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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed 7/10/2026. Claim(s) 1-21 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and lack of priority noted in the most recent Office action have been removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of the most recent Office action have been removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/10/2026, pg(s). 7-8, with respect to the prior art rejections to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9-11, 13-16, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180032822 A1) in view of Fürsich (US 20160148062 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frank teaches A side sensor assembly configured to be affixed to a side of a vehicle (“FIG. 1 illustrates a vehicle 100 with multiple LIDAR sensors 105 and at least one camera 110 incorporated into the side view mirror housing 115.”, [0012]), the side sensor assembly comprising:
an exterior housing (“As shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, the side view mirror housing 115 may include a first exterior surface 145 (e.g., front-facing side) and a second exterior surface 150 (e.g., rear-facing side).”, [0017]);
a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor disposed adjacent to a bottom of the exterior housing (“A first LIDAR sensor 105a is disposed in the side view mirror housing 115 and has a first field of view 125 and pointed in a first direction. A second LIDAR sensor 105b is also disposed in the side view mirror housing 115.”, [0013], Fig. 2, whether either of the “first LIDAR sensor 105a” or the “second LIDAR sensor 105b” corresponds to Applicant’s “(lidar) sensor”); and
a (“a camera 110 is disposed in the side view mirror housing 115. The camera 110 is spaced from the second LIDAR sensor 105b and the camera 110 having a third field of view 135 and pointed in the second direction.”, [0013], Figs. 1-2).
However, Fürsich teaches A side sensor assembly configured to be affixed to a side of a vehicle (“FIG. 24 is a plan view of another vehicle having multiple cameras for capturing images surrounding the vehicle including two forward viewing cameras disposed at a side region of the vehicle”, [0032], “As shown in FIG. 24, the system may optionally and additionally comprise two forwardly directed (forward vision) cameras at the vehicle's side, optionally mounted in wing-like structures at the position where conventional side mirrors are mounted normally.”, [0067]), the side sensor assembly comprising:
an exterior housing (“wing-like structures”, [0067], see Figs. 1, 24);
a set of cameras disposed to obtain imagery within a second field of view along the side of the vehicle (“Each side's wing may house multiple (e.g., four) cameras of the system according the invention, such as optionally a surround view fish eye camera, optionally a rearwardly directed rear view (mirror replacement) camera, optionally a blind spot camera and optionally a forward vision camera.”, [0067], Fig. 24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank with the teachings of Fürsich such that the side sensor assembly of Frank comprises a set of cameras above the lidar sensor, as suggested by Fürsich, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would to incorporate “forward vision cameras may have an overlapping zone in front of the vehicle” [0067] for additional redundancy in the vehicle vision system, as suggested by Fürsich.
Regarding claim 13, Frank teaches A vehicle (“FIG. 1 illustrates a vehicle 100 with multiple LIDAR sensors 105 and at least one camera 110 incorporated into the side view mirror housing 115.”, [0012]) comprising:
a pair of side sensor assemblies attached to opposite sides of the vehicle (“side view mirror housing 115”, Figs. 1-2), each side sensor assembly including:
an exterior housing (“As shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, the side view mirror housing 115 may include a first exterior surface 145 (e.g., front-facing side) and a second exterior surface 150 (e.g., rear-facing side).”, [0017]);
a mounting element configured to rigidly secure the exterior housing to a corresponding side of the vehicle (“The side view mirror housing 115 is mountable to a vehicle exterior 120.”, [001], see Fig. 2);
a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor disposed adjacent to a bottom of the exterior housing (“A first LIDAR sensor 105a is disposed in the side view mirror housing 115 and has a first field of view 125 and pointed in a first direction. A second LIDAR sensor 105b is also disposed in the side view mirror housing 115.”, [0013], Fig. 2, whether either of the “first LIDAR sensor 105a” or the “second LIDAR sensor 105b” corresponds to Applicant’s “(lidar) sensor”); and
a (“a camera 110 is disposed in the side view mirror housing 115. The camera 110 is spaced from the second LIDAR sensor 105b and the camera 110 having a third field of view 135 and pointed in the second direction.”, [0013], Figs. 1-2).
However, Fürsich teaches A vehicle (“FIG. 24 is a plan view of another vehicle having multiple cameras for capturing images surrounding the vehicle including two forward viewing cameras disposed at a side region of the vehicle”, [0032]) comprising:
a pair of side sensor assemblies attached to opposite sides of the vehicle (“As shown in FIG. 24, the system may optionally and additionally comprise two forwardly directed (forward vision) cameras at the vehicle's side, optionally mounted in wing-like structures at the position where conventional side mirrors are mounted normally.”, [0067]), each side sensor assembly including:
an exterior housing (“wing-like structures”, [0067], see Figs. 1, 24);
a mounting element configured to rigidly secure the exterior housing to a corresponding side of the vehicle (“mounted…at the position where conventional side mirrors are mounted normally.”, [0067], see also Fig. 1);
and
a set of cameras disposed (“Each side's wing may house multiple (e.g., four) cameras of the system according the invention, such as optionally a surround view fish eye camera, optionally a rearwardly directed rear view (mirror replacement) camera, optionally a blind spot camera and optionally a forward vision camera.”, [0067], Fig. 24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank with the teachings of Fürsich such that the pair of side sensor assemblies of the vehicle of Frank comprise a set of cameras above the lidar sensor, as suggested by Fürsich, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would to incorporate “forward vision cameras may have an overlapping zone in front of the vehicle” [0067] for additional redundancy in the vehicle vision system, as suggested by Fürsich.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Frank teaches a “first LIDAR sensor 105a” and a “second LIDAR sensor 105b” disposed in each side sensor assembly exterior housing (see Fig. 2). As seen in Fig. 2, the “first LIDAR sensor 105a” is disposed closer to the bottom of the housing than to the top of the exterior housing and the bottom of the “second LIDAR sensor 105b” is disposed adjacent to the bottom of the exterior housing. Further, Frank teaches a “camera 110” disposed at least partially within in each side sensor assembly exterior housing (see Fig. 2). As seen in Fig. 2, at least a portion of the “camera 110” is disposed above the “first LIDAR sensor 105a” and the entirety of “camera 110” is disposed above the “second LIDAR sensor 105b”. Thus, Frank teaches “a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor disposed adjacent to a bottom of the exterior housing; and a ”, as claimed.
Claims 1 and 13 are rendered obvious over Frank in view of Fürsich as discussed above. However, it is further noted that before the effective filing date, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the camera above the lidar sensor, and to dispose the lidar sensor adjacent to the bottom of the exterior housing, because Applicant has not disclosed that this configuration provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Rather, Applicant merely provides this configuration as an example configuration but provides no critically to this design [0036]. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to preform equally well with the camera disposed at a location in the exterior housing other than above the lidar because the camera would still encompass the “third field of view 135” [0013, 0018] and the “first LIDAR sensor 105a” and the “second LIDAR sensor 105b” would still encompass the “first field of view 125” and the “second field of view 130”, respectively [0013, 0014, 0018], as taught by Frank.
Regarding claim 2, and similarly claim 14, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1, and Fürsich further teaches wherein the set of cameras further includes a third camera configured to obtain imagery within a third field of view towards a rear of the vehicle (“Each side's wing may house multiple (e.g., four) cameras of the system according the invention, such as optionally a surround view fish eye camera, optionally a rearwardly directed rear view (mirror replacement) camera, optionally a blind spot camera and optionally a forward vision camera.”, [0067]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Frank with the teachings of Fürsich such that the side sensor assembly of Frank comprises a third camera with a third field of view towards a rear of the vehicle, as suggested by Fürsich, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would “to assist a driver of the vehicle in maneuvering the vehicle in a rearward direction” [0036] or such that the “driver that can view an image as seen by a bird flying about the car. The vision system (utilizing the forward facing camera and a rearward facing camera” [0050], as suggested by Fürsich.
Regarding claim 6, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1, and Frank further teaches wherein the lidar sensor is configured to provide a third field of view of at least 180 degrees along the side of the vehicle (“a first field of view 125 and pointed in a first direction…a second field of view 130”, [0013], see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1, and Fürsich further teaches further comprising a mirror disposed on at least one surface of the exterior housing (“the present invention provides a different solution. For example, and such as shown in FIGS. 12 and 13, a new combination of a side-mounted 180 degree field of view (or other wide angle field of view) lens and camera (top view) having the principal axis of its field of view directed generally downward and sideward (such as at cameras 14c and 14d in FIG. 15A) and an exterior rearview mirror lens and camera with moderate or narrower viewing angle having the principal axis of its field of view directed generally rearwardly (such as cameras 14g and 14h in FIG. 15A).”, [0059]).
