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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 13-14 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 limitation “a roof substructure” in ll. 14 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned if the substructure in ll. 14 is the same substructure proffered in ll. 2. Further, “ where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP 2173.05(o).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 13-14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0003895A1) in view of Patil et al. (USP 11703570B2), hereinafter referred to as Krishnan and Patil, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Krishnan discloses a roof module for a motor vehicle (10, shown in figure 1), the roof module comprising;
a roof skin (24) disposed on a roof substructure (shown in figure 2) and a sensor system comprising at least two sensor modules (18, 20, shown in figures 2-4),
each of the at least two sensor modules comprising at least one environment sensor for detecting the vehicle environment (“Such sensors may include visual sensors, i.e., sensors that provide image data such as cameras 18 and light detection and ranging (“LIDAR”) sensors 20”, ¶19), wherein
the roof skin covers a portion of the air-conditioning mechanism (92, 94, 96. “Primary vehicle air ducts 94 connecting to an air management system, e.g., a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”) system of the vehicle 14”, ¶42) having a thermal channel arrangement via which a cooling and/or heating fluid flows to the sensor modules (“The pod 10 may include secondary ducts 96 connected to the primary vehicle air ducts 94. The ducts 94, 96 communicate cooling air, e.g., air at 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and warming air, e.g., air at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, into the cavity 70, with the temperature of the air depending on the system needs to avoid condensation”, ¶42); wherein
the thermal channel arrangement comprises multiple thermal channels (96, shown at least in figure 3); and wherein
the air-conditioning mechanism comprises a central unit (“a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (‘HVAC’) system”, ¶42) supplying the multiple thermal channels (96, shown at least in figure 3), and wherein
the roof module comprises a circumferential roof frame (22) to which the roof skin is attached (“the sensor pod 10 which includes a base 22 and a protective upper shell 24 disposed over the base 22 and the sensors 18, 20”, ¶19) and which is part of a roof substructure (shown in figure 4, wherein the base (22) is part of the roof of the vehicle) and forms a support structure of the roof module (shown in figure 3, wherein the base (22) comprises a lip (72) for locating and mounting the shell (24) to support the pod (10)), the roof frame (22) forming an intersection between the roof module and roof side rails (66, 68) of a vehicle body (shown in figure 3, wherein the base (22) is situated on the side rails (66, 68)). Krishnan fails to disclose the roof skin covers a central unit supplying the multiple thermal channels, wherein the central unit is a fan and each thermal channel of which leads to a separate respective sensor module of the at least two sensor modules.
Patil, also drawn to a sensor assembly mounted to a roof of a vehicle, teaches a roof skin (48) covers a central unit (58) supplying the multiple thermal channels (shown in figure 2, being the individual fluid paths terminating at the respective sensors (60)), wherein the central unit is a fan (58) and each thermal channel of which leads to a separate respective sensor module (60) of the at least two sensor modules (shown in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Krishnan with the roof skin covering a central unit supplying the multiple thermal channels, wherein the central unit is a fan and each thermal channel of which leads to a separate respective sensor module of the at least two sensor modules, as taught by Patil, the motivation being to regulate the temperatures of the sensors without relying on cabin airflow or to reduce the expended resources of the cooling system by selectively operating the blowers based upon vehicle speed, wind speed or wind direction.
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Krishnan further teaches the central unit (58 of Patil) supplies the thermal channel arrangement with the cooling and/or heating fluid (shown in figure 3 of Patil, wherein the blowers (58) supply airflow to the respective passages).
Regarding Claim 5, Krishnan fails to disclose the sensor module comprises a heat exchanger for the cooling and/or heating fluid, the heat exchanger being connected to the thermal channel arrangement.
Patil, also drawn to a sensor assembly mounted to a roof of a vehicle, teaches a heat exchanger (62) for the cooling and/or heating fluid (shown in figure 2, wherein the fins are situated within the fluid channel), the heat exchanger being connected to the thermal channel arrangement (shown in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Krishnan with the sensor module comprising a heat exchanger for the cooling and/or heating fluid, the heat exchanger being connected to the thermal channel arrangement, as taught by Patil, the motivation being to increase heat dissipation of the sensor module in order to prevent degradation or failure of components due to excessive temperature.
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Krishnan further teaches a motor vehicle comprising a roof module according to claim 1 (shown in figure 2 of Krishnan and figure 2 of Patil).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Krishnan further teaches the cooling and/or heating fluid is a gas (“Primary vehicle air ducts 94 connecting to an air management system, e.g., a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”) system of the vehicle 14, may connect to the pod 10”, ¶42 of Krishnan and “The cooling fins 62 may be in the main chamber 38 for cooling by moving air in the main chamber 38” col. 5 ll. 49-51 of Patil).
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Krishnan further teaches each environment sensor comprises a lidar sensor (20) and/or an optical sensor (18).
Regarding Claim 18, Krishnan fails to disclose the thermal channel arrangement is in an open loop, and wherein each thermal channel leads to a separate respective sensor module at a respective thermal channel terminus before leading into ambient air.
Patil, also drawn to a sensor assembly mounted to a roof of a vehicle, teaches the thermal channel arrangement (shown in figure 2, being the individual fluid paths terminating at the respective sensors (60)) is in an open loop (shown in figure 5, wherein air is vented from the channels to atmosphere), and wherein each thermal channel leads to a separate respective sensor module at a respective thermal channel terminus before leading into ambient air (shown in figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Krishnan with the thermal channel arrangement being in an open loop, and wherein each thermal channel leads to a separate respective sensor module at a respective thermal channel terminus before leading into ambient air, as taught by Patil, the motivation being to utilize the air flow to clean the respective sensor module or prevent debris from blocking sensor readings.
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Krishnan further teaches the sensor modules (18, 20) are placed on top of the support structure in respective corner areas and/or edge areas of the roof module (shown in figures 3-4, wherein the sensors (18, 20) are situated on top of the base (22) and located in edge regions or corners).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights