in Figure 2 when compared to Figure 3. If what is viewed in Figure 3 is the face of the assembly that actually faces the front beam and grille, then the bracket 1 is mislabeled in Figure 2. Figure 2 labels the bracket facing away from the grille as the first bracket 1. However, by comparing Figures 2 and 3:
-In Figure 2, the connector 14 of the sensing device 10 is oriented extended to the left instead of to the right as depicted in Figure 3.
-In Figure 2, the first beam 18 of the first bracket 1 is solid instead of including the opening 21 as depicted in Figure 3. The opening 21 appears to be located in the bracket behind bracket 1 in Figure 2. It appears that the bracket labeled 1 should actually be labeled “2”.
-The orientation of sub frame 40 is reversed in Figure 2 to what is depicted in Figure 3.
-Additionally, there are two elements labeled as “40” in Figure 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2:
-The term “for example” is indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Regarding Claim 4:
-The phrase “a pair” makes it unclear if this is referring to a pair already claimed and if more than one pair is being claimed.
Regarding Claim 5:
-It is unclear is “a retaining pin” is in addition to the plurality of retaining pins claimed in Claim 1.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the two fixing lugs”.
-It is unclear if “a pair of fixing lugs” is referring to lugs previously claimed.
Regarding Claim 6:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the two fixing lugs”.
-It is unclear if “a pair of fixing lugs” is referring to lugs previously claimed.
-It is unclear is “a retaining pin” is in addition to the plurality of retaining pins claimed in Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11:
-It is not clear which element is being referred to as the “connector”. The specification discloses the sensing device 10 having a connector 14. The first and second beams 18,19 of the first and second brackets respectively bow outwardly to accommodate the connector 14. However, in Claim 10, it is claimed that the connector is “plugged to the sensing device”. In the figures, connector 14 appears to be part of the sensing device. It is not disclosed as being “plugged to”. Claim 11 further claims that the first supporting beam 18 has an opening 21 for receiving a portion of the connector. This suggests that the connector being referred to in the claims is NOT the connector 14, but rather the non-depicted connector. However, if the non-depicted connector is what is being referred to, then the claim limitation in Claim 10 of the second bracket comprising a second supporting beam “for the connector” is unclear since the non-depicted connector is only taught to be received in the opening 21 of the first bracket. There is nothing disclosed regarding a connection between the non-disclosed connector and the second supporting beam of the second bracket.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,734,171 to Leonelli, Jr. (hereinafter ‘Leonelli’) in view of US 2021/0057808 (Kim).
Regarding Claim 1, Leonelli teaches a fixing unit for fixing a sensing device (abstract) to an industrial vehicle, the fixing unit comprising:
a first bracket (20; Figure 3); and
a second bracket (16; Figure 3) comprising:
a plurality of fixing lugs (80/82; Figure 4) configured for snap engagement with the first bracket (within retainer slots 42,44; col 3, ln 47-55);
wherein the sensing device (18) is pressed between the first bracket (20) and the second bracket (16) when the fixing lugs (80/82) of the second bracket (16) are locked in the first bracket (20; col 3, ln 47-63).
While Leonelli teaches locating elements to position the sensor correctly with respect to the first and second brackets (col 3, ln 38-63), Leonelli does not specifically teach a plurality of retaining pins configured for passing through the sensing device. However, Kim, which is also drawn to positioning a sensor (120) with respect to a bracket (110), further teaches using a plurality of retaining pins (130; Figures 1 and 2) configured for passing through the sensing device (via 123; para [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a plurality of retaining pins to attach the sensor to the bracket, such as to the elastic portion 84 (Figure 4 of Leonelli) in the same manner that Kim attaches the sensor to the elastic portion 112, such that the sensor still has the capability of movement in the event of a crash, but can be securely positioned with respect to both brackets.
The Examiner notes that the industrial vehicle is not given patentable weight since not positively claimed and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Leonelli and Kim combined teach the fixing unit of claim 1, and Leonelli further teaches wherein the sensing device is a radar, or a lidar, or a camera (col 1, ln 7-9 teaching camera), for example a time-of-flight camera.
Regarding Claim 3, Leonelli and Kim combined teach the fixing unit of claim 1, wherein the retaining pins are configured to pass through the sensing device when the fixing lugs of the second bracket are engaged in the first bracket (since the retaining pins of Kim would secure the sensor to the sensing device by the passing of the pins 130 through 123; and the fixing lugs of Leonelli secure the first and second brackets together).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Leonelli and Kim combined teach the fixing unit of claim 1, and Leonelli further teaches wherein the plurality of fixing lugs 80/82) comprises pairs of fixings lugs, each fixing lug of a pair of fixing lugs facing the other fixing lug of the pair of fixing lugs (see Figure 4 where the inner surfaces of 80 and 82 face one another).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, Leonelli and Kim combined teach the fixing unit of claim 4, and Leonelli further teaches wherein a retaining pin is disposed between the two fixing lugs (80/82) of a pair of fixing lugs (see Figure 4 where there are three unlabeled retaining pins at the lower end of the central opening of the second bracket 16 and are located between the lugs 80/82 since the lugs extend from the perimeter of the second bracket 16).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Leonelli and Kim combined teach the fixing unit of claim 4, and Leonelli further teaches wherein the two fixing lugs (80/82) of a pair of fixing lugs are arranged symmetrically with respect to an axis of extension of a retaining pin (disposed symmetrically with respect to the unlabeled center retaining pin shown in Figure 4 at the lower end of the central opening of the bracket 16).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Leonelli and Kim combined teach the fixing unit of claim 1, and Leonelli further teaches wherein the first bracket (20) comprises a first supporting beam (oval shaped unlabeled beam at the lower end of the bracket 20 in Figure 4) for a connector (68, Figure 4, or the connector on the lower end of 22 in Figure 1 that 68 connects with) plugged to the sensing device (18); and wherein the second bracket (16) comprises a second supporting beam (three spaced short beams at the lower end of the bracket in Figure 4) for the connector plugged to the sensing device (since the sensor rests within the opening of 16 and on the second supporting beam).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Leonelli and Kim combined teach the fixing unit of claim 10, and Leonelli further teaches wherein the first supporting beam (oval shaped unlabeled beam at the lower end of the bracket 20 in Figure 4) comprises an opening (58; Figures 2 and 4) configured for receiving a portion of the connector plugged to the sensing device (col 3, ln 15-21).
Regarding Claim 13, Leonelli and Kim combined teach an assembly (Figure 1) comprising the sensing device (18) and the fixing unit of claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonelli and Kim, and further in view of US 2016/0040700 (Trojanowski).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Leonelli and Kim combined teach the fixing unit of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the retaining pins are split; and wherein the retaining pins are configured for being elastically deformed in a radial direction when the sensing device is fixed in the fixing unit. However, Trojanowski, teaches using a retaining pin (36) to connect two elements (110/120) together in the automobile industry (para [0001]-[0002]), and further teaches the retaining pin (36) is split (Figure 1); and wherein the retaining pin is configured for being elastically deformed in a radial direction when the two elements are connected together (by passing through 60 before spreading out into 64 to snap-fit in position within 24; para [0073],[0076],[0081]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a retaining pin as taught by Trojanowski on the fixing unit of Leonelli and Kim combined, so that the position of the sensor could be adjusted with respect to the bracket to assure the best positioning for function of the sensor.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonelli and Kim, and further in view of US 2022/0196831 (Hong).
Regarding Claims 14-17, Leonelli and Kim combined teach a vehicle comprising the fixing unit of claim 1, wherein: Leonelli further teaches that the sensing device (18) is fixed to a front part of the vehicle (col 1, ln 11-16 teaching pointing forwardly of the vehicle) by the fixing unit and in which the sensing device senses the environment of the vehicle (col 1, ln 11-30). Leonelli does not specifically teach that the vehicle is an industrial vehicle, specifically a long-haul truck or a porter truck. However, Hong, which is also drawn to a fixing unit for a sensor mounted in the front of a vehicle (abstract) further teaches that the term “vehicle” is inclusive of trucks and various commercial vehicles (para [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the fixing unit of Leonelli and Kim could be used on various vehicles, such as industrial vehicles, since industrial vehicles are large with many blind-spots and need the capability of sensors (such as to avoid obstacles) in order to safely drive and park the industrial vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art has been listed in the PTO-892 form.
US 2023/0202404 (Nakayama et al.) teaches first and second opposing brackets sandwiching a sensor therebetween on the front of a vehicle.
US 2015/0250072 (Ichikawa) teaches first and second opposing brackets sandwiching an electronic device therebetween and having aligned connectors.
US 2014/0111950 (Yamasaki et al.) teaches a bracket for mounting a sensor to a vehicle via retaining pins that pass through aligned opening in the sensor and bracket.
US 2003/0094828 (Nagamoto) and US 7,200,903 (Shaw et al.) teach a central retaining pin with a pair of fixing lugs on opposed sides thereof.
US 12,092,260 (Kim) teaches retaining pins passing through a sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID M WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday 7:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights