DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. The application filed on May 09, 2024, has been received and made of record. There were initially 1-19 claims in the application of which claim 1 is independent claim. A preliminary amendment was made on the same day, where applicant amended claims 1-19. NO claim has been cancelled. Applicant added claim 20 as a new dependent claim in the preliminary amendment. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(IDS) submitted was filed along with the mailing date of the application on May 09, 2024. The IDS submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: protective housing and nest are not shown in the drawings. 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. 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. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets reference number 3 in Fig 2 to be the nest (6), or work holding fixture/molding fixture, not the detection device (3), as is currently depicted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification states that the injecting material is suited for use inside the mold, however it never explicitly discloses use
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DELNEUFCOURT et al.(WO 2020/216733 A1)(herein after DELNEUFCOURT)in view of LAMBRICHT et al.(US 2020/0109081 A1)(herein after LAMBRICHT)and further in view of HICK(WO 2020/178383 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DELNEUFCOURT teaches a trim element (protective housing for a sensing device) for a vehicle, comprising:
an aperture(fig.1(a)),
a detection device(lidar sensing device 2, fig.1(a)) operating with waves within a determined wavelength range(750 nm to 1650 nm, Page-9, Lines 6-11) and comprising a sensing device(lidar sensing device 2, fig.1(a));
PNG
media_image1.png
232
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a protective housing(protective housing 3, fig.1(a), Page-12, Line-5) enclosing said detection device(2, fig.1(a));
a cover lens(glass cover lens 4, fig.1(a)) made of at least one glass sheet having an absorption coefficient [between 5 m-1 and 15 m-1] in the wavelength range from 750 to 1650nm, the cover lens facing the aperture(2, fig.1(a)) and being fixed to the protective housing(Para-4, Lines 14-18),
wherein the cover lens(4), is surrounded by the trim element (Page-13, Lines 5-7) and wherein the cover lens is fixed to the trim element with a soft material(Page-7, Lines 14-26) [with a hardness of 50 to 90 shore A], and
wherein the detection device is placed facing the aperture (fig.1(a)).
Nevertheless, DELNEUFCOURT is not found to teach expressly the trim element, glass sheet having an absorption coefficient between 5 m-1 and 15 m-1 in the wavelength range from 750 to 1650nm.
However, LAMBRICHT teaches a glass used for an autonomous car, wherein a glass sheet having an absorption coefficient between 5 m-1 and 15 m-1 in the wavelength range from 750 to 1650nm(Para-27).
The prior art, as embodied in the teachings of DELNEUFCOURT and LAMBRICHT, included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and in that combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination is desirable as it provides a low-cost glass sheet for an automotive glazing.
Neither DELNEUFCOURT nor LAMBRICHT teaches expressly teach the trim element made of soft material having a hardness of 50 to 90 Shore A.
However, HICK teaches a soft material having a hardness of less than 90 Shore A(Page-5, Lines 26-28).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified DELNEUFCOURT further with the teaching of HICK to include the feature with a reasonable expectation of success for a secure mount that seals the enclosure from external intrusion, has less vibration and allows the lens to be removed to access the detection device for repairs or maintenance.
Regarding claim 2, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein the soft material(Page-13, Lines 5-7, DELNEUFCOURT) is thermoplastic elastomers(TPE) or thermosets material polyurethane(PUR), epoxies(EP), and polyvinyl chloride(PVC) (Page-7, Lines 14-26, DELNEUFCOURT).
Regarding claim 3, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein said the detection device(2, DELNEUFCOURT) is an optical sensing device(Page-12, Lines 1-4, DELNEUFCOURT).
Regarding claim 4, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein the soft material is a poured soft material(Page-8, Lines 10-17; Page-13, Lines 5-7, DELNEUFCOURT) (the claimed phrase “poured” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is synonymous with the term “injected,” as seen in the prior art Page-8 Lines 10-17. Both “pouring” and “injecting” are forms of molding known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by one of ordinary skill in the art and would result in parts fundamentally and functionally indistinguishable from one another. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 5, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein the soft material is a poured polyurethane soft material (Page-8, Lines 10-17; Page-13, Lines 5-7, DELNEUFCOURT).
Regarding claim 6, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein said trim element further comprises:
a support part to be fixed to the vehicle(Page-13, Lines 5-7, DELNEUFCOURT); and
an aesthetic part provided on the support part Page-13, Lines 26-28, DELNEUFCOURT)(Page-7, Lines 1-8 of the specification of the claimed invention, it is disclosed that the aesthetic part is plastic formed around the support part, color matched to a vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 6, wherein aesthetic part comprises a plastic material(Page-7, Lines 14-26; Page-8, Lines 7-9; and Page-13, Lines 5-7, DELNEUFCOURT).
Regarding claim 8, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein the cover lens(4; DELNEUFCOURT) is flush with a peripheral edge of the aperture(Page-8, Lines 7-9, DELNEUFCOURT).
Regarding claim 10, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein the cover lens(4; DELNEUFCOURT) is not permanently fixed to the protective housing(3; DELNEUFCOURT)(Page-13, Lines 12-13).”
Regarding claim 11, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein the trim element is a trim element of a roof of the vehicle(Page-13, Lines 26-28, DELNEUFCOURT).
Regarding claim 13, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein the trim element is positioned on an area of the vehicle(Page-13, Lines 26-28, DELNEUFCOURT).
Regarding claim 14, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element according to claim 1, wherein the optical sensing device is a light detection and ranging(LiDAR) sensing device(2, fig.1(a), DELNEUFCOURT), and
wherein the LIDAR sensing device is a scanning, a rotating, a flashing or a solid state LIDAR device enabling of 3D mapping, and emitting a laser beam of wavelength ranging between 750 and 1650nm(Claim 8, DELNEUFCOURT).
Regarding claim 15, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches a trim element(1; DELNEUFCOURT), a detection device(2; DELNEUFCOURT), an aperture(As seen in DELNEUFCOURT Annotated Fig 1a), a cover lens(4; DELNEUFCOURT), a sealer gasket cavity(6; fig.1b, DELNEUFCOURT), and a soft material (Page-13, Lines 5-7, DELNEUFCOURT).
DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK further teaches “a method to manufacture the trim element(106, fig.4, HICK),comprising :
sitting the trim element having an aperture(Hick: Page-17 Line 8 to Page-18, Line-11) to accommodate the cover lens(107; Hick fig.4) of the detective device into a nest(100; Hick fig.4);
centering the cover lens into the aperture of the trim element (Hick pg. 17 line 8- pg. 18 line 11);
closing a ring frame on the trim element and the cover lens in order to create a sealer gasket cavity (Hick pg. 17 line 8- pg. 18 line 11); and
filling a gap surrounding a periphery of the cover lens and the aperture of the trim element by spraying or injecting a material comprising the soft material with a hardness between 50 to 90 Shore A(Page-5, Lines 26-28, Hick)(for motivation see the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 6, since both claims 6 and 16 recite the same limitations except in different formats. The additional claim limitations “wherein the aesthetic part is provided with an aperture to accommodate the cover lens of the detection device” are also disclosed by DELNEUFCOURT(4; fig 1a).
Regarding claim 19, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches a vehicle, comprising:
the trim element according to claim 1(fig.1(a), Page-13, Lines 26-28, DELNEUFCOURT).
Regarding claim 20, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element of claim 13, wherein the area of the vehicle is a bumper, an applique, a front module, a rear module, a front fender, a rear fender, or a windshield (Page-13, Lines 26-28, DELNEUFCOURT).
11. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DELNEUFCOURT et al.(WO 2020/216733 A1),LAMBRICHT et al.(US 2020/0109081 A1), HICK(WO 2020/178383 A1) and further in view of FEDULLO et al.(US 2019/0284086 A1)(herein after FEDULLO).
Regarding claim 9, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK is not found to teach expressly the trim element according to claim 1, wherein said trim element fastened to the vehicle or a car body through a support part.
However, FEDULLO teaches mounting trim elements to support pillars(Para-4).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used TPE to secure the cover lens to enclose the detection device as seen in DELNEUFCOURT and the specific hardness and plastic injection molding method of manufacturing as described in Hick with the fastening means of FEDULLO with a reasonable expectation of success for a secure trim element that seals the enclosure from external intrusion, has less vibration, allows the lens to be removed to access the detection device for repairs or maintenance, and is safely and securely fastened to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element(1; DELNEUFCOURT) fixed(Page-13, Lines 8-9, DELNEUFCOURT) to the protective housing(3; DELNEUFCOURT) and detection device(2; DELNEUFCOURT), as well as, method of manufacturing as seen in claim 15.
The combination of art does not teach fixing an assembly provided with the cover lens to the vehicle body through the support part and then, fixing the LiDAR sensing device and housing with the trim element.
However, FEDULLO teaches mounting trim elements to support pillars(Para-4).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used TPE to secure the cover lens to enclose the detection device as seen in DELNEUFCOURT and the specific hardness and plastic injection molding method of manufacturing as described in Hick with the fastening means of FEDULLO with a reasonable expectation of success for a secure trim element that seals the enclosure from external intrusion, has less vibration, allows the lens to be removed to access the detection device for repairs or maintenance, and is safely and securely fastened to the vehicle.
12. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DELNEUFCOURT et al.(WO 2020/216733 A1),LAMBRICHT et al.(US 2020/0109081 A1), HICK(WO 2020/178383 A1) and further in view of Herman et al.(US 2023/0054134 A1)(herein after Herman).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of DELNEUFCOURT as modified by LAMBRICHT and HICK teaches the trim element of claim 11.
The combination of art does not teach mounting the detection device is fixed on the roof of the vehicle in a vicinity of an upper edge of a windshield.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Herman teaches the trim element, wherein the detection device(116; fig.1) is fixed on the roof of the vehicle in a vicinity of an upper edge of a windshield(as seen in Herman annotated fig.1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used TPE to secure the cover lens to enclose the detection device as seen in DELNEUFCOURT and the specific hardness and plastic injection molding method of manufacturing as described in Hick with the mounting location of Herman with a reasonable expectation of success for a secure trim element that seals the enclosure from external intrusion, has less vibration, allows the lens to be removed to access the detection device for repairs or maintenance, and is safely and securely fastened to the vehicle.
Double Patenting
13. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-isclaimer.
14. Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of co-pending Application No. 18/706,619 in view of LAMBRICHT et al.(US 2020/0109081 A1)(herein after LAMBRICHT).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Comparison of claims 1-19 of the current application with the corresponding claims 1-19 of the co-pending application 18/706,619 is given below:
18/708,828
18/706,619
Claim 1: A trim element for a vehicle, comprising:
an aperture;
a detection device operating with waves within a determined wavelength range and comprising a sensing device;
a protective housing enclosing said detection device;
a cover lens, made of at least one glass sheet having an absorption coefficient between 5m−1 and 15m−1 in the wavelength range from 750 to 1650 nm, the cover lens facing the aperture and being fixed to the protective housing,
wherein the cover lens is surrounded by the trim element and the cover lens is fixed to the trim element with a soft material with a hardness of 50 to 90 Shore A, and wherein the detection device is placed facing the aperture.
Claim 1: A trim element for a vehicle comprising:
an aperture;
a detection device operating with waves within a determined wavelength range and comprising a sensing device;
a protective housing enclosing said detection device; and
a cover lens made of at least one glass sheet having an absorption coefficient lower than 5m-1 in a wavelength range from 750 to 1650 nm, wherein the cover lens is fixed to the protective housing, wherein the detection device is placed facing the aperture, wherein the cover lens facing the aperture is surrounded by the trim element, and
wherein the cover lens is fixed to the trim element with a soft material having a hardness of 50 to 90 Shore A.
The only difference between the current application and the co-pending application is the missing limitations, “a cover lens, made of at least one glass sheet having an absorption coefficient between 5m−1 and 15m−1 in the wavelength range from 750 to 1650nm”.
However, LAMBRICHT teaches a glass used for an autonomous car, wherein a glass sheet having an absorption coefficient between 5 m-1 and 15 m-1 in the wavelength range from 750 to 1650nm(Para-27).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claim of co-pending application with the teaching of LAMBRICHT to include the feature in order to provide a low-cost glass sheet for an automotive glazing.
18/708,828
18/706,619
Claim 2
corresponds to Claim 2
Claim 3
corresponds to Claim 3
Claim 4
corresponds to Claim 4
Claim 5
corresponds to Claim 5
Claim 6
corresponds to Claim 6
Claim 7
corresponds to Claim 7
Claim 8
corresponds to Claim 8
Claim 9
corresponds to Claim 9
Claim 10
corresponds to Claim 10
Claim 11
corresponds to Claim 11
Claim 12
corresponds to Claim 12
Claim 13
corresponds to Claim 13
Claim 14
corresponds to Claim 14
Claim 15
corresponds to Claim 15
Claim 16
corresponds to Claim 16
Claim 17
corresponds to Claim 17
Claim 18
corresponds to Claim 18
Claim 19
corresponds to Claim 19
Examiner Note
15. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights