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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 states: “turning-on of the plurality of LEDs and being individually controllable” this is improper English. For examining purposes, claim 5 is interpreted as stating “the turning-on of the plurality of LEDs being individually controllable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(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, 10-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 20210132231).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches:
A sensor cover (cover #24 of Fig. 2) configured to transmit detection signals of different environmental sensors ([41-42] “The millimeter wave passes through the cover 24 that is located in front of the millimeter wave radar device… The infrared ray passes through the cover 24 ”) and comprising a plurality of sensing regions provided for each of the different environmental sensors (Transmission Regions #A and #B of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensing regions comprises:
a LiDAR region configured to transmit a detection signal from a LiDAR installed in a vehicle (transmission region #A of Fig. 3, [25] "The infrared sensor 22 transmits an infrared ray to an outside of the vehicle"); and
a radar region configured to transmit a detection signal from a radar installed in the vehicle (transmission region #B of Fig. 3 [23] "The millimeter wave radar device 21 has a sensor function of transmitting a millimeter wave to an outside of the vehicle").
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 10, wherein a protective layer capable of transmitting infrared light from the LiDAR is disposed in the LiDAR region ([29] The cover 24 is made of a transparent resin material ... and is transparent to millimeter waves, infrared rays, and visible light.").
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 10, wherein the plurality of sensing regions further comprises a camera region configured to transmit a detection signal from a camera. (portion of cover #24 in front of camera #23 shown in Fig. 2, [42] "Further, the situation outside the vehicle 11 is imaged by the camera 23 through the cover 24.")
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 1, wherein the environmental sensors comprise at least some of a LiDAR (infrared sensor #22 of Fig. 2, [25] "The infrared sensor 22 is a component that constitutes a part of an infrared Lidar device"), a radar (millimeter wave radar device #21 of Fig. 2), or a camera (camera #23 of Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Pao et al. (US 20240027583).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 1, further comprising a first layer (decorative layer #26 of Fig. 2) and a second layer (cover #24 of Fig. 2), wherein the second layer is formed of a transparent material ([29] “The cover 24 is made of a transparent resin material such as polycarbonate (PC)”), and
Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the first layer is formed of a transparent material and is surface-treated on a first face of the second layer.
However, Pao teaches:
wherein the first layer is formed of a transparent material (Anti-abrasion coating layer #46, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the anti-abrasion coating is substantially transparent in the relevant LIDAR wavelengths for the device to function) and is surface-treated on a first face of the second layer (a coating is a type of surface treatment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use a transparent first layer treated onto a second layer similar to Pao with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the abrasion resistance of the cover.
It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka, as modified above, teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 2, wherein the second layer is formed of polycarbonate ([29] “ The cover 24 is made of a transparent resin material such as polycarbonate (PC)”) .
Tanaka does not teach:
Wherein the first layer is formed of polyurethane
However, Pao teaches:
Wherein the first layer is formed of polyurethane (Anti-abrasion coating layer #46, [28] "Examples of suitable materials for the anti-abrasion coating layer 46 and anti-abrasion coating layer 48 include, but are not limited to... polyurethane coatings")
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use a first layer of polyurethane similar to Pao with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the abrasion resistance and flexibility of the cover.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka, as modified above, teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 2,
Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the first layer is integrally formed with the second layer.
However, Pao teaches:
wherein the first layer is integrally formed with the second layer material (Anti-abrasion coating layer #46, the coating is integrally formed with core layer #44 as shown in Fig. 5)
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Pao as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20220221121) and Glickman et al. (US 10920950).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka, as modified above teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 2, further comprising:
Tanaka does not teach, but Hwang does teach:
a lighting film disposed on a second face of the second layer (painted portion #21 of Fig. 4) and comprising one or more pattern structures ([52] "The black-color painted portion may be formed on a rear surface of the lighting cover 20 through a masking painting method so that the design pattern portions 24 are not painted."); and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (LED #31 of Fig. 5, multiple LEDs are shown) configured to supply light through each pattern structure ([64], "but at the portions other than the design pattern portions, the light emitted from the LED 31 is blocked by the painted portion 21"),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to include a patterned lighting film and a plurality of LEDs similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
Tanaka, Pao, and Hwang do not explicitly teach, but Glickman does teach:
turning-on of the plurality of LEDs and being individually controllable ([Col. 7 Lines 19-22] "To smooth the illumination, the control module 100 can control the intensity of light emitted from the individual LEDs")
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use a individually controllable LEDs similar to Glickman with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for smooth illumination changes and more dynamic lighting patterns. Hwang opens the door for lighting animations (Hwang: [83] “ it is possible to implement various design by applying various lighting colors and animation instead of plain dummy grille design”) but does not specify how the animations are achieved. Glickman fills in the gaps.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka, as modified above teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 5, wherein each pattern structure comprises:
Tanaka does not teach:
one or more shielding regions configured to block light from the plurality of LEDs; and
one or more non-shielding regions configured to transmit the light from the plurality of LEDs.
However, Hwang teaches:
one or more shielding regions configured to block light from the plurality of LEDs (painted portion #21 of Fig. 4, [64] "the light emitted from the LED 31 is blocked by the painted portion 21"); and
one or more non-shielding regions configured to transmit the light from the plurality of LEDs (Unpainted portions shown in Fig. 4, [64] "the light emitted from the LED 31 is transmitted to the front surface of the lighting cover 20 while passing through the Al deposition surface 22,").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use shielding and non-shielding regions to block or transmit light similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka, as modified above teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 5,
Tanaka does not teach:
further comprising a diffusion layer disposed between the lighting film and the plurality of LEDs.
However, Hwang teaches:
further comprising a diffusion layer disposed between the lighting film and the plurality of LEDs (diffusion paint layer #23 of Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use a diffusion layer similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle by evenly dispersing the lighting exiting the cover.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka, as modified above teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 5,
Tanaka does not teach:
wherein an LED module comprising the plurality of LEDs configured to be individually turned on is disposed at a center portion of the lighting film.
However, Hwang teaches:
wherein an LED module comprising the plurality of LEDs configured to be individually turned on is disposed at a center portion of the lighting film. (LED Module #30 is shown in Fig. 2 to extend across most portions of the lighting film, including the center)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to include an LED module at a center of a lighting film similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Pao as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Teshima et al. (US 20240383235).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka, as modified above, teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 2,
Tanaka does not teach:
wherein a heating wire film is disposed between the first layer and the second layer, and wherein operation of the heating wire film is controllable.
However, Teshima teaches:
wherein a heating wire film (Resin Film #12F of Fig. 6, [277] “on the resin film 12F, one or more metal wires (for example, tungsten wires) are placed as one or more electric heating wires”) is disposed between the first layer and the second layer (resin film #12f is shown between glass plates #11 and #13), and wherein operation of the heating wire film is controllable (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that any heating wire is controllable as the heating can be controlled by passing or not passing current through the wire).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use a heating wire film between the first and second layer similar to Teshima with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the lidar and radar by preventing noise from condensation or ice on the cover.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Sharma et al. (US 20200292737).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 11,
Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the protective layer comprises a coating layer formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) capable of transmitting infrared light.
However, Sharma teaches:
wherein the protective layer comprises a coating layer formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) capable of transmitting infrared light (wavelength transmission selective layer #14 of Fig. 1D, [Table 1] "IR Transparent tinted PET Films").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka with an IR transparent PET film similar to Sharma with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing unwanted interference from light outside the LIDAR operating band (Sharma: [14] “Optical filters according to examples of this disclosure may be used to prevent unwanted optical interference from certain wavelengths, or to camouflage sources of electromagnetic radiation from visible perception”).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Sharma as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Pao.
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka, as modified above, teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 12,
wherein the second protective layer is formed of polycarbonate (cover #24 of Fig. 2[29] “The cover 24 is made of a transparent resin material such as polycarbonate (PC)”)
Tanaka does not explicitly teach, but Sharma teaches::
wherein the LiDAR region comprises: a first protective layer disposed on a first side of the coating layer (sealant layer #28 of Fig. 1D); and a second protective layer disposed on a second side of the coating layer (substrate layer #12 of Fig. 1D);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use a coating layer surrounded by two protective layers similar to Sharma with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing the coating layer from being easily damaged or deformed.
Tanaka and Sharma do not explicitly teach, but Pao teaches:
wherein the first protective layer is formed of polyurethane (Anti-abrasion coating layer #46, [28] "Examples of suitable materials for the anti-abrasion coating layer 46 and anti-abrasion coating layer 48 include, but are not limited to... polyurethane coatings"),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sealant layer of Sharma and Tanaka to be polyurethane similar to Pao with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the abrasion resistance and flexibility of the cover and protecting the IR selective film.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka, as modified above, teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 13, wherein the first protective layer is fixed to the second protective layer through injection molding, and the first protective layer is formed on the second protective layer and the coating layer through injection molding. (see above rejection of claim 13 for first and second protective layer and coating layer)
It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In this case, the product of this claim is an obvious variant as shown by the rejection of claim 13. Claim 14 only recites additional product-by process limitations.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Teshima.
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 10,
Tanaka does not teach
wherein a heating wire film controllable by a controller is disposed in the LiDAR region.
However, Teshima teaches:
wherein a heating wire film (heating wire #80L of Fig. 7B) controllable by a controller (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that any heating wire is controllable by a controller as the heating can be controlled by passing current, or not passing current through the wire) is disposed in the LiDAR region ([295] "The electric heating wire 80L or the electric heating layer for preventing fogging and frost is provided in the region including the light-transmitting portion TP located in front of the optical devices such as a camera and a radar included in the optical apparatus, thereby making it possible to improve the sensing accuracy of the optical apparatus").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to have a heating wire in the LIDAR region similar to Teshima with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the lidar and radar by preventing noise from condensation or ice on the cover.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Teshima as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US 20210188219).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka, as modified above teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 15,
Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the controller is configured, during driving of the vehicle, to: control an operation of the heating wire film based on ambient temperature information; control the operation of the heating wire film based on whether the LiDAR is operated; or control the operation of the heating wire film based on a heating temperature of the heating wire film.
However, Yamamoto teaches:
wherein the controller (controller #30 of Fig. 1) is configured, during driving of the vehicle ([36] “The determination process of FIG. 4 is repeatedly performed every predetermined time interval after an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned on.” a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a vehicle would be on to be driven), to: control an operation of the heating wire film ([33] “The control value determiner 34 is configured to determine a control value for the heater energizer 35 described later to control energization of the heater 20.”) based on ambient temperature information ([39] “the controller 30 determines power W[W] to be supplied to the heater 20 based on the acquired outside temperature”); control the operation of the heating wire film based on whether the LiDAR is operated; or control the operation of the heating wire film based on a heating temperature of the heating wire film.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to control the heating wire film based on an ambient temperature similar to Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing the power consumption of the heater ([55] “The controller 30 is configured to control energization of the heater 20 based on a function of the outside temperature and the vehicle speed as parameters, which enables optimization of the energization level of the heater 20 and thus enables reduction of power consumption of the heater 20.”)
Double Patenting
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-disclaimer.
Examiner notes that there are three sets of double patenting rejections based on copending applications copending applications No. 19207070 and No. 19060277, and U.S. patent No. 11667235.
First set: Provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections using copending Application No. 19207070:
Claim 1, 10, 11, and 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19207070 in view of Tanaka. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1,
Instant Application
070 Application
A sensor cover,
(claim 1) A sensor cover
The 070 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
configured to transmit detection signals of different environmental sensors ([41-42] “The millimeter wave passes through the cover 24 that is located in front of the millimeter wave radar device… The infrared ray passes through the cover 24 ”) and comprising a plurality of sensing regions provided for each of the different environmental sensors (Transmission Regions #A and #B of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor cover of the 070 application to have multiple environmental sensors similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the cover, and allowing for simpler sensor fusion for autonomous driving functions as the sensors would have overlapping fields of view.
Regarding claim 10,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 1,
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
wherein the plurality of sensing regions comprises:
a LiDAR region configured to transmit a detection signal from a LiDAR installed in a vehicle (transmission region #A of Fig. 3, [25] "The infrared sensor 22 transmits an infrared ray to an outside of the vehicle"); and
a radar region configured to transmit a detection signal from a radar installed in the vehicle (transmission region #B of Fig. 3 [23] "The millimeter wave radar device 21 has a sensor function of transmitting a millimeter wave to an outside of the vehicle").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 070 application to have a lidar and radar region similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the cover, and allowing for simpler sensor fusion for autonomous driving functions as the sensors would have overlapping fields of view.
Regarding claim 11,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 10,
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
wherein a protective layer capable of transmitting infrared light from the LiDAR is disposed in the LiDAR region ([29] The cover 24 is made of a transparent resin material ... and is transparent to millimeter waves, infrared rays, and visible light.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 070 application to have a protective layer capable of transmitting infrared light in a LiDAR region similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the cover, and allowing for simpler sensor fusion for autonomous driving functions as the sensors would have overlapping fields of view.
Regarding claim 17,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 10,
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
wherein the plurality of sensing regions further comprises a camera region configured to transmit a detection signal from a camera. (portion of cover #24 in front of camera #23 shown in Fig. 2, [42] "Further, the situation outside the vehicle 11 is imaged by the camera 23 through the cover 24.")
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 070 application to include a camera region similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the cover, and allowing for simpler sensor fusion for autonomous driving functions as the sensors would have overlapping fields of view.
Regarding claim 18,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 1,
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
wherein the environmental sensors comprise at least some of a LiDAR (infrared sensor #22 of Fig. 2, [25] "The infrared sensor 22 is a component that constitutes a part of an infrared Lidar device"), a radar (millimeter wave radar device #21 of Fig. 2), or a camera (camera #23 of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 070 application to include lidar, radar, and camera regions similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the cover, and allowing for simpler sensor fusion for autonomous driving functions as the sensors would have overlapping fields of view.
Claims 2-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19207070 in view of Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of claim 2 of copending Application No. 19207070 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 2,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 1,
(see above)
further comprising a first layer
(claim 1) a cover layer disposed on the base layer and formed of a self-healing material
and a second layer,
(claim 1) a base layer;
wherein the second layer is formed of a transparent material
(claim 3) wherein the base layer is made of polycarbonate (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the polycarbonate would be substantially transparent in the radar wavelengths, as illustrated by claim 2)
and wherein the first layer is formed of a transparent material
(claim 3) the cover layer is made of polyurethane (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the polycarbonate would be substantially transparent in the radar wavelengths, as illustrated by claim 2)
and is surface-treated on a first face of the second layer. (This is a product-by-process limitation, the scope of which is determined by the product. See 103 rejection of claim 2 above)
(claim 1) the cover layer being integrated with the base layer
Regarding claim 3,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 2
(see above)
wherein the first layer is formed of polyurethane
(claim 3) the cover layer is made of polyurethane.
and the second layer is formed of polycarbonate.
(claim 3) wherein the base layer is made of polycarbonate
Regarding claim 4,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 2,
(see above)
wherein the first layer is integrally formed with the second layer.
(claim 1) the cover layer being integrated with the base layer
Claims 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19207070 in view of Tanaka and claim 2 of copending Application No. 19207070 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hwang and Glickman. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 5,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 2,
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Hwang teaches:
a lighting film disposed on a second face of the second layer (painted portion #21 of Fig. 4) and comprising one or more pattern structures ([52] "The black-color painted portion may be formed on a rear surface of the lighting cover 20 through a masking painting method so that the design pattern portions 24 are not painted."); and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (LED #31 of Fig. 5, multiple LEDs are shown) configured to supply light through each pattern structure ([64], "but at the portions other than the design pattern portions, the light emitted from the LED 31 is blocked by the painted portion 21"),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 070 application to include a patterned lighting film and a plurality of LEDs similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
The 070 application, Tanaka, and Hwang do not explicitly teach, but Glickman does teach:
turning-on of the plurality of LEDs and being individually controllable ([Col. 7 Lines 19-22] "To smooth the illumination, the control module 100 can control the intensity of light emitted from the individual LEDs")
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of 070 application to use a individually controllable LEDs similar to Glickman with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for smooth illumination changes and more dynamic lighting patterns. Hwang opens the door for lighting animations (Hwang: [83] “ it is possible to implement various design by applying various lighting colors and animation instead of plain dummy grille design”) but does not specify how the animations are achieved. Glickman fills in the gaps.
Regarding claim 6,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 5,
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Hwang does teach:
one or more shielding regions configured to block light from the plurality of LEDs (painted portion #21 of Fig. 4, [64] "the light emitted from the LED 31 is blocked by the painted portion 21"); and
one or more non-shielding regions configured to transmit the light from the plurality of LEDs (Unpainted portions shown in Fig. 4, [64] "the light emitted from the LED 31 is transmitted to the front surface of the lighting cover 20 while passing through the Al deposition surface 22,").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 070 application to use shielding and non-shielding regions to block or transmit light similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
Regarding claim 7,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 5,
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Hwang does teach:
further comprising a diffusion layer disposed between the lighting film and the plurality of LEDs (diffusion paint layer #23 of Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 070 application to use a diffusion layer similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle by evenly dispersing the lighting exiting the cover.
Regarding claim 8,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 5,
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Hwang does teach:
wherein an LED module comprising the plurality of LEDs configured to be individually turned on is disposed at a center portion of the lighting film. (LED Module #30 is shown in Fig. 2 to extend across most portions of the lighting film, including the center)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to include an LED module at a center of a lighting film similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
Claims 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19207070 in view of Tanaka and claim 2 of copending Application No. 19207070 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of claim 8 of copending Application No. 19207070. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 9,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 2
(see above)
Claim 3 of the 070 application does not teach, but claim 8 of the 070 application teaches:
Instant Application
070 Application
wherein a heating wire film
(claim 8) wherein the heating film comprises: a film layer; and a plurality of heating wires disposed on the film layer
is disposed between the first layer and the second layer,
(claim 1) a heating film disposed between the base layer and the cover layer,
and wherein operation of the heating wire film is controllable.
(a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that any heating wire is controllable as the heating can be controlled by passing or not passing current through the wire)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of claim 2 of the 070 application to use a heating wire film similar to claim 8 of the 070 application with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for simple efficient heating of the cover to increase accuracy of a sensor by preventing interference from condensation or ice.
Claims 12-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19207070 in view of Tanaka as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sharma. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 12,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 11
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Sharma does teach:
wherein the protective layer comprises a coating layer formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) capable of transmitting infrared light (wavelength transmission selective layer #14 of Fig. 1D, [Table 1] "IR Transparent tinted PET Films").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 070 application with an IR transparent PET film similar to Sharma with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing unwanted interference from light outside the LIDAR operating band (Sharma: [14] “Optical filters according to examples of this disclosure may be used to prevent unwanted optical interference from certain wavelengths, or to camouflage sources of electromagnetic radiation from visible perception”).
Regarding claim 13,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 12
(see above)
wherein the LiDAR region comprises: a first protective layer
(claim 1) a cover layer disposed on the base layer and formed of a self-healing material
disposed on a first side of the coating layer;
(claim 1) a heating film disposed between the base layer and the cover layer,
and a second protective layer
(claim 1) a base layer;
disposed on a second side of the coating layer;
(claim 1) a heating film disposed between the base layer and the cover layer,
wherein the first protective layer is formed of polyurethane
(claim 3) the cover layer is made of polyurethane.
and the second protective layer is formed of polycarbonate.
(claim 3) the base layer is made of polycarbonate
Regarding claim 14,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 14
(see above)
wherein the first protective layer is fixed to the second protective layer through injection molding,
(claim 1) a cover layer disposed on the base layer and formed of a self-healing material
the first protective layer is formed on the second protective layer and the coating layer through injection molding.
(claim 1) a base layer;
It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In this case, the product of this claim is an obvious variant as shown by the rejection of claim 13. Claim 14 only recites additional product-by process limitations.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19207070 in view of Tanaka as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Teshima. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 15,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 10
(see above)
The 070 application does not teach, but Teshima does teach:
wherein a heating wire film (heating wire #80L of Fig. 7B) controllable by a controller (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that any heating wire is controllable by a controller as the heating can be controlled by passing current, or not passing current through the wire) is disposed in the LiDAR region ([295] "The electric heating wire 80L or the electric heating layer for preventing fogging and frost is provided in the region including the light-transmitting portion TP located in front of the optical devices such as a camera and a radar included in the optical apparatus, thereby making it possible to improve the sensing accuracy of the optical apparatus").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 070 application to have a heating wire in the LIDAR region similar to Teshima with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the lidar and radar by preventing noise from condensation or ice on the cover.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19207070 in view of Tanaka and Teshima as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of claim 15 of copending Application No. 19207070. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16,
Instant Application
070 Application
The sensor cover of claim 15
(see above)
Claim 3 of the 070 application does not teach, but claim 15 of the 070 application does teach:
Instant Application
070 Application
wherein the controller
(claim 14) a controller
is configured, during driving of the vehicle,
(claim 15) while the vehicle is in operation,
to: control an operation of the heating wire film based on ambient temperature information;
(claim 15) receive the outside temperature from the outside temperature sensor while the vehicle is in operation, and operate the heating film in response to the outside temperature being below 0 degrees Celsius
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of claim 3 of the 070 application to control a heater based on ambient temperature information during the driving of a vehicle similar to claim 15 of the 070 application with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing the power consumption of the heating film by only activating it when necessary.
Second set: Provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections using copending Application No. 19060277:
Claims 1-4, 10-14, and 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 19060277 in view of Tanaka. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1,
Instant Application
277 Application
A sensor cover
(claim 13) A transmission cover
The 277 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
configured to transmit detection signals of different environmental sensors ([41-42] “The millimeter wave passes through the cover 24 that is located in front of the millimeter wave radar device… The infrared ray passes through the cover 24 ”) and comprising a plurality of sensing regions provided for each of the different environmental sensors (Transmission Regions #A and #B of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor cover of the 277 application to have multiple environmental sensors similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the cover, and allowing for simpler sensor fusion for autonomous driving functions as the sensors would have overlapping fields of view.
Regarding claim 2,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 1,
(see above)
further comprising a first layer
(claim 13) a protective layer made of polyurethane
and a second layer
(claim 13) a base layer made of a thermoplastic material
wherein the second layer is formed of a transparent material
(a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the transmission cover would be substantially transparent in the relevant LIDAR wavelengths)
and wherein the first layer is formed of a transparent material
(a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the transmission cover would be substantially transparent in the relevant LIDAR wavelengths)
and is surface-treated on a first face of the second layer. (This is a product-by-process limitation, the scope of which is determined by the product. See 103 rejection of claim 2 above)
(claim 13) a base layer made of a thermoplastic material and attached to a first side of the film layer; a protective layer made of polyurethane and attached to a second side of the film layer opposite to the first side, (the base layer and protective layer are connected through film layer, thus teaching the required structure)
Regarding claim 3,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 2,
(see above)
wherein the first layer is formed of polyurethane
(claim 13) a protective layer made of polyurethane
The 277 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
and the second layer is formed of polycarbonate. ([29] “The cover 24 is made of a transparent resin material such as polycarbonate (PC)”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to be polycarbonate similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of giving the cover high durability and impact resistance.
Regarding claim 4,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 2,
(see above)
wherein the first layer is integrally formed with the second layer.
(claim 13) base layer made of a thermoplastic material and attached to a first side of the film layer; a protective layer made of polyurethane and attached to a second side of the film layer opposite to the first side (the base layer and protective layer are integrally connected by the film layer
Regarding claim 10,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 1,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
wherein the plurality of sensing regions comprises:
a LiDAR region configured to transmit a detection signal from a LiDAR installed in a vehicle (transmission region #A of Fig. 3, [25] "The infrared sensor 22 transmits an infrared ray to an outside of the vehicle"); and
a radar region configured to transmit a detection signal from a radar installed in the vehicle (transmission region #B of Fig. 3 [23] "The millimeter wave radar device 21 has a sensor function of transmitting a millimeter wave to an outside of the vehicle").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to have a lidar and radar region similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the cover, and allowing for simpler sensor fusion for autonomous driving functions as the sensors would have overlapping fields of view.
Regarding claim 11,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 10,
(see above)
wherein a protective layer capable of transmitting infrared light from the LiDAR is disposed in the LiDAR region.
(claim 13) a protective layer made of polyurethane (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the protective layer would be substantially transparent in the relevant lidar wavelengths
Regarding claim 12,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 11,
(see above)
wherein the protective layer comprises a coating layer formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
(claim 15) wherein the LiDAR-transmitting film is a multi-layered film comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET) films
The 277 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
LIDAR capable of transmitting infrared light. ([25] “the infrared sensor 22 transmits an infrared ray “ and [29] The cover 24 is made of a transparent resin … and is transparent to millimeter waves, infrared rays, and visible light)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the film of claim 15 of the 277 application to be capable of transmitting infrared light similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the power limit for the lidar. Claim 15 of the 277 application teaches a LiDAR transmitting film, but does not specify the band in which it transmits. Tanaka teaches an infrared lidar, thus it would be obvious to use a lidar transmitting film that transmits in the infrared band.
Regarding claim 13,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 12,
(see above)
wherein the LiDAR region comprises: a first protective layer disposed on a first side of the coating layer
(claim 13) a protective layer made of polyurethane and attached to a second side of the film layer opposite to the first side
and a second protective layer disposed on a second side of the coating layer; wherein the first protective layer is formed of polyurethane,
(claim 13) a base layer made of a thermoplastic material and attached to a first side of the film layer;
The 277 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
and the second layer is formed of polycarbonate. ([29] “The cover 24 is made of a transparent resin material such as polycarbonate (PC)”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to be polycarbonate similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of giving the cover high durability and impact resistance.
Regarding claim 14,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 14
(see above)
wherein the first protective layer is fixed to the second protective layer through injection molding,
(claim 13) a protective layer made of polyurethane and attached to a second side of the film layer opposite to the first side
the first protective layer is formed on the second protective layer and the coating layer through injection molding.
(claim 13) a base layer made of a thermoplastic material
It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In this case, the product of this claim is an obvious variant as shown by the rejection of claim 13. Claim 14 only recites additional product-by process limitations.
Regarding claim 17,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 10,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
wherein the plurality of sensing regions further comprises a camera region configured to transmit a detection signal from a camera. (portion of cover #24 in front of camera #23 shown in Fig. 2, [42] "Further, the situation outside the vehicle 11 is imaged by the camera 23 through the cover 24.")
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to include a camera region similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the cover, and allowing for simpler sensor fusion for autonomous driving functions as the sensors would have overlapping fields of view.
Regarding claim 18,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 1,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Tanaka does teach:
wherein the environmental sensors comprise at least some of a LiDAR (infrared sensor #22 of Fig. 2, [25] "The infrared sensor 22 is a component that constitutes a part of an infrared Lidar device"), a radar (millimeter wave radar device #21 of Fig. 2), or a camera (camera #23 of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to include a camera region similar to Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility of the cover, and allowing for simpler sensor fusion for autonomous driving functions as the sensors would have overlapping fields of view.
Claims 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19060277 in view of Tanaka as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hwang and Glickman. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 5,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 2,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Hwang teaches:
a lighting film disposed on a second face of the second layer (painted portion #21 of Fig. 4) and comprising one or more pattern structures ([52] "The black-color painted portion may be formed on a rear surface of the lighting cover 20 through a masking painting method so that the design pattern portions 24 are not painted."); and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (LED #31 of Fig. 5, multiple LEDs are shown) configured to supply light through each pattern structure ([64], "but at the portions other than the design pattern portions, the light emitted from the LED 31 is blocked by the painted portion 21"),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to include a patterned lighting film and a plurality of LEDs similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
The 277 application, Tanaka, and Hwang do not explicitly teach, but Glickman does teach:
turning-on of the plurality of LEDs and being individually controllable ([Col. 7 Lines 19-22] "To smooth the illumination, the control module 100 can control the intensity of light emitted from the individual LEDs")
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of 277 application to use a individually controllable LEDs similar to Glickman with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for smooth illumination changes and more dynamic lighting patterns. Hwang opens the door for lighting animations (Hwang: [83] “ it is possible to implement various design by applying various lighting colors and animation instead of plain dummy grille design”) but does not specify how the animations are achieved. Glickman fills in the gaps.
Regarding claim 6,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 5,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Hwang does teach:
one or more shielding regions configured to block light from the plurality of LEDs (painted portion #21 of Fig. 4, [64] "the light emitted from the LED 31 is blocked by the painted portion 21"); and
one or more non-shielding regions configured to transmit the light from the plurality of LEDs (Unpainted portions shown in Fig. 4, [64] "the light emitted from the LED 31 is transmitted to the front surface of the lighting cover 20 while passing through the Al deposition surface 22,").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to use shielding and non-shielding regions to block or transmit light similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
Regarding claim 7,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 5,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Hwang does teach:
further comprising a diffusion layer disposed between the lighting film and the plurality of LEDs (diffusion paint layer #23 of Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to use a diffusion layer similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle by evenly dispersing the lighting exiting the cover.
Regarding claim 8,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 5,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Hwang does teach:
wherein an LED module comprising the plurality of LEDs configured to be individually turned on is disposed at a center portion of the lighting film. (LED Module #30 is shown in Fig. 2 to extend across most portions of the lighting film, including the center)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to include an LED module at a center of a lighting film similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
Claims 9 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 19060277 in view of Tanaka as applied to claim 2 and claim 10 respectively, and further in view of Teshima. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 9,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 2,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Teshima does teach:
wherein a heating wire film (Resin Film #12F of Fig. 6, [277] “on the resin film 12F, one or more metal wires (for example, tungsten wires) are placed as one or more electric heating wires”) is disposed between the first layer and the second layer (resin film #12f is shown between glass plates #11 and #13), and wherein operation of the heating wire film is controllable (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that any heating wire is controllable as the heating can be controlled by passing or not passing current through the wire).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to use a heating wire film between the first and second layer similar to Teshima with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the lidar and radar by preventing noise from condensation or ice on the cover.
Regarding claim 15,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 10,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Teshima does teach:
wherein a heating wire film (heating wire #80L of Fig. 7B) controllable by a controller (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that any heating wire is controllable by a controller as the heating can be controlled by passing current, or not passing current through the wire) is disposed in the LiDAR region ([295] "The electric heating wire 80L or the electric heating layer for preventing fogging and frost is provided in the region including the light-transmitting portion TP located in front of the optical devices such as a camera and a radar included in the optical apparatus, thereby making it possible to improve the sensing accuracy of the optical apparatus").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to have a heating wire in the LIDAR region similar to Teshima with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the lidar and radar by preventing noise from condensation or ice on the cover.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 19060277 in view of Tanaka and Teshima as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yamamoto. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16,
Instant Application
277 Application
The sensor cover of claim 15,
(see above)
The 277 application does not teach, but Yamamoto teaches:
wherein the controller (controller #30 of Fig. 1) is configured, during driving of the vehicle ([36] “The determination process of FIG. 4 is repeatedly performed every predetermined time interval after an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned on.” a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a vehicle would be on to be driven), to: control an operation of the heating wire film ([33] “The control value determiner 34 is configured to determine a control value for the heater energizer 35 described later to control energization of the heater 20.”) based on ambient temperature information ([39] “the controller 30 determines power W[W] to be supplied to the heater 20 based on the acquired outside temperature”); control the operation of the heating wire film based on whether the LiDAR is operated; or control the operation of the heating wire film based on a heating temperature of the heating wire film.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of the 277 application to control the heating wire film based on an ambient temperature similar to Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing the power consumption of the heater ([55] “The controller 30 is configured to control energization of the heater 20 based on a function of the outside temperature and the vehicle speed as parameters, which enables optimization of the energization level of the heater 20 and thus enables reduction of power consumption of the heater 20.”)
Third set: Non-statutory double patenting rejections using U.S. Patent No. 11667235
Claims 5-6 and 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 4 claim of U.S. Patent No. 11667235 in view of Tanaka, Pao, Hwang, and Glickman.
Regarding claim 5,
Tanaka, as modified in the 103 rejection of Tanaka in view of Pao above, teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 2,
Tanaka and Pao do not teach, but the 235 patent does teach:
Instant Application
235 patent
further comprising: a lighting film disposed on a second face of the second layer
(claim 1) a black paint portion painted using a black paint on a rear surface of the grill cover, and the black paint portion forming a light transmitting portion through which light passes by removing a part of the painted black paint
and comprising one or more pattern structures
(claim 4) wherein a fine pattern portion is formed on the metal layer, the fine pattern portion corresponding to a rear of the light transmitting portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use a lighting film with pattern structures similar to the 235 patent with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the appearance of the sensor cover.
Tanaka, Pao, and the 235 patent do not explicitly teach, but Hwang teaches:
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (LED #31 of Fig. 5, multiple LEDs are shown) configured to supply light through each pattern structure ([64], "but at the portions other than the design pattern portions, the light emitted from the LED 31 is blocked by the painted portion 21"),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to include a patterned lighting film and a plurality of LEDs similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
Tanaka, Pao, the 235 patent, and Hwang do not explicitly teach, but Glickman teaches:
turning-on of the plurality of LEDs and being individually controllable ([Col. 7 Lines 19-22] "To smooth the illumination, the control module 100 can control the intensity of light emitted from the individual LEDs")
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use a individually controllable LEDs similar to Glickman with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for smooth illumination changes and more dynamic lighting patterns. Hwang opens the door for lighting animations (Hwang: [83] “ it is possible to implement various design by applying various lighting colors and animation instead of plain dummy grille design”) but does not specify how the animations are achieved. Glickman fills in the gaps.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka, as modified above, teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 5,
Tanaka does not teach, but the 235 patent does teach:
Instant Application
235 patent
wherein each pattern structure comprises: one or more shielding regions configured to block light from the plurality of LED
(claim 1) a black paint portion painted using a black paint
and one or more non-shielding regions configured to transmit the light from the plurality of LEDs.
(claim 1) , and the black paint portion forming a light transmitting portion through which light passes by removing a part of the painted black paint
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use shielding and non-shielding regions to block or transmit light similar to the 235 patent with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka, as modified above, teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 5,
Tanaka does not teach:
wherein an LED module comprising the plurality of LEDs configured to be individually turned on is disposed at a center portion of the lighting film.
However, Hwang teaches:
wherein an LED module comprising the plurality of LEDs configured to be individually turned on is disposed at a center portion of the lighting film. (LED Module #30 is shown in Fig. 2 to extend across most portions of the lighting film, including the center)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to include an LED module at a center of a lighting film similar to Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle (Hwang: [89] “The lighting apparatus disclosed herein may improve an external appearance and marketability”)
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 4 claim of U.S. Patent No. 11667235 in view of Tanaka, Pao, Hwang, and Glickman, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11667235.
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka, as modified above, teaches:
The sensor cover of claim 5,
Tanaka does not teach, but claim 3 of the 235 patent does teach:
Instant Application
235 patent
further comprising a diffusion layer disposed between the lighting film and the plurality of LEDs.
(claim 3) further comprising: a diffusion paint portion is painted, using a diffusion paint, on a rear surface of the inner lens.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Tanaka to use a diffusion layer similar to the 235 patent with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the external appearance of the vehicle by evenly dispersing the lighting exiting the cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