Thus, while Frank suggests it’s possible to remove the mirror from the side sensor assembly [0010], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Frank with the teachings of Fürsich such that side sensor assembly of Frank comprises a mirror, as suggested by Fürsich, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would to allow the driver to continue using a mirror for “rearwardly directed rear view” in lieu of a fourth camera [0067], as suggested by Fürsich.
Regarding claim 10, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1, and Frank further teaches further comprising a mounting element configured to rigidly secure the exterior housing to the side of the vehicle (“The side view mirror housing 115 is mountable to a vehicle exterior 120.”, [001], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1, and Frank further teaches further comprising a conduit configured to receive a data line to provide communication between one or more operational systems of the vehicle and at least one of the lidar sensor or the set of cameras (“the processor 180 may send a signal to the camera actuator 155 based on the received camera field of view adjustment request. For example, the camera actuator 155 may have four wires connected to the processor 180.”, [0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The vehicle of claim 13, and Frank further teaches wherein:
the mounting element of a first side sensor assembly of the pair of side sensor assemblies is rigidly secured to a left side of the vehicle (“FIG. 1 illustrates a vehicle 100 with multiple LIDAR sensors 105 and at least one camera 110 incorporated into the side view mirror housing 115.”, [0012], “FIG. 2A-2B illustrate a side view mirror housing 115 mounted to the vehicle 100. Although only one side view mirror housing 115 is shown, additional side view mirror housing 115s can be mounted to the vehicle 100 (e.g., on the opposite side of the vehicle 100).”, [0016], Fig. 1); and
the mounting element of a second side sensor assembly of the pair of side sensor assemblies is rigidly secured to a right side of the vehicle (see citations above).
Regarding claim 16, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The vehicle of claim 15, and Frank further teaches wherein:
the mounting element of the first side sensor assembly is rigidly secured adjacent to a left side of a windshield portion of the vehicle; and
the mounting element of the second side sensor assembly is rigidly secured adjacent to a right side of the windshield portion of the vehicle (see each “side view mirror housing 115” in Fig. 1 secured adjacent to the windshield on each of the left and right sides of the windshield).
Regarding claim 20, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The vehicle of claim 13, and Frank further teaches further comprising a control system having one or more computer processors configured to receive data from the pair of side sensor assemblies and control operation of the vehicle in an autonomous driving mode based on the data (“Using data received from vehicle sensors 165 and the three dimensional map of the area surrounding the vehicle 100 generated based on LIDAR sensors data, the processor 180 may operate the vehicle 100 in an autonomous mode.”, [0029]).
Regarding claim 21, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1, and Frank further teaches wherein the lidar sensor is disposed directly adjacent to the bottom of the exterior housing (“A second LIDAR sensor 105b is also disposed in the side view mirror housing 115.”, [0013], Fig. 2, where the “second LIDAR sensor 105b” corresponds to Applicant’s “(lidar) sensor”, As seen in Fig. 2, the “second LIDAR sensor 105b” is disposed adjacent to the bottom of the exterior housing.).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180032822 A1) in view of Fürsich (US 20160148062 A1) in view of Knox (US 8106755 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1, and Fürsich further teaches (“The vehicle may include any type of sensor or sensors, such as imaging sensors or radar sensors”, [0081]).
However, Knox teaches
further comprising a radar sensor (“driver-side forward object detection radar antenna assembly (6)”, Fig. 1, “The driver-side forward object detection radar antenna assembly (6) includes, for example, three patch-array receiver antennas (55, 57, 59) that are connected to dual mixers (61, 63) using the receiver antenna switches (67,68) and the receiver mixer switch (66) to facilitate the monopulse phase measurement method for azimuth and elevation target location in the processor (100) of the driver-side sensor means (30). This forward object detection radar antenna assembly (6) has four independent patch array antennas (53, 55, 57, 59) as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. The forward transmitter antenna (53) projects the transmitter energy to a forward field-of-view.”, C4, lines 10-21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank in view of Fürsich with the teachings of Knox such that the side sensor assembly of Frank comprises a radar sensor, as suggested by Knox, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to achieve “three dimensional (range, azimuth, and elevation) multiple object detection” (C1, lines 15-16), as suggested by Knox.
Further, before the effective filing date, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the radar sensor between the set of cameras and the lidar sensor, because Applicant has not disclosed that this configuration provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Rather, Applicant merely provides this configuration as an example configuration but provides no critically to this design [0036]. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to preform equally well with the radar sensor disposed elsewhere in the side sensor assembly because the radar would still achieve “the field-of-view at short range improving the detection” (C2, lines 14-15), as taught by Knox.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Frank in view of Fürsich and Knox to obtain the invention as specified in claim(s) 3.
Regarding claim 4, Frank in view of Fürsich and Knox teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 3, and Knox further teaches wherein the radar sensor comprises at least two of:
a first radar sensor configured to obtain radar returns along a front of the vehicle (“driver-side forward object detection radar antenna assembly (6)”, Fig. 1, “The driver-side forward object detection radar antenna assembly (6) includes, for example, three patch-array receiver antennas (55, 57, 59) that are connected to dual mixers (61, 63) using the receiver antenna switches (67,68) and the receiver mixer switch (66) to facilitate the monopulse phase measurement method for azimuth and elevation target location in the processor (100) of the driver-side sensor means (30). This forward object detection radar antenna assembly (6) has four independent patch array antennas (53, 55, 57, 59) as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. The forward transmitter antenna (53) projects the transmitter energy to a forward field-of-view.”, C4, lines 10-21);
a second radar sensor configured to obtain radar returns along the side of the vehicle (“driver-side side/rear object detection radar antenna assembly (7)”, Fig. 1, “The driver-side side/rear object detection radar antenna assembly (7) for side/rear object detection has one transmitter antenna (54). This transmitter antenna (54), which covers the entire side/rear field-of-view, is connected to the transmitter/oscillator (51) via transmitter switch (52). Additionally, the side/rear object radar antenna assembly (7) includes N (five shown in FIG. 2) receiver antennas (56, 58, 60, 62, 64) connected sequentially by N switches (five switches (75, 76, 77, 78, 79) shown in FIG. 2) to the mixer (61) while the side/rear receiver switch (65) is closed and forward receiver switch (66) is open. The side/rear receiver antennas (56, 58, 60, 62, 64) have narrower beams and each is directed (squinted) at a different angle with respect to the bore sight angle of the transmitter antenna (54).”, C4, line 55 – C5, line 2); and
a third radar sensor configured to obtain radar returns along a rear of the vehicle.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Frank in view of Fürsich with the teachings of Knox such that the radar of Frank comprises a first and second radar encompassing FOVs of the front and the side of the vehicle, respectively, as suggested by Knox, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be because the “use of two forward sensors, one on each side, broadens the field-of-view at short range improving the detection, for example of vehicles that cut-in close to the host vehicle. At a longer distance, where the antenna patterns of the two forward radar/video sensors share a common field-of-view, the outputs of the two [VSS] sensors are compared by a [VSSS] system processor to provide redundant detection of objects. This feature thereby increases the likelihood of detecting potential hazards and decreases the likelihood of falsely reporting objects that are not a hazard. Independent video sensors are provided on each side of the vehicle using both side/rear looking and downward looking video cameras for providing side/rear and downward looking views. These side/rear views on both sides of the vehicle are used for object validation when combined with output of side/rear radar sensors. The downward views are used, together with the forward video camera views on both sides of the vehicle for detection of lane markers as part of the lane departure detection means” (C2, lines 13-31), as suggested by Knox.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180032822 A1) in view of Fürsich (US 20160148062 A1) in view of Bigolin (US 20090316285 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1,
However, Bigolin teaches
further comprising at least one of an inertial sensor or a gyroscopic sensor (“Said articulated coupling assembly 6 allows a small electric cable to pass therethrough, to be fed to optional sensors housed in the supporting arm 7, for allowing the mirror sensor assembly to be mounted at a fixed position with respect to the bicycle framework, even if the bicycle user would change at will the position of the mirror through the articulated coupling assembly 6, and further facilitating in locating an acceleration sensor inside the swinging shell 5 even if the bicycle running direction and inclination with respect to the road are not precisely known.”, [0028], “the information related to the road inclination or slope is derived, in the preferred embodiment herein disclosed, from a gravity force responsive accelerometer, representing the main reference for identifying said road inclination”, [0074]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank in view of Fürsich with the teachings of Bigolin such that the side sensor assembly of Frank comprises an inertial sensor, as suggested by Bigolin, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “for identifying said road inclination” [0074] in cases where the vehicle “functions for cyclists and other road users” [0010], as taught by Bigolin [0098].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180032822 A1) in view of Fürsich (US 20160148062 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20190168569 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1,
However, Lee teaches
wherein the exterior housing is configured to provide cooling to the lidar sensor (“As shown in FIG. 1, the thermal management system for the vehicle according to the first preferred embodiment of the present invention is to perform a series of thermal managements to cool or heat electronic components (electronic devices 110), such as a computer, a lidar, a radar, and a sensor of an autonomous vehicle.”, [0033], “The first coolant line 424 is a flow passage for the coolant exchanged heat with the electronic components 110, and passes through the chiller 316.”, [0040]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank in view of Fürsich with the teachings of Lee such that the exterior housing of Frank is configured to provide cooling to the lidar, as suggested by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “stably cool high heat of the autonomous system, which makes much of safety, so as to continue a smoothly autonomous running” [0025], as taught by Lee.
Claim(s) 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180032822 A1) in view of Fürsich (US 20160148062 A1) in view of Dreiocker et al. (US 20160272163 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1,
However, Dreiocker teaches
wherein the exterior housing is configured to provide cooling to the set of cameras (“The present invention thus provides a camera integrated channel to transport cleaning fluid from the hose connector on the back side of the camera through the camera rear cover or housing portion and front cover or housing portion and lens holder up to the camera lens.”, [0030], “In addition to cleaning the camera lens, the integrated fluid channel functions as a heat sink, improving the heat dissipation through the camera housing.”, [0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank in view of Fürsich with the teachings of Dreiocker such that the exterior housing of Frank is configured to provide cooling to the camera, as suggested by Dreiocker, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “improv[e] the heat dissipation through the camera housing”, [0032], as taught by Dreiocker [0077].
Regarding claim 12, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The side sensor assembly of claim 1,
However, Dreiocker teaches
further comprising a conduit configured to receive at least one of a cooling line configured to provide cooling to at least one of the lidar sensor or the set of cameras, or a heating line configured to provide heating to at least one of the lidar sensor or the set of cameras (“The present invention thus provides a camera integrated channel to transport cleaning fluid from the hose connector on the back side of the camera through the camera rear cover or housing portion and front cover or housing portion and lens holder up to the camera lens.”, [0030], “In addition to cleaning the camera lens, the integrated fluid channel functions as a heat sink, improving the heat dissipation through the camera housing.”, [0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank in view of Fürsich with the teachings of Dreiocker such that the exterior housing of Frank is configured to provide cooling to the camera, as suggested by Dreiocker, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “improv[e] the heat dissipation through the camera housing”, [0032], as taught by Dreiocker [0077].
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180032822 A1) in view of Fürsich (US 20160148062 A1) in view of Berne (US 20200238908 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The vehicle of claim 13,
However, Berne teaches
wherein at least one of the mounting element of a first side sensor assembly of the pair of side sensor assemblies or the mounting element of a second side sensor assembly of the pair of side sensor assemblies is rigidly secured to the front of the vehicle (“a camera assembly 50 is mounted on the cab 5. Basically, the camera assembly 50 comprises a supporting arm 51 and a camera 52 arranged on said supporting arm 51, for providing an image of an area surrounding the vehicle 1.”, [0064], Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank in view of Fürsich with the teachings of Berne such that the mounting element of Frank is secured to the front of the vehicle, as suggested by Berne, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “to form a wind deflector and not to significantly impair aerodynamics” [0065], as taught by Berne.
Regarding claim 18, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The vehicle of claim 13,
However, Berne teaches
wherein the mounting element is disposed along a top of the exterior housing (“a camera assembly 50 is mounted on the cab 5. Basically, the camera assembly 50 comprises a supporting arm 51 and a camera 52 arranged on said supporting arm 51, for providing an image of an area surrounding the vehicle 1.”, [0064], Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank in view of Fürsich with the teachings of Berne such that the mounting element of Frank is disposed along a top of the exterior housing, as suggested by Berne, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “to form a wind deflector and not to significantly impair aerodynamics” [0065], as taught by Berne.
Regarding claim 19, Frank in view of Fürsich teaches The vehicle of claim 13,
However, Berne teaches
wherein at least one of the mounting element of a first side sensor assembly of the pair of side sensor assemblies or the mounting element of a second side sensor assembly of the pair of side sensor assemblies is rigidly secured adjacent to a top of a windshield portion of the vehicle (“a camera assembly 50 is mounted on the cab 5. Basically, the camera assembly 50 comprises a supporting arm 51 and a camera 52 arranged on said supporting arm 51, for providing an image of an area surrounding the vehicle 1.”, [0064], Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frank in view of Fürsich with the teachings of Berne such that the mounting element of Frank is secured adjacent to a top of a windshield portion of the vehicle, as suggested by Berne, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “to form a wind deflector and not to significantly impair aerodynamics” [0065], as taught by Berne.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights