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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said box-shaped portion" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claims 1, 5 nor 7 recite a box-shaped portion. Clarification/correction required.
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 1, 4-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al (US 2021/0167489 A1), hereinafter Hayashi. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi (Figure 2) teaches a fin for a vehicle having a bodywork 100; the fin comprising a shell 11 configured to be fixed, in use, to the outside of said bodywork; the shell having an inner housing 12 and 16; the fin comprising an antenna 13a, in particular a SDARS antenna, and a camera 18a installed inside the housing of said shell.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Hayashi (Figure 2) teaches that the antenna is inclined by a first angle determined with respect to a reference plane; wherein, the camera is inclined by a second angle determined with respect to the reference plane; wherein, the antenna and the camera are spaced apart by a determined distance along a longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Hayashi (Figure 2) teaches a support 12 and 16, which is installed inside said housing; wherein said support has a sealed chamber, inside of which the antenna 13a is placed; wherein the camera 18a is installed outside the support.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5, Hayashi (Figure 2) teaches that said support 12 and 16 having a wall 161 is configured to fix the camera 18a and the antenna inside of said housing; in particular, said support is configured to keep the camera and the antenna 13a spaced apart by said determined distance.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 5, Hayashi (Figure 2) teaches that said support comprises a base 162 which is fixed, in use, to the bodywork of the vehicle; wherein, the support is configured to fix the angular position of the antenna and/or of the camera with respect to the base.
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi (Figure 2) teaches a vehicle having a bodywork 100 and comprising a fin 1, according to claim 1; wherein the fin is fixed to the outside of said bodywork.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokowo (JP 6862260 B2). (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Yokowo (Figure 1) A fin 2 for a vehicle having a bodywork 100; the fin comprising a shell 2a configured to be fixed, in use, to the outside of said bodywork; the shell having an inner housing 2a; the fin comprising an antenna 3, in particular a SDARS antenna, and a camera 4 installed inside the housing of said shell.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Yokowo (Figure 1) teaches that the antenna 3 is inclined by a first angle determined with respect to a reference plane; wherein, the camera 4 is inclined by a second angle determined with respect to the reference plane; wherein, the antenna and the camera are spaced apart by a determined distance along a longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Yokowo (Figure 5) teaches a support 2c1, which is installed inside said housing 2a; wherein said support has a sealed chamber, inside of which the antenna is placed; wherein the camera is installed outside the support.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5, Yokowo (Figure 5) teaches that said support 2c1 is configured to fix the camera and the antenna inside of said housing 2a; in particular, said support is configured to keep the camera 4 and the antenna 3 spaced apart by said determined distance.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 5, Yokowo (Figure 1) teaches that said support 2c1 comprises a base 5 which is fixed, in use, to the bodywork of the vehicle; wherein, the support is configured to fix the angular position of the antenna and/or of the camera with respect to the base.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokowo.
Regarding claim 2, Yokowo teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, and further comprising that the shell 11 comprises a rear wall having a hole 11a, which puts in communication the inside of said housing with the outside; wherein, the camera comprises, in turn, a lens configured to take pictures outside, in particular in the area behind the vehicle; wherein the lens is positioned at said hole.
Yokowo does not explicitly mention that the fin comprising a gasket of the cap type which is fitted on the lens and is interposed between the lens and the hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a gasket fitted on the lens in order to prevent liquids or dust from entering the housing.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2, Yokowo (para [0016]) teaches that the shell 2a is made by moulding resin which is considered to be equivalent to a single monolithic piece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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:
Regarding claim 8, neither Hayashi nor Yokowo further teach at least a lid comprising a thrust element, which protrudes inside the cavity and is configured to keep the antenna inclined by said first angle when it is fixed to the base.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Qing et al (CN 111684651A) discloses a shark fin antenna mounted on a vehicle.
He et al (CN 216671914U) discloses a shark fin antenna mounted on a vehicle.
Tang et al (CN 215732198U) discloses a shark fin antenna mounted on a vehicle.
Chen (CN 212485548U) discloses a shark fin antenna mounted on a vehicle.
Dobashi (JP 2022003724A) discloses a shark fin antenna mounted on a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights