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 § 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) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirabella et al. (U.S. Patent 11,119,312), in view of Berghoff (U.S. Patent 6,461,558). Regarding Claim 1, Mirabella et al., hereafter “Mirabella,” show that it is known to carry out a method of manufacturing a transmission cover for a light detection and ranging sensor (Abstract), the method comprising forming a film layer configured to transmit infrared rays in a specific wavelength range (element 30; Column 5, lines 1-21; Column 9, lines 52-65), and molding a first injection molded product in which the film layer is bonded to a base layer by injecting a base layer material into the mold structure (element 54; Column 9, lines 52-65). Mirabella does not specifically describe inserting the film layer into a mold structure. Berghoff shows that it is known to carry out a method of forming a product with an integrated transmitting element which includes preforming an element, inserting the element into a mold structure, and molding a first injection molded product in which the element is bonded to a base layer by injecting a base layer material into the mold structure (Column 4, lines 14-32). It would have been obvious to use Berghoff’s preform inserting step in Mirabella’s process in order to be able to easily change the specific element which is being attached to the base member, i.e. having a ready-made supply instead of requiring a two-shot molding process.
Regarding Claims 2-3, Mirabella shows the process of claim 1 above, including one wherein the preforming comprises molding the film layer into a three-dimensional shape with a specific pattern by press molding (Column 5, lines 1-21; Column 9, lines 52-65), meeting applicant’s claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Mirabella shows the process of claim 1 above, including one further comprising forming a protective layer on the film layer of the first injection molded product (Column 9, lines 5-13).
Regarding Claim 6, Mirabella shows the process of claim 1 above, including one wherein the base layer is made of polycarbonate (element 54; Column 9, lines 54-55).
Regarding Claims 7, 9, 12, Mirabella shows the process of claim 4 above, but he does not show using a rotary mold. Berghoff shows that it is known to carry out a method wherein inserting the film layer into the mold structure comprises inserting the film layer into a first cavity between a first mold and a rotary mold of the mold structure; and wherein the molding of the first injection molded product comprises injecting the base layer material into the first cavity between the first mold and the rotary mold (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Berghoff’s rotary mold arrangement for Mirabella’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using rotary mold arrangements to make multicomponent articles (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 10, Mirabella shows the process of claim 9 above, but he does not show the order of steps of closing a mold and injecting a material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any order of process steps because selection of order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C)).
Regarding Claim 11, Mirabella shows the process of claim 9 above, including one further comprising forming a protective layer on the film layer of the finished/ejected first injection molded product (Column 9, lines 5-13).
Regarding Claim 13, Mirabella shows the process of claim 12 above, including one further comprising forming a protective layer on the film layer of the finished/ejected first injection molded product (Column 9, lines 5-13).
Regarding Claim 15, Mirabella shows the process of claim 4 above, including application of a coating layer (Column 9, lines 4-31). Mirabella does not specifically describe spraying the coating, however spraying is a known method of application of a layer to another article, and it would have been obvious to use spraying as a method of forming Mirabella’s coating because there is art recognized suitability for spraying as a method for application of a coating (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 5, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirabella and Berghoff, in view of Moore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0291261).
Regarding Claim 5, Mirabella shows the process of claim 4 above, but he does not show a polyurethane protective coating. Moore et al., hereafter “Moore,” show that it is known to carry out a method of making a LiDAR substrate which includes a polyurethane protective coating (0135, 0141, 0161). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Moore’s polyurethane coating as that in Mirabella’s process in order to increase protecting and chip resistance (Moore, 0140-0141).
Regarding Claim 15, Mirabella shows the process of claim 4 above, but he does not show spraying his coating. Moore shows that it is known to carry out a method of making a LiDAR substrate which includes spraying a protective coating (0135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Moore’s spray coating as the application method in Mirabella’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using spraying as a way of applying a coating (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 16, Mirabella shows that it is known to carry out a method of manufacturing a transmission cover for a light detection and ranging sensor (Abstract), the method comprising forming a film layer configured to transmit infrared rays in a specific wavelength range (element 30; Column 5, lines 1-21; Column 9, lines 52-65), molding a first injection molded product in which the film layer is bonded to a base layer by injecting a base layer material into the mold structure (element 54; Column 9, lines 52-65), and forming a protective layer on the film layer of the first injection molded product (Column 9, lines 5-13). Mirabella does not specifically describe inserting the film layer into a mold structure. Berghoff shows that it is known to carry out a method of forming a product with an integrated transmitting element which includes preforming an element, inserting the element into a mold structure, and molding a first injection molded product in which the element is bonded to a base layer by injecting a base layer material into the mold structure (Column 4, lines 14-32). It would have been obvious to use Berghoff’s preform inserting step in Mirabella’s process in order to be able to easily change the specific element which is being attached to the base member, i.e. having a ready-made supply instead of requiring a two-shot molding process. Mirabella does not show a polyurethane protective coating. Moore show that it is known to carry out a method of making a LiDAR substrate which includes a polyurethane protective coating (0135, 0141, 0161). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Moore’s polyurethane coating as that in Mirabella’s process in order to increase protecting and chip resistance (Moore, 0140-0141).
Regarding Claims 17-18, Mirabella shows the process of claim 16 above, including one wherein the preforming comprises molding the film layer into a three-dimensional shape with a specific pattern by press molding (Column 5, lines 1-21; Column 9, lines 52-65), meeting applicant’s claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Mirabella shows that it is known to carry out a method of manufacturing a transmission cover for a light detection and ranging sensor (Abstract), the method comprising molding a film layer into a three-dimensional shape by press molding configured to transmit infrared rays in a specific wavelength range (element 30; Column 5, lines 1-21; Column 9, lines 52-65), molding a first injection molded product in which the film layer is bonded to a base layer by injecting a base layer material into the mold structure (element 54; Column 9, lines 52-65), and forming a protective layer on the film layer of the first injection molded product (Column 9, lines 5-13). Mirabella does not specifically describe inserting the film layer into a mold structure. Berghoff shows that it is known to carry out a method of forming a product with an integrated transmitting element which includes preforming an element, inserting the element into a mold structure, and molding a first injection molded product in which the element is bonded to a base layer by injecting a base layer material into the mold structure (Column 4, lines 14-32). It would have been obvious to use Berghoff’s preform inserting step in Mirabella’s process in order to be able to easily change the specific element which is being attached to the base member, i.e. having a ready-made supply instead of requiring a two-shot molding process. Mirabella does not show a polyurethane protective coating. Moore show that it is known to carry out a method of making a LiDAR substrate which includes a polyurethane protective coating (0135, 0141, 0161). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Moore’s polyurethane coating as that in Mirabella’s process in order to increase protecting and chip resistance (Moore, 0140-0141).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 14, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not clearly show or suggest the claimed method of manufacturing a transmission cover for a light detection and ranging sensor, especially including the step forming a protective layer by inserting a protective layer into a cavity of the mold.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights