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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim1 refers to both “a shield” and later “the shielding member.” For the purposes of this Office Action it is assumed that the “shield” and “shielding member” refer to the same element, however the terms should be harmonized so that there is no potential ambiguity to whether the “shield” is a different component than the “shielding member.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “the shield comprises a winkle pattern” the term “winkle” does not appear to be a well-defined term, and appears to be a typographical error of the word “wrinkle,” as recited with respect to claim 11. For the purposes of this examination, the term is being interpreted as “wrinkle.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites that “the light cover is formed by double injection” and should recite either that ““the light cover is molded by double injection,” as recited in claim 3, or “the light cover is formed by double injection molding”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites that “the light cover and the camera cover are attached to both sides of the shielding member.” It is unclear from the language whether the claim is to be interpreted as “the light cover and the camera cover are each attached to both sides of the shielding member” or “the light cover is attached to one side of the light shielding member, and the camera cover is attached to other side of the shielding member.” Where more than one possible interpretation is reasonable, the claim is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.02(I) “if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”).
For the purposes of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as stating that “the light cover is attached to one side of the light shielding member, and the camera cover is attached to other side of the shielding member.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0281728 A1; hereafter Hong).
Regarding claim 1, Hong a dome cover configured to shield an opening of a housing in which at least one camera module and a light module corresponding to the at least one camera module are mounted, the dome cover comprising: a light cover coupled to the housing and surrounding an outside of the light module (see Hong Figs 1A and 2A, items 70 and 130); a camera cover surrounding the outside of the at least one camera module and shielding the opening of the housing (see Hong Figs. 1A and 2A, items 50 and 110); and a shield interposed between the light cover and the camera cover and configured to prevent transmission of light from the light module, wherein the light cover and the camera cover are attached to the shielding member (see Hong Fig. 4A, items 110, 120, and 130).
Regarding claim 2, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 1, wherein the shield comprises: a fixing portion comprising a fixing groove formed on a first side, the fixing groove being configured to allow at least a portion of a tip end of the camera cover to be inserted therein (see Hong Fig. 4A, items 120, 125, and 175. “The shield” can be construed as all of items 120, 125, and 175. In this case there is a groove formed between shield portions 125 and 175 into which camera cover 110 is inserted.), and the light cover being attached to a second side of the fixing portion; and an extension portion extending from an inner circumferential surface of the fixing portion toward an inner area of the light cover member (see Hong Fig. 4A, items 130 and downward extending portion of 175).
Regarding claim 3, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 2, wherein the light cover is molded by double injection and attached to a tip end of the second side of the fixing portion (see Hong Fig. 4A, items 125, 175, and 130, which show the light cover attached to a tip end of the second side of the fixing portion. Since these claims are apparatus claims, the method of making the structure is only considered insofar as the structural implications imparted by the method of making, and the claimed structure does not materially distinguish over the structure of Hong).
Regarding claim 4, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 2, wherein the camera cover is molded by ultrasonic welding and a portion of the camera cover inserted into the fixing groove is attached to the first side of the fixing portion (see Hong Fig. 4A, items 125, 175, and 110, which show the camera cover attached to the first side of the fixing portion. Since these claims are apparatus claims, the method of making the structure is only considered insofar as the structural implications imparted by the method of making, and the claimed structure does not materially distinguish over the structure of Hong).
Regarding claim 6, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 2, wherein the shield comprises a wrinkle pattern on a surface of the first side of the fixing portion (see Hong Fig. 4A, item 120).
Regarding claim 7, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 2, wherein the shield comprises an eave protruding from an outer surface of the fixing portion along a circumferential direction (see Hong Fig. 4A, which shows that the portion 120 of the shield portion has a part overhanging the fixing portion 125/175).
Regarding claim 8, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 7, wherein an outer circumferential surface of the eave protrudes further outward than an outer circumferential surface of the fixing portion (see Hong Fig. 4A, item 120 projects further than items 125 and 175).
Regarding claim 9, Hong disclose a dome cover configured to shield an opening of a housing in which at least one camera module and a light module corresponding to the at least one camera module are mounted, the dome cover comprising: a light cover coupled to the housing and surrounding an outside of the light module (see Hong Fig. 1A, item 130); a camera cover surrounding the outside of the at least one camera module and shielding the opening of the housing (see Hong Fig. 1A, item 110); a shield interposed between the light cover and the camera cover and configured to prevent transmission of light from the light module (see Hong Fig. 4A, items 125 and 175); and an eave coupled to the shield and configured to prevent light emitted from the light cover from being incident toward the camera cover member (see Hong Fig. 4A, item 120).
Regarding claim 10, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 9, wherein the shield comprises: a fixing portion comprising a fixing groove and a coupling groove formed on a first side, the light cover being attached to a second side of the fixing portion (see Hong Fig. 4A, items 125 and 175 combined for a fixing groove for item 110 on an inner side, and the light cover is attached on the outer side opposite item 121 from the first side); and an extension portion extending from an inner circumferential surface of the fixing portion toward an inner area of the light cover member (see Hong Fig. 4A, item 175), wherein the camera cover is attached to the fixing groove (see Hong Fig. 4A, item 110 inserted into groove formed by 125 and 175), and the coupling groove, into which the eave is inserted, is formed outside the fixing groove (see Hong Fig. 4A, item 121 which is inserted into the coupling groove).
Regarding claim 11, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 10, wherein the eave comprises: a coupling portion protruding from a lower surface of the eave and inserted into the coupling groove (see Hong Fig. 4A, item 121); a wrinkle pattern protruding from an upper surface of the eave in a set pattern along a circumferential direction (see Hong Fig. 4A, item 120); and a protruding portion protruding further outward from an outer circumferential surface of the eave than an outer circumferential surface of the fixing portion (see Hong Fig. 4A, item 120 projects further outward than the fixing portion 125/175).
Regarding claim 13, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 11, wherein the protruding portion is configured to interfere with an imaginary straight line that connects a light emission surface of the light cover to an outer surface of the camera cover member (see Hong Fig. 4B, item 123 and paragraph [0075] which discloses that “step end 123 is configured to cover at least a portion of an upper end 131 of the lighting cover 130 so that the light emitted from the lighting module 70 or the light reflected from the lighting cover 130 is not irradiated upwardly along a path C toward the light-transmitting cover 110.”).
Regarding claim 14, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 10, wherein the light cover and the camera cover are attached to both sides of the shielding member (see Hong Fig. 4A, the light cover is attached to the outer side, and the camera cover is attached to the inner side.).
Regarding claim 15, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 10, wherein the light cover is formed by double injection and attached to a tip end of the second side of the fixing portion (see Hong Fig. 4A, items 125, 175, and 130, which show the light cover attached to a tip end of the second side of the fixing portion. Since these claims are apparatus claims, the method of making the structure is only considered insofar as the structural implications imparted by the method of making, and the claimed structure does not materially distinguish over the structure of Hong).
Regarding claim 17, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 10, wherein the camera cover is attached inside the light cover to the shielding member (see Hong Fig. 4A, the camera cover is attached inside the perimeter of the light cover to the shielding member).
Regarding claim 19, Hong discloses a camera comprising: a fixed stage (see Hong Fig. 3A, item 145); at least one camera module on the fixed stage (see Hong Fig. 3A, item 50); a light module corresponding to the at least one camera module (see Hong Fig. 3A, item 70); a bracket coupled onto the fixed stage and configured to simultaneously rotate the at least one camera module and the light module about one rotation axis (see Hong Figs. 3A and 3B, item 150); and a dome cover on the fixed stage and configured to cover the at least one camera module and the light module, wherein the dome cover comprises: a light cover surrounding the outside of the light module (see Hong Fig. 1A, item 130); a camera cover surrounding the outside of the at least one camera module (see Hong Fig. 1A, item 110); a shield interposed between the light cover and the camera cover and configured to block light from the light module from being transmitted to the camera cover member (see Hong Fig. 1A, item 120); and an eave coupled to the shield and configured to prevent light emitted from the light cover from being incident toward the camera cover member (see Hong Fig. 4B, item 123).
Regarding claim 20, Hong discloses the camera of claim 19, wherein the eave comprises a protruding portion protruding further outward than an outer circumferential surface of the shielding member and configured to interfere with an imaginary straight line that connects a light emission surface of the light cover to an outer surface of the camera cover member (see Hong Fig. 4B, item 123 and paragraph [0075] which discloses that “step end 123 is configured to cover at least a portion of an upper end 131 of the lighting cover 130 so that the light emitted from the lighting module 70 or the light reflected from the lighting cover 130 is not irradiated upwardly along a path C toward the light-transmitting cover 110.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong.
Regarding claim 12, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 11, but does not specifically disclose that the eave slopes upward such that a height of the protruding portion increases from the inside toward the outside.
Mere change of shape “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration” is significant, is deemed to be well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art (see MPEP 2144.404(IV)(B)). In this case, it has not been shown how the slope of the eave portion is significant beyond the teaching of Hong that “step end 123 is configured to cover at least a portion of an upper end 131 of the lighting cover 130 so that the light emitted from the lighting module 70 or the light reflected from the lighting cover 130 is not irradiated upwardly along a path C toward the light-transmitting cover 110 ” (see Hong paragraph [0070]), and therefore the particular shape is an obvious choice within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art to effectuate.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Nakano et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0064403 A1; hereafter Nakano).
Regarding claim 16, Hong discloses the dome cover of claim 10, but does not specifically disclose that a tip end of the camera cover and the fixing groove are attached by ultrasonic welding, and the coupling portion and the coupling groove are attached by ultrasonic welding.
Hong does not disclose how the components are affixed to one another.
Nakano discloses connecting camera dome components via ultrasonic welding (see Nakano paragraph [0090] “The first way uses adhesive for bonding the cover member 2a, the flange 2b, and the fixing ring 2c together. The second way uses snap fits for firmly connecting the cover member 2a, the flange 2b, and the fixing ring 2c together. In this case, the cover member 2a, the flange 2b, and the fixing ring 2c are formed with engagement claws for implementing the snap fits. The third way uses threads of screws provided on opposing surfaces of the cover member 2a, the flange 2b, and the fixing ring 2c. In this case, the cover member 2a, the flange 2b, and the fixing ring 2c are firmly connected together by the screws. The fourth way uses ultrasonic welding for bonding the cover member 2a, the flange 2b, and the fixing ring 2c together.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to attach the dome camera components of Hong using ultrasonic welding, as suggested by Nakano, in order to utilize one of the well-known methods in the art of forming a dome camera to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 3/16/2026