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 .
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.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation(s) "the sidewall,” which is/are not pre-established in this claim or any preceding claims on which this claim is dependent. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 17 and 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation(s) "the forward mounting elements,” which is/are not pre-established in this claim or any preceding claims on which this claim is dependent. The claims appear to be intended to be dependent on 16 but are instead depending on 15. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For examining purposes, claims 17-18 will be treated as if they are dependent on 16.
Claim(s) 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 14 and 17-18, because they do not contain additional language that would overcome the indefiniteness issue recited with regard to those claims.
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 taught 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasarla et al. (US 20190351840) (hereinafter Kasarla) in view of Okuda (US 20190315289) (hereinafter Okuda).
Regarding claim 1, Kasarla teaches A mounting arrangement for a vehicle sensor, comprising:
a mounting bracket including at least one locking arm that includes a slot for receiving the at least one mounting element, wherein the slot includes a V-shaped notch therein to retain the at least one mounting element within the slot (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot).
However, Kasarla does not explicitly teach housing considerations as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Okuda, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a housing having a vehicle sensor mounted therein, the housing having at least one mounting element (see Okuda figures 2 and 3 and paragraphs 29-31 regarding housing with vehicle sensor and mounting element- in combination with Kasarla, the camera mounting bracket may be combined with the housing having a vehicle sensor mounted therein in order to enhance the structural integrity of the housing of a vehicle camera); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Kasarla to include the teaching of Okuda so that in combination with Kasarla, the camera mounting bracket may be combined with the housing having a vehicle sensor mounted therein in order to enhance the structural integrity of the housing of a vehicle camera.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the structural integrity of the housing of a vehicle camera (see Okuda figures 2 and 3 and paragraphs 29-31).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the at least one mounting element includes a leg portion connected to a curved portion, wherein the curved portion is receivable within the V-shaped notch when the at least one mounting element is in an engaged position (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot including a leg portion connected to a curved portion receivable in a v shaped notch).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the curved portion extends below a bottom surface of the leg portion (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot including a leg portion connected to a curved portion receivable in a v shaped notch, where, because of the flat bottom facing surfaces of portions of the leg that are above the bottom of the bottom facing curved portion, it may be interpreted that the curved portion extends below "a," or one of, the bottom surfaces of the leg portion, in this case a bottom surface of the leg portion that is perpendicular to the wall of the camera housing).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the at least one mounting element is fixedly secured to a sidewall of the housing so as to extend outwardly from a surface of the sidewall (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot where the mounting element is fixed to and extends outwardly from a sidewall).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the at least one mounting element includes a forward mounting element and a rear mounting element (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot, where there is at least a forward and rear mounting element in the imaging direction).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the slot is partially defined by a forward arm extending from a sidewall of the bracket and wherein the arm has an end portion that partially defines an insertion opening that faces downwardly (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot, with an arm that extends from the sidewall of the bracket and as illustrated in figure 9, has an opening that contains a negative angle trajectory, however slight, therefore facing downwardly. The arm is considered a forward arm because it comes from the forward direction).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the end portion includes a first direction surface and a second direction surface, wherein the second direction surfaces extends generally parallel to a guide surface on the sidewall of the bracket to define the insertion opening (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot, with an arm that extends from the sidewall of the bracket and as illustrated in figure 9, has an opening that contains a negative angle trajectory, however slight, therefore facing downwardly. The arm is considered a forward arm because it comes from the forward direction. The end portion of the arm has a number of surfaces in different directions that may be arbitrarily numbered first or second, and the side surfaces of the arm are parallel to the inner guide surfaces of the overall sidewall piece 222).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the V-shaped notch is defined by first and second side surfaces that extends at an angle to one another (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch with angle extending sides to retain a mounting element within the slot).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the first and second side surfaces are arranged at a 90° to one another (see Okuda figures 2 and 3 and paragraphs 29-31 regarding housing with vehicle sensor and mounting element that attaches to v shaped notches that, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would appear, or at least render obvious, to be 90 degrees).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the structural integrity of the housing of a vehicle camera (see Okuda figures 2 and 3 and paragraphs 29-31).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the vehicle sensor is a camera (see Kasarla paragraph 1 regarding vehicle camera).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein in a rearward end of the sidewall, an engagement groove is formed, wherein a rearward end of the at least one mounting element engages with the engagement groove when the at least one mounting element is in an engagement position (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot, where a rearward end face of the v shaped groove is an engagement groove that engages with the mounting element).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 14, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein a stop is formed above the engagement groove (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot, where a rearward end face of the v shaped groove is an engagement groove that engages with the mounting element and above the engagement groove, a stop is formed of the shape of the general opening).
Regarding claim 16, Kasarla teaches A mounting arrangement for a vehicle sensor, comprising:
a mounting bracket including at least one locking arm disposed on each side of the mounting bracket, each locking arm including a slot for receiving one of the forward mounting elements, wherein the slots each include a V-shaped notch therein to retain the forward mounting element within the slot (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot- in combination with Okuda below, there may be four similar mounting elements and slots and each may be the v-shaped notches and mounting elements of Kasarla in order to enhance the security of the locking mount).
However, Kasarla does not explicitly teach the number of mounting elements as needed for the limitations of claim 16.
Okuda, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a housing having a camera mounted therein, the housing having a pair of forward mounting elements, one disposed on each side of the housing, and having a pair of rear mounting elements, one disposed on each side of the housing (see Okuda figures 2 and 3 and paragraphs 29-31 regarding housing with vehicle sensor and 4 mounting elements and slots where each of the mounting elements and slots attach to each other with the same mechanism- in combination with Kasarla, the four mounting elements and slots may each be the v-shaped notches and mounting elements of Kasarla in order to enhance the security of the locking mount); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Kasarla to include the teaching of Okuda so that in combination with Kasarla, the four mounting elements and slots may each be the v-shaped notches and mounting elements of Kasarla in order to enhance the security of the locking mount.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 15 [examined as if dependent on 16], and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the forward mounting elements each include a leg portion connected to a curved portion, wherein the curved portion is receivable within the V-shaped notch when the forward mounting element is in an engaged position (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot including a leg portion connected to a curved portion receivable in a v shaped notch- in combination with Okuda, there may be four similar mounting elements and slots and each may be the v-shaped notches and mounting elements of Kasarla in order to enhance the security of the locking mount).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 15 [examined as if dependent on 16], and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the forward mounting elements are fixedly secured to a sidewall of the housing so as to extend outwardly from a surface of the sidewall (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot where the mounting element is fixed to and extends outwardly from a sidewall- in combination with Okuda, there may be four similar mounting elements and slots and each may be the v-shaped notches and mounting elements of Kasarla in order to enhance the security of the locking mount).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches wherein the slot is partially defined by an arm extending from the sidewall of the bracket and wherein the arm has an end portion that partially defines an insertion opening that faces downwardly (see Kasarla figures 2 and 6-9, and paragraphs 35-39 and 45-50 regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor where the bracket includes a locking arm with a v-shaped notch to retain a mounting element within the slot, with an arm that extends from the sidewall of the bracket and as illustrated in figure 9, has an opening that contains a negative angle trajectory, however slight, therefore facing downwardly. The arm is considered a forward arm because it comes from the forward direction- in combination with Okuda, there may be four similar mounting elements and slots and each may be the v-shaped notches and mounting elements of Kasarla in order to enhance the security of the locking mount).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasarla et al. (US 20190351840) (hereinafter Kasarla) in view of Okuda (US 20190315289) (hereinafter Okuda), further in view of Nakamura (US 20190225168) (hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda does not explicitly teach a planar surface as needed for the limitations of claim 4.
Nakamura, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a top surface of the at least one mounting element is generally planar across both the curved portion and the leg portion (see Nakamura figure 10 and paragraph 64 regarding a planar top surface of a mounting element of a camera- in combination with Kasarla, the top surface of the mounting element may be planar across the curved portion and leg portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kasarla and Okuda to include the teaching of Nakamura so that in combination with Kasarla, the top surface of the mounting element may be planar across the curved portion and leg portion.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the structural integrity of a mounting part of a camera (see Nakamura figure 10 and paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Kasarla and Okuda does not explicitly teach parallel surfaces as needed for the limitations of claim 7.
Nakamura, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the rear mounting element is defined by upper surface and lower surfaces that extend generally parallel to each other (see Nakamura figure 10 and paragraph 64 regarding upper and lower surfaces of a rear mounting element of a camera being generally parallel to each other- in combination with Kasarla, upper and lower surfaces of a rear mounting element of a camera may be generally parallel to each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Kasarla and Okuda to include the teaching of Nakamura so that in combination with Kasarla, upper and lower surfaces of a rear mounting element of a camera may be generally parallel to each other.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the structural integrity of a mounting part of a camera (see Nakamura figure 10 and paragraph 64).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12 is/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. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 12 contains the limitations regarding a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor housing with at least one locking arm with a slot for receiving a mounting element of the vehicle sensor housing where the slot includes a v-shaped notch to retain the at least one mounting element within the slot, where a finger element different than the locking arm extends into a slot of the locking arm from a rearward end of a sidewall of the bracket, where the finger element exerts a biasing force in a downward direction toward the V-shaped notch. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. Claim(s) 20 contain(s) allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 12. The claim(s) depending on these claim(s) contain allowable subject matter for the reasons concerning these claim(s).
The closest prior art, Kasarla et al. (US 20190351840), Okuda (US 20190315289), Nakamura (US 20190225168), McManus et al. (US 20040256894), Ueta et al. (US 20200262361), Furutake (US 20200096723), Sato (US 20240280753), Tai et al. (US 20230324136), Nakamura et al. (US 20180148000), Tokito (US 20210284082), Wilson (US 20250019220), Tokito (US 20210297564), Harris (US 10673179) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. While the prior art concerning vehicle cameras teaches mounting parts in v shaped slots, and in more general fields, teaches arms or finger arrangements designed to keep an end of another object secured in a v shaped slot, the prior art is silent with regard to a mounting bracket for a vehicle sensor housing with at least one locking arm with a slot for receiving a mounting element of the vehicle sensor housing where the slot includes a v-shaped notch to retain the at least one mounting element within the slot, where a finger element different than the locking arm extends into a slot of the locking arm from a rearward end of a sidewall of the bracket, where the finger element exerts a biasing force in a downward direction toward the V-shaped notch. Examiner notes that the finger element is different than the arm that locks the object in the slot, and that the finger element has to all of extend into a slot from a rearward end of a sidewall of the bracket, where one of ordinary skill would recognize that rearward is defined by the camera imaging direction, and exert a biasing force in a downward, gravity facing direction. Kasarla teaches a biasing member, but notably, Kasarla’s member doesn’t extend into a slot, extends from a frontward direction, and biases in an upward direction. In the field of vehicle cameras, no other art was found to meet the limitations of applicant’s invention. Examiner notes however, that a generalized mechanism with a finger in a slot exerting downward force would not be combinable with Kasarla, or other vehicle cameras with mounting parts, as one of ordinary skill in the art would not find obvious what exactly constitutes an analogous definition of “extending from a rearward end” of a structure that is not a camera. In the field of cameras, and in Kasarla’s case, a windshield camera, it matters from which end an arm extends, as this affects a user’s ability to mount a camera to a bracket from a driver’s seat position. Further, Kasarla teaches away from a separate finger from an arm exerting biasing force, as Kasarla is able to achieve a biasing locking force without the use of additional parts. In the field of vehicle cameras, durability is desirable, and modifying Kasarla or other vehicle cameras to introduce additional parts would reduce durability, leaving one of ordinary skill in the art without motivation to combine references in the prior art to arrive at applicant’s invention. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483