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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the frame of claims 2 and 7; the metal shell wrapped around the frame of claim 2; and the plastic shell filled in the openings in the metal shell of Claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki (US 2014/0111950).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamasaki discloses a vehicle body (Fig. 1), comprising an outer shell (rear panel in Fig. 2); a plurality of vehicle components 12; and a plurality of sensors 110, integrated into the plurality of the vehicle components one-by-one (Fig. 2), and the plurality of sensors and plurality of vehicle components are enveloped by the outer shell (sensor and component sit in recess in rear panel; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, the vehicle body further comprises a frame (not shown), the outer shell comprises a metal shell (body) and a plastic shell 120, the metal shell wraps around the frame, the metal shell provides with a plurality of open areas, the plastic shell 120 is filled in a part of the open areas (in cavity with component 12), the sensors 110 and plurality of vehicle components are wrapped by the plastic shell (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, the vehicle components further include vehicle lights, vehicle lights comprise two tail lights (Fig. 1) symmetrically arranged at a bottom of the frame (bottom of the top frame in Fig. 1), the two tail lights are located on a plane, and each tail light is integrated with one or more lights.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamaji (US 11,796,356).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamaji discloses a vehicle body (Fig. 1), comprising an outer shell 14; a plurality of vehicle components 18; and a plurality of sensors 40, integrated into the plurality of the vehicle components one-by-one (Fig. 2), and the plurality of sensors and plurality of vehicle components are enveloped by the outer shell (Fig. 4).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yamaji.
Regarding Claim 4, Yamasaki disclose that the sensor 110 may be a radar type sensor to sense the presence of another vehicle, but it does not appear to discloses a specific millimeter wave radar of the location over the front wheels. Yamaji discloses the use of a plurality of millimeter wave radars 40, the vehicle further comprises two front wheels (Fig. 1), the vehicle body 14 includes first open areas (at 16), the first open areas are located above each front wheel (Fig. 1), and the tail end of each first open area facing the rear of the vehicle is flush with a longitudinal centerline of the wheel in a vertical direction (Fig. 1; sensor pocket is in line with the wheel and flush to the body), and a length is smaller than the radius of the wheel (Fig. 1), the millimeter wave radars are mounted in the first open areas and wrapped in the plastic shell corresponding to the first open area, as taught by Yamasaki. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the millimeter wave radars of Yamaji, in the location as taught by Yamaji, on the body of Yamasaki in order to further enhance the operator’s ability to avoid other vehicles by providing both front and rear sensing locations for detecting the presence of a vehicle which may encroach on the operating area of the driver.
Regarding Claim 7, Yamaji includes a front frame area (posts) with the metal shell over the posts at the same angle, and a windshield there between (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki and Yamaji as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dry (US 10,150,432).
Regarding Claim 8, neither Yamasaki nor Yamaji appears to disclose the use of LIDAR. Dry discloses a vehicle covered in sensor technology, wherein the sensors further comprise Lidars 34, the Lidars are disposed on the top of the metal shell (on top of the entire vehicle; Fig. 1), the outer shell further includes a hood, and a curvature of the windshield is consistent with a curvature of the hood (see Fig. 1). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the LIDAR dome of Dry with the combination of Yamasaki and Yamaji to further complete and compliment the sensor package to achieve a safer, and possibly future autonomous vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 5, applicant’s use of the plastic shell open in a first area with the shape of a bullet and facing the front, is novel.
Regarding Claims 6 and 10, the applicant’s use of plurality of cameras at the rear end of the vehicle, two ends of each second open area along a lateral direction of the vehicle are substantially C-shaped, each second open area is filled with the plastic shell, and at least one camera or sensor, is novel.
Regarding Claims 9 and 11, applicant’s use of two additional components being mirrors, wherein each mirror is a blind spot monitoring unit, and each mirror further includes a plastic installation shell for wrapping around the blind spot Lidar and/or camera, the installation shell is installed into the mounting part, and the upper and lower ends of the mounting part are exposed to the installation shell; the blind spot Lidars and/or cameras are exposed to the mounting part from a fourth open area, is novel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to vehicle bodies and the use of sensors within and around it.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights