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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
112 rejections of previous office action are withdrawn. However, amendments require further 112 rejections below.
Regarding the arguments on page 10-11, it is stated that “None of the cited documents describes an interface part attached on the one hand to an image sensor, and on the other hand to an IR window mount, for positioning the entire optical system of the image sensor. Berard and Nagashima merely describe a housing or a mount assembled to a windshield, a roof or a glass of a vehicle, but never to a window mount for inserting an IR window into a glazing. As indicated in paragraph [0103], the interface part is used to position the optical system, and thus the IR image sensor, relative to the window mount. There is no suggestion in the cited documents to attach an interface part to an IR window mount and to an IR image sensor in order to position the optical system of the IR image sensor relative to the IR window mount. Therefore, Berard and Nagashima do not describe or suggest the above-quoted elements of claim 1.”.
However, the examiner disagrees and asserts that Masui below discloses mounting the IR camera sensor device to mounting cushions 5012 which could be considered a window mount and could be used to properly align the sensor and window [121; fig. 21].
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., there is no suggestion in the cited documents to attach an interface part to an IR window mount and to an IR image sensor in order to position the optical system of the IR image sensor relative to the IR window mount.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “wherein the interface part is assembled on the one hand to the infrared image sensor through an optical system of the infrared image sensor, and on the other hand to the window mount” is indefinite. The examiner is uncertain about the connections between the interface part and other parts. It could be talking about one side of the interface part and the other side of the interface part. The term “on the other hand” can also indicate alternative options for connections.
For purposes of examination, the examiner is taking the position that interface part is assembled between the window mount and optical system of the IR sensor.
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 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.
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.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berard US 20230202145 in view of Nagashima US 20230001772 and Masui US 20200017037.
Regarding claim 1, Berard disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
An infrared camera module comprising:
an infrared sensor (i.e. thermal camera has an infrared detection sensor) [89,171; fig. 1];
an outer window, inclined with respect to an optical axis of the infrared image sensor and held in a window mount comprising a shape adapted to cooperate, in a removable manner, with a receiving part surrounding a hole passing through a glazing (i.e. inclined window 100 with respect to the camera has a shape that mounts the device to the window so the camera is pointed out of a hole through a glazing) [136; fig. 1];
an interface part providing a mechanical link between the window mount and the infrared sensor (i.e. glue 80 bonds window to housing 8 of camera) [141; fig 1].
Berard do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
an infrared image sensor
a shape adapted to cooperate, in a removable manner, with a receiving part
However, in the same field of endeavor Nagashima discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
an infrared image sensor (i.e. infrared images taken using infrared camera;) [30,55; fig. 5,10];
an outer window, inclined with respect to an optical axis of the infrared image sensor and held in a window mount comprising a shape adapted to cooperate, in a removable manner, with a receiving part surrounding a hole passing through a glazing (i.e. has infrared images; frame member attaches body to window) [30,55; fig. 5,10];
an interface part providing a mechanical link between the window mount and the infrared image sensor (i.e. has infrared images; frame member attaches body to window) [30,55; fig. 5,10];
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Berard with Nagashima an infrared image sensor and
a shape adapted to cooperate, in a removable manner, with a receiving part.
It would be advantageous because "According to the present invention, it is possible to suppress deterioration in the wiping property of the wipers and increase in the load on the wipers.” [14].
Berard and Nagashima do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the interface part is assembled on the one hand to the infrared image sensor through an optical system of the infrared image sensor, and on the other hand to the window mount.
However, in the same field of endeavor Masui discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the interface part is assembled on the one hand to the infrared image sensor through an optical system of the infrared image sensor, and on the other hand to the window mount (i.e. mounting the IR camera sensor device to mounting cushions 5012 which could be considered a window mount and could be used to properly align the sensor and window) [121; fig. 21].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Berard and Nagashima with Masui where the interface part is thermally coupled to a first heat dissipation system.
It would be advantageous because "In view of the above, it is desired to have a camera module having a new structure for taking an image of an external environment with high accuracy.” [34].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Berard and Nagashima with Masui to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Berard meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 1, further comprising at least one focal optical element, such as one or more lenses, positioned inside the interface part and centered with respect to the optical axis (i.e. camera has lens inside of the interface part) [183; fig. 1].
Regarding claim 3, Nagashima meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 2, wherein the at least one focal optical element comprises at least one lens held in at least one lens mount, the at least one lens mount being coupled to the interface part, or being part of the interface part (i.e. lens 20 is coupled to the interface part) [fig. 3].
Regarding claim 4, Berard meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 3, wherein the at least one lens:- is formed from a germanium crystal, zinc sulfide or zinc selenide, or from an amorphous infrared chalcogenide glass or alloy; and/or - is coated with an anti-reflective coating adapted to optimize optical transmission in the spectral sensitivity range of the infrared image sensor (i.e. zinc sulfide lens) [3,47].
Regarding claim 5, Berard meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 1, wherein the infrared image sensor comprises an array of vacuum micro- bolometers, sensitive, to all or part of the wavelength range from 2.5 to 20 µm (i.e. microbolometry used for the infrared detection system and has a range of 14µm and 7 or 6 µm) [89-92].
Regarding claim 6, Nagashima meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 1, wherein the outer window has an outer face which is substantially planar, the outer face of the outer window being coated with an anti-reflective coating (i.e. an antireflection film may be provided on the surface on the vehicle exterior side (surface 20A).) [45,50].
Regarding claim 7, Nagashima meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 1, wherein the outer window has a material which is transparent in the spectral sensitivity range of the infrared image sensor (i.e. The far-infrared ray transmission region B is a region that transmits far-infrared rays, and is a region in which the far-infrared camera CA1 is disposed.) [34-35].
Regarding claim 8, Nagashima meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 7, wherein the outer window has an inner face which is substantially planar and parallel to its outer face, the inner face of the outer window being coated with an anti-reflective coating, (i.e. Coating may be applied to the surface on the vehicle exterior side or the surface on the vehicle interior side of the far-infrared ray transmission member.) [45,50].
Regarding claim 9, Nagashima meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 1, wherein the window mount comprises first means for interfacing with the interface part, and second means for interfacing with the reception part of the glazing (i.e. frame member 30 has a part for the glazing and a part for the interface) [fig. 3,5,10].
Regarding claim 10, Nagashima meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 1, wherein the window mount has a first outer surface designed to slide into the through hole and a second outer surface designed to stop on a shoulder portion of the receiving part, the shoulder portion being dimensioned so that an outer face of the outer window substantially aligns with an outer face of the glazing, as an extension of the glazing (i.e. window mount has many parts that could be a shoulder on an outer face to align the structures) [fig. 3,5,10].
Regarding claim 11, Nagashima meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 1, wherein an outer face of the outer window is inclined with respect to the optical axis of the infrared image sensor by a tilt angle comprised between 20 and 70 degrees (i.e. angle of window appears to be between 45 and 90 degrees.) [fig. 10].
Regarding claim 13, Masui meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the interface part:- includes a temperature sensor; and/or - includes a mirror designed to deflect the optical axis; and/or - includes an internal structure designed to protect the infrared image sensor from stray light; and/or - is covered with an absorbent coating in the spectral sensitivity range of the infrared image sensor; and/or - is thermally conductive, at least in an area of the interface part exposed to stray light; and/or - is thermally coupled to a first heat dissipation system (i.e. sensor thermally coupled to the casing which dissipates heat) [42; fig. 2-5].
Regarding claim 14, Masui meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 1, wherein the infrared image sensor is thermally coupled to a second heat dissipation system (i.e. sensor thermally coupled to the casing which dissipates heat and has multiple components that can dissipate heat.) [42; fig. 2-5].
Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1. This is the method of assembling the device of claim 1 and require the same structural limitations. Nagashima discusses the manufacture of the structure in [76].
Regarding claim 16, Berard meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 5, wherein the array of vacuum micro-bolometers is sensitive to all or part of the wavelength range from 7.5 to 14 pm (i.e. microbolometry used for the infrared detection system and has a range of 14µm and 7 or 6 µm) [89-92].
Regarding claim 17, Nagashima meets the claim limitations, as follows:
Infrared camera module according to claim 8, wherein the anti-reflective coating of the inner face is different from an anti-reflective coating of the outer face (i.e. Coating may be applied to the surface on the vehicle exterior side or the surface on the vehicle interior side of the far-infrared ray transmission member.) [45,50].
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1 and further below.
Masui meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the interface part includes an internal structure, having a form of stair treads, designed to protect the infrared image sensor from stray light (i.e. sensor thermally coupled to the casing which dissipates heat and has multiple components that can dissipate heat. Base wall portion 41 has restriction ribs 411 which trap the incident light between one another by multiple reflections of the light incident to the base wall portion 41 on the opposing wall surfaces of the restriction ribs 411.) [42,62; fig. 2-5].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berard, Masui and Nagashima in view of Koide US 20120211655.
Regarding claim 12, Berard, Masui and Nagashima do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
further comprising a mechanical shutter positioned along the optical axis adapted to cut the optical path coming from the outer window to the infrared image sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor Koide discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
further comprising a mechanical shutter positioned along the optical axis adapted to cut the optical path coming from the outer window to the infrared image sensor (i.e. shutter unit 5) [14-15].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Berard, Masui and Nagashima with Koide to have a mechanical shutter positioned along the optical axis adapted to cut the optical path coming from the outer window to the infrared image sensor.
It would be advantageous because "Then, an object of the present invention is to provide an optical arrangement of an infrared camera having both an improved imaging accuracy and a reduced size of the apparatus.” [8].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Berard, Masui and Nagashima with Koide to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights