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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 03/27/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “… wherein the housing has at least one transparent region … the transparent region is kept clear …” (emphasis added to accentuate insufficient antecedent basis).
For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the following:
“… wherein the housing has at least one transparent region … the at least one transparent region is kept clear …”.
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, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margavio et al., hereinafter referred to as Margavio (US 2021/0138386 A1) in view of Pretat et al., hereinafter referred to as Pretat (US 5,610,878 A) in further view of Ito et al., hereinafter referred to as Ito (JP-2008015445-A).
As per claim 1, Margavio discloses [a] camera arrangement (102) for a vehicle (100) with at least one camera (110) arranged in a housing (Margavio: Fig. 1 & Para. [0020] disclose a sensor assembly 102 with electro-optic sensor 110 arranged within the assembly.), wherein the housing has at least one
a container (204) which is arranged in the housing (within 102) and has a moisture-adsorbing drying agent (Fig. 1, 108 or Fig. 2B, desiccant material 210), wherein the container (204) has a permeable membrane (Fig. 2A, apertures 212) on at least one side, such that an air exchange takes place between an interior of the housing and the drying agent (Margavio: Figs. 1, 2A-2B & Paras. [0025]-[0026] disclose desiccant container 204 arranged within assembly 102 and has a desiccant material 210. The container 204 further includes apertures 212 to enable air flow into the container 204 for adsorbing moisture within the desiccated volume.);
a detection unit (208) coupled to the container (204) for detecting a state of the drying agent (Margavio: Fig. 2A, 206, 208 & Para. [0025] disclose portion 206 that includes a sensor system 208 to obtain moisture saturation information of a desiccant material 210.); and
wherein, the at least one camera within the housing is maintained dry, to protect against corrosion therein (Margavio: Paras. [0001], [0021], [0026] disclose embedded desiccant assemblies that protect electro-optic sensors from moisture intrusion to ensure the air within the volume is mostly devoid of moisture, purposely maintaining a dry environment to prevent undesirable effects such as rust and corrosion.),
However, Margavio does not explicitly disclose “… at least one transparent region … and the transparent region is kept clear of condensation to allow the at least one camera to view and record therethrough.”.
Further, Pretat is in the same field of endeavor and teaches at least one transparent region (Pretat: Cols. 7-8, ll. 48-3 disclose a camera monitoring the transparent wall 29 of the desiccation capsule 20.) and further teaches protecting the interior of optical devices such as photo cameras, video cameras, or lenses that utilize viewing windows (Pretat: Col. 1, ll. 13-25; Col. 8, ll. 54-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Margavio and Pretat before him or her, to modify the housing of Margavio to include the transparent region feature as described in Pretat. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve moisture detection by providing a configuration that enables extended functionality of the camera monitoring.
However, Margavio-Pretat do not explicitly disclose “… the transparent region is kept clear of condensation to allow the at least one camera to view and record therethrough.”
Furthermore, Ito is in the same field of endeavor and teaches the transparent region is kept clear of condensation to allow the at least one camera to view and record therethrough (Ito: Para. [0008] discloses “prevents condensation [claimed kept clear of condensation] on the cover glass [claimed transparent region] in front of the photographic lens”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Margavio-Pretat and Ito before him or her, to modify the housing of Margavio-Pretat to include the transparent region kept clear of condensation feature as described in Ito. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve protection of internal camera components by providing a configuration that maintains a clear viewing window for unobstructed imaging operations.
As per claim 2, Margavio-Pretat-Ito disclose the camera arrangement according to claim 1,
characterised in that the detection unit (208) is designed to record a saturation of the drying agent (210) as a state (Margavio: Fig. 2A, 206, 208 & Paras. [0025], [0030] disclose portion 206 that includes a sensor system 208 to obtain moisture saturation information of a desiccant material 210. The result is that the sensor takes irradiance measurements in independent spectral bands, e.g., colors. The relative response between the spectral band measurements provide an accurate assessment of the color of the observed object.).
As per claim 3, Margavio-Pretat-Ito disclose the camera arrangement according to claim 1,
characterised in that the drying agent (210) is designed to change colour depending on its loading (saturation) and the detection unit (208) is designed to record the state of the drying agent (210) on the basis of its colour change (Margavio: Fig. 2A, 206, 208 & Paras. [0025], [0029]-[0030] disclose portion 206 that includes a sensor system 208 to obtain moisture saturation information of a desiccant material 210. The result is that the sensor takes irradiance measurements in independent spectral bands, e.g., colors. The relative response between the spectral band measurements provide an accurate assessment of the color of the observed object. The color change is based upon a level of moisture saturation.).
As per claim 4, Margavio-Pretat-Ito disclose the camera arrangement according to claim 1,
characterised in that the detection unit (208) has at least one light source (306) emitting white light, at least one colour sensor (photosensor comprises an RGB sensor) and an analysis unit (220/404) coupled to the colour sensor (Margavio: Figs. 2-4 & Paras. [0005], [0029], [0032]-[0034], [0038] disclose the sensor system has at least one light source emitting white light, at least one photosensor that comprises an RGB sensor and a signal processing module coupled to the sensor.).
As per claim 6, Margavio-Pretat-Ito disclose the camera arrangement according to claim 1,
characterised in that the housing has an opening which can be closed by means of a closure element (Pretat: 37) for removal and replacement of the container (Pretat: Col. 4, ll. 51-60 disclose the housing having an opening that can be closed by a groove 37 to permit replacement of the capsule [container].).
As per claim 7, Margavio-Pretat-Ito disclose the vehicle with a camera arrangement according to claim 1 (Margavio: Fig. 1, 100 & Para. [0020] disclose a sensor assembly 102 with vehicle 100.).
As per claim 8, Margavio-Pretat-Ito disclose the vehicle according to claim 7,
characterised in that the vehicle is a self-driving lorry (Margavio: Paras. [0023]-[0024] disclose the invention applicable to autonomous vehicles [includes self-driving trucks].).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margavio in view of Pretat in view of Ito in further view of Geyer (DE-102012008089-A1).
As per claim 5, Margavio-Pretat-Ito disclose the camera arrangement according to claim 1,
characterised in that the detection unit (208) is designed to output a warning in the vehicle and/or to transmit a warning to a diagnostic module of the vehicle and/or to a (210) is recorded on the basis of the colour change (Margavio: Figs. 2-4 & Paras. [0030], [0034]-[0035], [0047] disclose based on the present spectral response data (measurements in independent spectral bands, e.g., colors), the current desiccant saturation level can be determined and provided to a saturation level output module, which can output a desiccant saturation level signal, serving as a flag that the desiccant material should be replaced.).
However, Margavio-Pretat-Ito do not explicitly disclose transmitting a warning “… to a diagnostic module of the vehicle and/or to a computing unit coupled to the vehicle …”.
Furthermore, Geyer is in the same field of endeavor and teaches transmitting a warning to a diagnostic module of the vehicle and/or to a computing unit coupled to the vehicle (Geyer: Para. [0031] discloses motor vehicle K including a display device 8 is arranged, which illuminates as soon as a desiccant in the headlights 1 has to be replaced.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Margavio-Pretat-Ito and Geyer before him or her, to modify the desiccant monitoring system of Margavio-Pretat-Ito to include the transmitting warning to computing unit coupled to vehicle feature as described in Geyer. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve driver/user experience by providing a maintenance-friendly configuration that enables the driver of the vehicle to be informed of a pending or necessary change of the desiccant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 05-18-2026
Prosecution Insights