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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Re: claim 18, “below the grille. wherein” should read “below the grille; wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinman et al. (US 2024/0359636 A1) in view of Weimer et al. (EP 2426277 A1).
Re: claim 1, Weinman discloses a system for supporting one or more sensors on a vehicle (Fig. 1 & 5) comprising: an internal frame structure (Fig. 4 – 170) secured behind a grille (116) of the vehicle (Paragraph [0015] – “As depicted, the exemplary mounting structure 170 can be constructed similar to the known mounting structure 140, and includes a housing 172 and a connection feature 174 which secures the mounting structure 170 to at least the interior side of the front grille 116 and/or surrounding vehicle body structures in a conventional manner.”); and an external frame structure (172) positioned in front of the grille (116) outside of the hood and secured to the internal frame structure (170) through the grille (116), wherein the external frame structure (172) supports the one or more sensors (126) at a position providing a line-of-sight not visible from inside a passenger compartment of the vehicle (See Fig. 1). Weinman is silent on an internal frame structure secured behind a grille of the vehicle to an inside of a hood supporting the grille.
However, Weimer teaches an internal frame structure (Figs. 2-4 - 33, 36, 37, 39) secured behind a grille (23) of the vehicle to an inside of a hood (13, 27) supporting the grille (23).
Weinman and Weimer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle attachment structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Weinman’s mounting structure with those of Weimer’s apparatus in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more positively secured to the vehicle. Additional support for this combination can be found in Weinman at Paragraph [0015] – “a connection feature 174 which secures the mounting structure 170 to at least the interior side of the front grille 116 and/or surrounding vehicle body structures in a conventional manner”.
Re: claim 2, Weinman is silent on wherein the internal frame structure is secured to the inside of the hood by at least one anchor point positioned above the grille and at least one anchor point positioned below the grille.
However, Weimer teaches wherein the internal frame structure (Figs. 2-4 - 33, 36, 37, 39) is secured to the inside of the hood (13, 27) (See Fig. 3 and 4) by at least one anchor point positioned above the grille (39) and at least one anchor point positioned below the grille (36, 37).
Re: claim 17, Weinman teaches a method for supporting one or more sensors on a vehicle comprising: attaching an internal frame structure (Fig. 4 - 170) behind a grille (116); and attaching an external frame structure (172) to the internal frame structure (170), where the external frame structure (172) is positioned outside of the hood in front of the grille (116) (See Fig. 1 & 5), wherein supports (Annotated Fig. 4 - support) for the external frame structure (172) extend through the grille (116) and attach to the internal frame structure (170), wherein the external frame structure (172) supports the one or more sensors (126) at a position providing a line-of-sight not visible from inside a passenger compartment of the vehicle (See Fig. 1). Weinman fails to teach attaching an internal frame structure to an inside of a hood behind a grille supported by the hood.
However, Weimer teaches attaching an internal frame structure (Fig. 2-4 - 33, 36, 37, 39) to an inside of a hood (13, 27) behind a grille (23) supported by the hood (13, 27).
Weinman and Weimer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle attachment structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Weinman’s mounting structure with those of Weimer’s apparatus in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more positively secured to the vehicle. Additional support for this combination can be found in Weinman at Paragraph [0015] – “a connection feature 174 which secures the mounting structure 170 to at least the interior side of the front grille 116 and/or surrounding vehicle body structures in a conventional manner”.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinman et al. (US 2024/0359636 A1) in view of Weimer et al. (EP 2426277 A1) in further view of Mallicote (US 20210129782 A1).
Re: claim 3, Weinman is silent on wherein the at least one anchor point positioned above the grille comprises at least one upper bracket, wherein the at least one upper bracket is secured to the inside of the hood by an adhesive.
However, Weimer teaches wherein the at least one anchor point positioned above the grille comprises at least one upper bracket (Fig. 3 - 39), wherein the at least one upper bracket is secured to (Fig. 3 - 40, 41) (“Vertically upwardly extending from the heat exchanger 33, two flanges 39, via which the heat exchanger 33 can be screwed with suitable mounting holes 40”) the inside of the hood (13, 27). Weimer is silent on wherein the at least one upper bracket is secured by an adhesive.
However, Mallicote teaches wherein a bracket (Fig. 4 - 112) is secured by an adhesive (Paragraph [0023] – “the bracket 112 and the grill guard 104 can be further connected via an adhesive”).
Weinman, Weimer, and Mallicote are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle attachment structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Weinman’s mounting structure and Weimer’s apparatus with those of Mallicote’s mounting method in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more secure in that it is less prone to vibrations, whereas a screw or bolt may come undone by vibrations over time.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Re: claim 4, Weinman is silent on wherein the at least one anchor point positioned below the grille comprises at least one lower bracket, wherein the at least one lower bracket is secured to the inside of the hood by an adhesive.
However, Weimer teaches wherein the at least one anchor point positioned below the grille comprises at least one lower bracket (36, 37), wherein the at least one lower bracket is secured to the inside of the hood (13, 27) (Via the vehicle frame – “flanges 36, 37 via which the heat exchanger 33 on the vehicle frame (not shown) may be supported”). Weimer fails to teach wherein the at least one lower bracket is secured by an adhesive.
However, Mallicote teaches wherein a bracket (Fig. 4 - 112) is secured by an adhesive (Paragraph [0023] – “the bracket 112 and the grill guard 104 can be further connected via an adhesive”).
Weinman, Weimer, and Mallicote are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle attachment structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Weinman’s mounting structure and Weimer’s apparatus with those of Mallicote’s mounting method in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more secure in that it is less prone to vibrations, whereas a screw or bolt may come undone by vibrations over time.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Re: claim 5, Weinman fails to teach wherein the internal frame structure is secured to the inside of the hood by at least two anchor points positioned on either side of the grille.
However, Weimer teaches wherein the internal frame structure (33, 36, 37, 39) is secured to the inside of the hood (13, 27) by at least two anchor points positioned on either side of the grille (Fig. 2 - 36, 37 – or 39).
Re: claim 6, Weinman fails to teach wherein the internal frame structure provides greater rigidity to the hood of the vehicle.
However, Weimer does not expressly disclose wherein the internal frame structure (33, 36, 37, 39) provides greater rigidity to the hood (13, 27 – specifically 27) of the vehicle.
It is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the internal frame structure of Weimer is a rigid structure and that connecting the rigid structure to the hood would increase the rigidity of the hood.
Re: claim 18, Weinman is silent on securing the internal frame structure to the inside of the hood by at least one anchor point positioned above the grille and at least one anchor point positioned below the grille, wherein the at least one anchor point positioned above the grille comprises at least one upper bracket, wherein the at least one upper bracket is secured to the inside of the hood by an adhesive.
However, Weimer teaches securing the internal frame structure (33, 36, 37, 39) to the inside of the hood (13, 27) by at least one anchor point positioned above the grille (39) and at least one anchor point positioned below the grille (36, 37); wherein the at least one anchor point positioned above the grille comprises at least one upper bracket (39), wherein the at least one upper bracket is secured to the inside of the hood (40, 41) (“Vertically upwardly extending from the heat exchanger 33, two flanges 39, via which the heat exchanger 33 can be screwed with suitable mounting holes 40”). Weimer fails to teach wherein the at least one lower bracket is secured by an adhesive.
However, Mallicote teaches wherein a bracket (Fig. 4 - 112) is secured by an adhesive (Paragraph [0023] – “the bracket 112 and the grill guard 104 can be further connected via an adhesive”).
Weinman, Weimer, and Mallicote are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle attachment structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Weinman’s mounting structure and Weimer’s apparatus with those of Mallicote’s mounting method in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more secure in that it is less prone to vibrations, whereas a screw or bolt may come undone by vibrations over time.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16 and 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re: claim 7, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the at least one vertical member and the at least one horizontal member are connected via a tab-and-slot connection. Modification of the prior arts would be building to the instant application. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7.
Re: claim 9, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the external frame support structure comprises a rail extending horizontally across a front of the hood, wherein the one or more sensors are repositionable along a length of the rail. The primary art used discloses a static external support structure of which the camera would not be able to be repositioned across. Modification of the prior art would be impermissible hindsight. Claims 10-16 depend on claim 9.
Re: claim 19, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the at least one vertical member and the at least one horizontal member are connected via a tab-and-slot connection. Modification of the prior arts would be building to the instant application.
Re: claim 20, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the external frame structure includes a rail extending horizontally across a front of the hood, wherein two or more LIDAR sensors and at least one camera are secured to the rail. The primary art used discloses a static external support structure. Modification of the prior art would be impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujii et al. (Patent No. 12,420,733), Schellekens (US 2023/0097463 A1), and Perez (US 2015/0021937 A1) disclose grille mounted system relevant to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights