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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered. The Applicant didn’t amend any claim. Claims 11-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's request of dated 5/12/2026 for reconsideration after Non-Final Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant essentially argues “Jo does not, however, disclose: a sensor with a body and a lateral protrusion, wherein the lateral protrusion has an opening configured to receive an airflow by which the sensor measures humidity in the vehicle interior. The Office Action contends that the sensor is met by defogging sensor 4; that the lateral protrusion is met by hood 3B; and that the opening is met by opening G. Not so”, [page 5 of remarks].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation as recited is, “a sensor assembly for a motor vehicle, comprising: a sensor with a body and a lateral protrusion, wherein the lateral protrusion has an opening configured to receive an airflow by which the sensor measures humidity in the vehicle interior”. The Examiner rejected this claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo (US 2021/0370846). Jo disclosed at least in Figure 1 each and every element of the claim limitation as recited. Figure 1 shows an in-vehicle camera device 1 is attached to the inside of a vehicle including a windshield F, defogging sensor 4 (4′), [0017], [0022]. The examiner mapped a sensor with a body (4, 4’, defogging sensor, and 3B, hood, defogging sensor body, Fig. 1) and a lateral protrusion (3B, hood, Fig. 1). It is noted that the claim recites “a sensor assembly for a motor vehicle, comprising: a sensor with a body and a lateral protrusion, wherein the lateral protrusion has an opening”. Claim limitation does not explicitly define the structure of the sensor with a body and the lateral protrusion. It falls into broader claim categories. The claim language and the Specification fail to describe explicitly the physical structure, size and shape of “a sensor with a body and a lateral protrusion”. During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable interpretation and as presently claimed, nothing precludes the Examiner from considering a sensor with a body (4, 4’, defogging sensor, and 3B, hood, defogging sensor body, Fig. 1 of Jo) and a lateral protrusion (3B, hood, Fig. 1). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is therefore non-persuasive, and Examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo (US 2021/0370846, of record).
Regarding claim 11, Jo teaches a sensor assembly for a motor vehicle (refer to US 2021/0370846), comprising: a sensor assembly for a motor vehicle (at least Figure 1, in-vehicle camera device 1 is attached to the inside of a vehicle including a windshield F, defogging sensor 4 (4′), [0017], [0022]), comprising: a mount (3c, mounting member); a camera (2, camera); and a sensor with a body (4, 4’, defogging sensor, and 3B, hood, defogging sensor body, Fig. 1) and a lateral protrusion (3B, hood, Fig. 1), wherein the lateral protrusion has an opening (opening G, Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to receive an airflow by which the sensor measures humidity in the vehicle interior (Examiner notes that because the sensor is within the vehicle, the humidity measured is the humidity in the vehicle interior), wherein the sensor assembly is fixable to a windshield of the motor vehicle (housing 3 is attached to an inner surface of the windshield F, [0021], Fig. 1), and wherein a straight line along the direction of longitudinal extent of the lateral protrusion runs diagonally to a central longitudinal plane of the sensor assembly (Figure 1 depicts 3B, hood, is sloped/diagonal with 4, defogging sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Jo teaches the sensor assembly according to claim 11 (see above), wherein the opening (G, Fig. 1) is partly or fully arranged laterally to the camera in the transverse direction (opening G is arranged crosswise to the camera 2 in the transverse direction, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Jo teaches the sensor assembly according to claim 11 (see above), wherein the straight line along the direction of longitudinal extent of the lateral protrusion (straight line along the direction of longitudinal extent of the lateral protrusion 3B) and the central longitudinal plane (central longitudinal plane of the sensor assembly, Fig. 1) enclose an angle of 20 degrees to 160 degrees (Fig. 1 shows the straight line along the direction of longitudinal extent of the lateral protrusion 3B and the central longitudinal plane of the sensor assembly, Fig. 1, enclose an angle of about 20 degrees).
Regarding claim 14, Jo teaches the sensor assembly according to claim 11 (see above), wherein the opening (G, Fig. 1, [0024]) is formed at a first end of the lateral protrusion (first end of 3B; defogging sensor 4 at the front end of the hood 3B, [0024]) opposite the body or at a first side wall of the lateral protrusion (at a first side wall of the lateral protrusion 3B, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Jo teaches the sensor assembly according to claim 11 (see above), a sensor assembly for a motor vehicle (at least Figure 1, in-vehicle camera device 1 is attached to the inside of a vehicle including a windshield F, defogging sensor 4 (4′), [0017], [0022]), wherein the sensor comprises a connector holder arranged on a side of the body opposite the lateral protrusion (holder of coupling circuit 2C arranged on a side of the body opposite the lateral protrusion 3B, [Fig. 1, [0019]).
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 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.
Claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Maxwell (US 2018/0345865, of record).
Regarding claim 16, Jo teaches the sensor assembly according to claim 11 (see above), wherein the mount (3C) is able to be connected to the windshield (F).
Jo doesn’t explicitly teach mount is able to be connected to the windshield via a sealing lip in such a way that an airtight cavity is formed between the mount and the windshield, in which cavity the optical sensor is arranged.
Jo and Maxwell are related as vehicle mirror sensor assembly.
Maxwell teaches mount is able to be connected to the windshield via a sealing lip in such a way that an airtight cavity is formed between the mount and the windshield, in which cavity the optical sensor is arranged (base 14 is mounted to the top central portion of the windshield 18 by way of sealing lip, see Fig. 5; Figure shows that a closed cavity is formed between the base 14 and the windshield in which an imaging port 24 is disposed; image port 24 includes diverging sidewalls 54 extending forward from the image processing module 20, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to arrange the sensor assembly of Jo, wherein mount is able to be connected to the windshield via a sealing lip in such a way that an airtight cavity is formed between the mount and the windshield, in which cavity the optical sensor is arranged, as taught by Maxwell for the predictable advantage of the electronic systems center has a low profile housing of compact design that minimizes forward vision obstruction. The electronic systems center may house (1) an image processing module, (2), a rain light sensor (RLS), (3) a USB charger such as a smart charger made for dash cam cameras and other dashboard mounted electronic equipment, (4) an electronic windshield anti-fogging system (EWAFS) and (5) wire routing features that serve to eliminate rattling of wires within the housing, as Maxwell teaches in [0002].
Regarding claim 17, the modified Jo teaches the sensor assembly according to claim 16 (see above), wherein the opening G is arranged [Fig. 1]), and Maxwell teaches opening is arranged laterally to the airtight cavity and/or the sealing lip in the transverse direction (opening with sidewalls 54, [0030] in the transverse direction (see Figs. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 19, Jo teaches the sensor assembly according to claim 11 (see above). Jo doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the sensor at least partly has the same position in the transverse direction as at least one subregion of the camera, of the airtight cavity and/or of the sealing lip.
Jo and Maxwell are related as vehicle mirror sensor assembly.
Maxwell teaches wherein the sensor (34) at least partly has the same position in the transverse direction as at least one subregion of the camera (image processing module 20), of the airtight cavity and/or of the sealing lip (see Fig. 5, lip 54).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Minikey et al. (US 2014/0055617, of record).
Regarding claim 18, Jo teaches the sensor assembly according to claim 11 (see above). Jo doesn’t explicitly teach the sensor is arranged behind the camera in the longitudinal direction.
Jo and Minikey are related as vehicle mirror sensor assembly.
Minikey teaches the sensor is arranged behind the camera in the longitudinal direction (in Fig. 19 sensor in 20 behind the camera 105, in the longitudinal direction [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to arrange the sensor is arranged behind the camera in the longitudinal direction, as taught by Minikey for the predictable advantage of operably secured sensor assembly in the sensor receiving area of the windshield bracket, as Minikey teaches in [0005].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minikey et al. (US 2014/0055617, of record) and further in view of Jo, as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 20, Minikey teaches an interior mirror assembly for a motor vehicle (refer to US 2014/0055617), comprising:
a mirror (Fig. 2, mirror in rearview mirror housing 12, [0066]);
a mirror base (mirror housing 12, [0066]);
a mirror baseplate (cover 120, [0071], Figs. 1-2); and the sensor assembly (sensor assembly 24, [0066], Fig. 1), wherein the mirror is fixed to the mirror baseplate via the mirror base (the mirror is fixed to the mirror baseplate 120 via the mirror base 12) and the mount (mount 20, [0066]) comprises a recess in which the mirror baseplate 120 is arranged, see Figs. 2-3, 22 and 23).
Minikey doesn’t explicitly teach the motor vehicle, comprising: the sensor assembly of claim 11.
Jo teaches the sensor assembly of claim 11 (see claim 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to arrange the sensor assembly of Jo as described in claim 11, for the predictable advantage of accurately detecting fogging of the portion of the windshield positioned within the field of view of the in-vehicle camera and acquires images through the windshield, as taught by Jo in abstract, [0003] and [0004].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/R.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights