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 . This office action is in response to an amendment filed on 11/07/2025. Claims 1-27 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/08/2025 & 01/29/2026 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 11/07/2025 are under consideration. Claims 1, 16, and 18 are amended.
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.
Claims 1-8, 13, 15, 16-23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shane et al. (WO2021021516A1) in view of McKendrick et al. (US 11,186,234 B2) and in further view of Kuzdal et al. (US 11,780,381 B2).
Regarding claim 1 Shane teaches A roof mounted sensor pod assembly for a vehicle, having a first lateral side, a second lateral side, and a roof extending between the first lateral side and the second lateral side (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The technology includes a roof pod system (102) for a vehicle configured to operate in one or more partly or fully autonomous self-driving modes. The roof pod system is arranged to sit above the roof of the vehicle (708), for instance at least 10-50 mm above the roof surface. The roof pod may be supported by a set of legs such as cross-rails (312). The roof pod system incorporates various sensors (232) and related equipment to assist with self-driving operation. Some sensors may be arranged in the main housing (302) of the roof pod,” & See Also Pg. 23 – [Fig. 1] (equates to A roof mounted sensor pod assembly for a vehicle, having a first lateral side, a second lateral side, and a roof extending between the first lateral side and the second lateral side as the first quote shows a sensor pod attached to the roof of a vehicle and the figure showing the vehicle containing lateral sides and roof connecting said lateral sides.)) the roof mounted sensor pod assembly comprising: a sensor pod configured to couple to the roof of the vehicle; (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The technology includes a roof pod system (102) for a vehicle…The roof pod system incorporates various sensors (232) and related equipment to assist with self-driving operation.” (equates to the roof mounted sensor pod assembly comprising: a sensor pod configured to couple to the roof of the vehicle as the quote shows the sensor pod being mountable to the roof.)) and a connecting assembly comprising: a vehicle portion integral with the vehicle; (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The roof pod system is arranged to sit above the roof of the vehicle (708), for instance at least I0-50 mm above the roof surface. The roof pod may be supported by a set of legs such as cross-rails (312).” & See Also Pg. 23 – Fig. 1A & See Also Pg. 26 – Fig. 3A (equates to and a connecting assembly comprising: a vehicle portion integral with the vehicle as the cross rails are the portion integral with the vehicle.)) wherein the vehicle portion includes a distal side surface substantially parallel with the first lateral side and the second lateral side and disposed on the first lateral side or the second lateral side (Pg. 24 – Fig. 1B – “102” & See Also Pg. 6 – [0024] – “Fig. 1B illustrates a perspective view of another example passenger vehicle 150, such as a sedan. The passenger vehicles may include various sensors for obtaining information about the vehicle's external environment. For instance, a roof-top housing unit (roof pod) 102 may include a lidar sensor as well as various cameras” & See Also Pg. 26 – Fig. 3A - 312 & see Also Pg. 23 – Fig. 1 (equates to wherein the vehicle portion includes a distal side surface substantially parallel with the first lateral side and the second lateral side and disposed on the first lateral side or the second lateral side as the fact the sensor pod is attached to the roof thus can be a distal side as the roof is the center of the vehicle, and the figure 3 shows the cross bar attachment mounting to the roof wherein this 312 crossbar is parallel to the lateral side to ensure mounting to the vehicle as further shown in fig. 1.)) a sensor pod portion attached to the sensor pod ( Conduit member of sensor pod portion: Pg. 3 – [0003] – “According to one aspect, a conduit member comprising a cabling harness assembly runs wiring and other links between the electrical modules within the roof pod and the main computer or other electrical modules disposed within the vehicle chassis”) coupled to the vehicle portion at the distal side surface of the vehicle portion such that the sensor pod extends distally from the distal side surface, (Pg. 24 – Fig. 1B – “102” & See Also Pg. 11 – [0042] – “the roof pod assembly 300 includes a base section 302 arranged closer to the roof of the vehicle and an upper section 304 sitting above the base section and remote from the vehicle roof.” (equates to coupled to the vehicle portion at the distal side surface of the vehicle portion such that the sensor pod extends distally from the distal side surface as the roof pod assembly is shown to be extending across the roof of the vehicle which is the central side surface or distal side surface of the vehicle. The Assembly is seen to extend both laterally and longitudinally across the distal side surface of the vehicle and thus extends distally as the assembly extends in both directions thus from the center of the assembly.))
Yet fails to teach a sensor pod portion attached to the sensor pod and removably coupled to the vehicle portion, wherein the connecting assembly is configured to allow the sensor pod to be removably coupled to the vehicle and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side,
McKendrick teaches a similar roof mounted sensor pod assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches a sensor pod portion attached to the sensor pod (Socket member of sensor pod portion: Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – lines 32-34 – “fasteners 330 (illustrated in FIGS. 17-22). In these or other embodiments, the leveling assembly 300 may help enable the sensors 150/250 described above to be adjustably mounted to a portion of a vehicle in” & See Also – Pg. 24 – Fig. 23 (equates to the sensor pod portion including a socket as the fasteners on this leveling assembly show a socket (for the fasteners to go through) and be able to adjustably move the sensors when implemented within the leveling assembly.)) and removably coupled to the vehicle portion,(Pg. 36 – Col. 2 – lines 10-13 – “a single removable container (also referred to herein as a "brainbox"). A brainbox may be easily removable and swappable ( e.g., for service and/or repair)”) wherein the connecting assembly is configured to allow the sensor pod to be removably coupled to the vehicle (Pg. 36 – Col. 2- lines 1-2 – “…a roof pod may be coupled to a vehicle via a mounting shim and/or a tripod…” & See Also Pg. 36 – Col. 2 – lines 13-14 – “For example, a brainbox may be removed from a pod” (equates to removably coupled to the vehicle portion as the pod is attached to the vehicle as seen from quote 1 and quote 2 shows how the brain box which is the sensor pod portion of the sensor pod can be removed.))
Yet both fail to teach and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side.
Kuzdal teaches and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side. (Fig. 1 – 16 & See Also Pg. 8 – Col. 3 – lines 41 – 58 – “16 may include conventional mirrors integrated with them as well. First and second displays 18 (shown schematically in FIG. 1) are arranged on each of the driver and passenger sides within the vehicle cab 12 near the A-pillars to display Class II and Class IV views on each side of the vehicle 10… FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate one example camera arm 16. The camera arm 16 includes a housing 22 having a base 24 that is secured to, for example, the cab 12. An arm 26 is supported by the base 24” (equates to and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side, and the mounting of the sensor pod extends from a distal or central location of the vehicle and overhangs beyond the lateral side as seen in fig. 1. As the figure shows the sensor pod extending beyond a first lateral side of the vehicle wherein multiple types of vehicle class II and IV can be viewed within a lateral direction relative the host vehicle.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the assembly disclosed by Shane-McKendrick to include and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side as this allows the sensor pod to have a field of view specifically for the blindside of the vehicle and each side of the vehicle being covered by a designated viewing means.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side as this allows a streamlined assembly that can sense objects and vehicle in any driving direction critical the safety of the passengers and cargo alike.
Regarding claim 2 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following limitations:) The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 1, wherein the vehicle portion includes a frame integral with the vehicle. (Pg. 26 – fig. 4 – 312 & See Also Pg. 11 – [0045] - “The front support member 312 may be affixed adjacent or along the left/right A pillars of the vehicle frame, while the rear support member 312 may be affixed adjacent or along the left/right C ( or D) pillars of the vehicle frame.” (equates to wherein the vehicle portion includes a frame integral with the vehicle as the spec of this application states “A portion (not visible) of the frame 110 is connected to a portion of the vehicle 10. The connection between the frame 110 and the vehicle 10 may be permanent (e.g., welded, molded, adhered, etc.) or removable (e.g., bolted or fastened) and this affixing the support members of this art’s sensor pod to the vehicle frame is the same as having a removable frame integral with the vehicle.))
Regarding claim 3 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following limitations:) The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 2, wherein the sensor pod is a first sensor pod (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “Some sensors may be arranged in the main housing (302) of the roof pod…”) and the connecting assembly is a first connecting assembly, (Pg. 26 – Fig. 3A – 312 & See Also Pg. 1 – Abstract –“ The roof pod may be supported by a set of legs such as cross-rails (312).” (equates to connecting assembly is a first connecting assembly as there are multiple cross rails including a first cross-rail (first connecting assembly). )) wherein the first connecting assembly connecting assembly is a first connecting assembly (Pg. 26 – Fig. 3A – 312 & See Also Pg. 1 – Abstract –“ The roof pod may be supported by a set of legs such as cross-rails (312).” (equates to connecting assembly is a first connecting assembly as there are multiple cross rails including a first cross-rail (first connecting assembly). )) and the first sensor pod are located at a first distal end of the frame, (Pg. 4 – [0024] - “For instance, a roof-top housing unit (roof pod) 102 may include a lidar sensor as well as various cameras (e.g., optical or infrared), radar units, acoustical sensors (e.g., microphone or sonar-type sensor), inertial (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope, etc.) or other sensors (e.g., positioning sensors such as GPS sensors). Housing 104, located at the front end of vehicle 100) assembly further comprising a second sensor pod and a second connecting assembly, (Pg. 26 – Fig. 3A – 312 & See Also Pg. 1 – Abstract –“ The roof pod may be supported by a set of legs such as cross-rails (312).” (equates to a second connecting assembly as there are multiple cross rails including a second cross-rail (second connecting assembly). )) the second connecting assembly (Pg. 26 – Fig. 3A – 312 & See Also Pg. 1 – Abstract –“ The roof pod may be supported by a set of legs such as cross-rails (312).” (equates to a second connecting assembly located at the second end of the distal frame as there are multiple cross rails including a second cross-rail (second connecting assembly) and it located near the rear of the vehicle as seen in Fig. 1A )) and the second sensor pod located at a second distal end of the frame. (Pg. 23 – Fig. 1A & See Also Pg. 6 – [0024] – “As shown, the passenger vehicle 100 also includes housings 108a, 108b for radar units, lidar and/or cameras also located towards the rear roof portion of the vehicle”)
Regarding claim 4 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following limitations:) The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 1, wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more brackets integral with the vehicle. ( Pg. 14 – [0058] – “According to one aspect of the technology, the main framework of the base section for the roof pod is a compression molded SMC (sheet molding compound) structure” & See Also Pg. 15 – [0059] – “In certain areas where for packaging and integration purposes the SMC structure 602 may be weakened by, for example cutting holes in it or reducing the cross-sectional area, this can be compensated for by adding sheet metal aluminum brackets or other reinforcement components that are bolted to the structure using rivet nuts or are otherwise affixed thereto” & See Also [0045] – Pg. 26 – Fig. 4 – 312 & See Also Pg. 39 – Fig. 6a Pg. 11 – [0045] - “The front support member 312 may be affixed adjacent or along the left/right A pillars of the vehicle frame, while the rear support member 312 may be affixed adjacent or along the left/right C ( or D) pillars of the vehicle frame.” (equates to wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more brackets integral with the vehicle as the frame can be integrated with brackets as seen from the second quote and the brackets are then integral to the vehicle as Fig. 4 shows the connection between the pod and vehicle and fig. 6a shows where the SMC structure 602 would integrate into the sensor pod of this art. ))
Regarding claim 5 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following limitations:) The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 4, wherein the sensor pod is a first sensor pod, (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “Some sensors may be arranged in the main housing (302) of the roof pod…”)
Yet fails to teach and wherein the one or more brackets include a first bracket configured to couple to the first sensor pod and a second bracket configured to couple to a second sensor pod.
McKendrick teaches a similar roof mounted sensor pod assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches teach and wherein the one or more brackets include a first bracket configured to couple to the first sensor pod and a second bracket configured to couple to a second sensor pod. (Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – Lines 2-4 – “Further, as illustrated in FIG. 7, pod 110' may include a plurality of units, which may be mechanically coupled together” & See Also – Pg. 8 - Fig. 7 & See Also Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – “the sensors 150/250” (equates to teach and wherein the one or more brackets include a first bracket configured to couple to the first sensor pod and a second bracket configured to couple to a second sensor pod as the fig. 7 shows two bracket each removably attached to the main body and 150 denotes the first and second sensor pods as can be seen from Fig. 7)). It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounted sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane to include wherein the one or more brackets include a first bracket configured to couple to the first sensor pod and a second bracket configured to couple to a second sensor pod as this allows for more modularity between the components and if one sensor pod needs a repair only one of the sensor pods will have to be disconnected and reconnected when fixed rather than both thus lessening the workload upon the repairmen.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and wherein the one or more brackets include a first bracket configured to couple to the first sensor pod and a second bracket configured to couple to a second sensor pod as this allows for a simpler repair to take place when the sensors eventually need repair after their lifespan has elapsed but the vehicle must keep serving it’s intended purpose.
Regarding claim 6 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 5, as previously mapped.
Yet Shane fails to teach an interior sensor pod configured to removably couple to the vehicle between the first bracket and the second bracket.
McKendrick teaches a similar roof mounted sensor pod assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches an interior sensor pod configured to removably couple to the vehicle between the first bracket and the second bracket. (Pg. 8 – Fig. 7 (equates to an interior sensor pod configured to removably couple to the vehicle between the first bracket and the second bracket as the figure shows an interior body housing sensors and shows it is removably coupled in between a left and right bracket.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounted sensor pod disclosed by Shane to include an interior sensor pod configured to removably couple to the vehicle between the first bracket and the second bracket as this make it easily repairable when the interior sensors being used within the roof mounted sensor pod assembly have stopped working and only those components need to be replaced.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an interior sensor pod configured to removably couple to the vehicle between the first bracket and the second bracket as this allows for easy repairs to take place upon the interior sensor pod ensuring time isn’t wasted getting to the parts that need repair and rather time can be efficiently used to make the swaps deemed necessary by the repairmen.
Regarding claim 7 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 1, as previous mapped above.
Yet fails to teach wherein the vehicle portion includes a post and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post.
McKendrick teaches a similar roof mounted sensor pod assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches wherein the vehicle portion includes a post (Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – lines 30-34 – “…adjustment screws 315…and fasteners 330 (illustrated in FIGS. 17-22). In these or other embodiments, the leveling assembly 300 may help enable the sensors 150/250 described above to be adjustably mounted to a portion of a vehicle…” (equates to wherein the vehicle portion includes a post as the fasteners are the post that are integrated to the vehicle and allow for adjustability between the sensor pod and vehicle portion )) and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post. (Pg. 22 – Fig. 21 & See Also Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – lines 30-34 – “…adjustment screws 315…and fasteners 330 (illustrated in FIGS. 17-22). In these or other embodiments, the leveling assembly 300 may help enable the sensors 150/250 described above to be adjustably mounted to a portion of a vehicle…” (equates to and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post as Fig. 21 shows the mount coupling to the sensor pods having a socket ensuring the fasteners of this art equating to the post of this application can be received by the sensor pod ensuring adjustable mounting)). It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounted sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane to include wherein the vehicle portion includes a post and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post as this allows for an easily detachable sensor pod to be integrated into the vehicle body, thus allowing for easier repairs to take place if the sensor pod can be easily removed from the vehicle portion.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the vehicle portion includes a post and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post as allowing an easily attachable and removable way to access the sensor pod ensures an easier time for the repairmen to make adjustments to sensors that have failed.
Regarding claim 8 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 7, as previously mapped.
Yet Shane fails to teach wherein the post extends vertically upward from a ledge extending from the vehicle portion, the post and ledge configured to support the weight of the sensor pod when received within the socket.
McKendrick teaches a similar roof mounted sensor pod assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches wherein the post extends vertically upward from a ledge extending from the vehicle portion, (Pg.37 - Pg. 23 – Fig. 22 & See Also Pg. 37 – lines 26-32 – “…one or more embodiments of the present disclosure. The leveling assembly 300 may include a plate 305, a mount 310,… adjustment screws 315… fasteners 330… ” (equates to post extends vertically upward from a ledge extending from the vehicle portion as the mount 310 (ledge extending from the vehicle portion) is connected to the vehicle and the fasteners (the post) are extending vertically from the mount as seen in Fig. 22 )) the post and ledge configured to support the weight of the sensor pod when received within the socket (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The sensor roof pods are configured to couple to a vehicle. A sensor roof pod may be positioned atop a vehicle proximate a front of the vehicle, proximate a back of the vehicle, or at any position along a top side of the vehicle being coupled, for example, using a mounting shim or a tripod” & See Also Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – lines 30-34 – “…adjustment screws 315…and fasteners 330 (illustrated in FIGS. 17-22). In these or other embodiments, the leveling assembly 300 may help enable the sensors 150/250 described above to be adjustably mounted to a portion of a vehicle…” & See Also Pg. 37 – lines 26-28 – “…one or more embodiments of the present disclosure. The leveling assembly 300 may include a plate 305, a mount 310…” & See Also Pg. 19 – Fig. 18 (equates to the post and ledge configured to support the weight of the sensor pod when received within the socket as the mount of this art or ledge of this application is meant to couple to the vehicle and be rigidly attached thus support the weight of the sensor pod that would be placed within it by use of the posts or fasteners. )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounted sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane to include wherein the post extends vertically upward from a ledge extending from the vehicle portion, the post and ledge configured to support the weight of the sensor pod when received within the socket ensuring the sensor pod can have its weight supported by a ledge and post ensuring no structural damage would occur to the vehicle bearing the sensor pod.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the post extends vertically upward from a ledge extending from the vehicle portion, the post and ledge configured to support the weight of the sensor pod when received within the socket ensuring the sensor pod can be supported by an accompanying post and ledge integral to the vehicle ensuring no damage occurs to the vehicle nor sensor pod from its addition to the vehicle body.
Regarding claim 13 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane discloses the following limitations:) The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 1, the sensor pod further comprising one or more conduits configured to couple to the vehicle 14. (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “Some sensors may be arranged in the main housing (302) of the roof pod…” & See Also Pg. 3 – [0003] – “According to one aspect, a conduit member comprising a cabling harness assembly runs wiring and other links between the electrical modules within the roof pod and the main computer or other electrical modules disposed within the vehicle chassis” (equates to the sensor pod further comprising one or more conduits configured to couple to the vehicle 14 as quote 1 shows the sensor pod being the sensors existing in the main housing and quote 2 shows the conduit coupling to the vehicle from the sensor pod. ))
Regarding claim 15 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet Shane fails to teach wherein the connecting assembly is configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion.
McKendrick teaches a similar roof mounted sensor pod assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches wherein the connecting assembly is configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The sensor roof pods are configured to couple to a vehicle. A sensor roof pod may be positioned atop a vehicle proximate a front of the vehicle, proximate a back of the vehicle, or at any position along a top side of the vehicle being coupled, for example, using a mounting shim or a tripod” & See Also Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – lines 30-34 – “…adjustment screws 315…and fasteners 330 (illustrated in FIGS. 17-22). In these or other embodiments, the leveling assembly 300 may help enable the sensors 150/250 described above to be adjustably mounted to a portion of a vehicle…” & See Also Pg. 37 – lines 26-28 – “…one or more embodiments of the present disclosure. The leveling assembly 300 may include a plate 305, a mount 310…” & See Also Pg. 19 – Fig. 18 (equates to configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion as the mount of this art or ledge of this application is meant to couple to the vehicle and be rigidly attached thus support the weight of the sensor pod that would be placed within it by use of the posts or fasteners. Thus, would be able to support to the weight of the sensor pod during the installation as the vehicle would be configured to drive around with the attachment and would have to support the installation. It would also have to support the weight of itself before the sensor pod is attached as it would have to bear the weight of itself and the sensor pod when in a driving type operation.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounted sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane to include wherein the connecting assembly is configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion ensuring the sensor pod can have its weight supported by a ledge and post ensuring no structural damage would occur to the vehicle bearing the sensor pod.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the connecting assembly is configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion ensuring the sensor pod can be supported by an accompanying post and ledge integral to the vehicle ensuring no damage occurs to the vehicle nor sensor pod from its addition to the vehicle body.
Regarding claim 16 Shane teaches A vehicle comprising: a first lateral side; a second lateral side; a roof extending between the first lateral side and the second lateral side; (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The technology includes a roof pod system (102) for a vehicle configured to operate in one or more partly or fully autonomous self-driving modes. The roof pod system is arranged to sit above the roof of the vehicle (708), for instance at least 10-50 mm above the roof surface. The roof pod may be supported by a set of legs such as cross-rails (312). The roof pod system incorporates various sensors (232) and related equipment to assist with self-driving operation. Some sensors may be arranged in the main housing (302) of the roof pod,” & See Also Pg. 23 – [Fig. 1] ) a windshield; (Pg. 23 – Fig. 1A) and a roof mounted sensor pod assembly coupled to the roof above the windshield (Pg. 23 – Fig. 1A - 102) and comprising: a sensor pod; (Pg. 6 – [0025] – “roof pod 102 also includes an upper section raised above the base section. Each of the base section and upper section may house different sensor units configured to obtain information about objects and conditions in the environment around the vehicle. The roof pod 102 and other sensor housings may also be disposed along vehicle 150 of Fig. 1B.”) and a connecting assembly configured to couple the sensor pod to the vehicle, (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The technology includes a roof pod system (102) for a vehicle…The roof pod system incorporates various sensors (232) and related equipment to assist with self-driving operation.”) the connecting assembly comprising: a vehicle portion integral with the vehicle; (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The roof pod system is arranged to sit above the roof of the vehicle (708), for instance at least I0-50 mm above the roof surface. The roof pod may be supported by a set of legs such as cross-rails (312).” & See Also Pg. 23 – Fig. 1A & See Also Pg. 26 – Fig. 3A (equates to and a connecting assembly comprising: a vehicle portion integral with the vehicle as the cross rails are the portion integral with the vehicle.)) wherein the vehicle portion includes a distal side surface; substantially parallel with the first lateral side and the second lateral side and disposed on the first lateral side or the second lateral side (Pg. 24 – Fig. 1B – “102” & See Also Pg. 6 – [0024] – “Fig. 1B illustrates a perspective view of another example passenger vehicle 150, such as a sedan. The passenger vehicles may include various sensors for obtaining information about the vehicle's external environment. For instance, a roof-top housing unit (roof pod) 102 may include a lidar sensor as well as various cameras” & See Also Pg. 26 – Fig. 3A - 312 & see Also Pg. 23 – Fig. 1 (equates to wherein the vehicle portion includes a distal side surface substantially parallel with the first lateral side and the second lateral side and disposed on the first lateral side or the second lateral side as the fact the sensor pod is attached to the roof thus can be a distal side as the roof is the center of the vehicle, and the figure 3 shows the cross bar attachment mounting to the roof wherein this 312 crossbar is parallel to the lateral side to ensure mounting to the vehicle as further shown in fig. 1.)) the distal side surface of the vehicle portion such that the sensor pod extends distally from the distal side surface (Pg. 24 – Fig. 1B – “102” & See Also Pg. 11 – [0042] – “the roof pod assembly 300 includes a base section 302 arranged closer to the roof of the vehicle and an upper section 304 sitting above the base section and remote from the vehicle roof.” (equates the distal side surface of the vehicle portion such that the sensor pod extends distally from the distal side surface as the roof pod assembly is shown to be extending across the roof of the vehicle which is the central side surface or distal side surface of the vehicle. The Assembly is seen to extend both laterally and longitudinally across the distal side surface of the vehicle and thus extends distally as the assembly extends in both directions thus from the center of the assembly.))
Yet fails to teach a sensor pod portion attached to the sensor pod and removably coupled to the vehicle portion, wherein the connecting assembly is configured to removably couple the sensor pod to the vehicle.
McKendrick teaches a similar roof mounted sensor pod assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches a sensor pod portion attached to the sensor pod (Socket member of sensor pod portion: Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – lines 32-34 – “fasteners 330 (illustrated in FIGS. 17-22). In these or other embodiments, the leveling assembly 300 may help enable the sensors 150/250 described above to be adjustably mounted to a portion of a vehicle in” & See Also – Pg. 24 – Fig. 23 (equates to the sensor pod portion including a socket as the fasteners on this leveling assembly show a socket (for the fasteners to go through) and be able to adjustably move the sensors when implemented within the leveling assembly.)) and removably coupled to the vehicle portion, (Pg. 36 – Col. 2 – lines 10-13 – “a single removable container (also referred to herein as a "brainbox"). A brainbox may be easily removable and swappable ( e.g., for service and/or repair)”) wherein the connecting assembly is configured to removably couple the sensor pod to the vehicle (Pg. 36 – Col. 2- lines 1-2 – “…a roof pod may be coupled to a vehicle via a mounting shim and/or a tripod…” & See Also Pg. 36 – Col. 2 – lines 13-14 – “For example, a brainbox may be removed from a pod” (equates to wherein the connecting assembly is configured to removably couple the sensor pod to the vehicle as seen from quote 1 and quote 2 shows how the brain box which is the sensor pod portion of the sensor pod can be removed.))
Yet both fail to teach and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side.
Kuzdal teaches and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side. (Fig. 1 – 16 & See Also Pg. 8 – Col. 3 – lines 41 – 58 – “16 may include conventional mirrors integrated with them as well. First and second displays 18 (shown schematically in FIG. 1) are arranged on each of the driver and passenger sides within the vehicle cab 12 near the A-pillars to display Class II and Class IV views on each side of the vehicle 10… FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate one example camera arm 16. The camera arm 16 includes a housing 22 having a base 24 that is secured to, for example, the cab 12. An arm 26 is supported by the base 24” (equates to and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side, and the mounting of the sensor pod extends from a distal or central location of the vehicle and overhangs beyond the lateral side as seen in fig. 1. As the figure shows the sensor pod extending beyond a first lateral side of the vehicle wherein multiple types of vehicle class II and IV can be viewed within a lateral direction relative the host vehicle.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the assembly disclosed by Shane-McKendrick to include and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side as this allows the sensor pod to have a field of view specifically for the blindside of the vehicle and each side of the vehicle being covered by a designated viewing means.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side as this allows a streamlined assembly that can sense objects and vehicle in any driving direction critical the safety of the passengers and cargo alike.
Regarding claim 17 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following Limitations:) The vehicle of claim 16, wherein the vehicle is autonomous or semi-autonomous. (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The technology includes a roof pod system (102) for a vehicle configured to operate in one or more partly or fully autonomous self-driving modes”)
Regarding claim 18 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following Limitations:) The vehicle of claim 16, wherein the roof mounted sensor pod assembly is connected to a roof fairing of the vehicle or to a top surface of the roof of the vehicle. (Pg. 23 – Fig. 1A)
Regarding claim 19 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following Limitations:)The vehicle of claim 16, wherein the vehicle portion includes a frame integral with the vehicle. (Pg. 26 – fig. 4 – 312 & See Also Pg. 11 – [0045] - “The front support member 312 may be affixed adjacent or along the left/right A pillars of the vehicle frame, while the rear support member 312 may be affixed adjacent or along the left/right C ( or D) pillars of the vehicle frame.” (equates to wherein the vehicle portion includes a frame integral with the vehicle as the spec of this application states “A portion (not visible) of the frame 110 is connected to a portion of the vehicle 10. The connection between the frame 110 and the vehicle 10 may be permanent (e.g., welded, molded, adhered, etc.) or removable (e.g., bolted or fastened) and this affixing the support members of this art’s sensor pod to the vehicle frame is the same as having a removable frame integral with the vehicle.))
Regarding claim 20 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following Limitations:)The vehicle of claim 19, wherein the sensor pod comprises a plurality of sensor pods, (Pg. 6 – [0025] – “roof pod 102 also includes an upper section raised above the base section. Each of the base section and upper section may house different sensor units configured to obtain information about objects and conditions in the environment around the vehicle. The roof pod 102 and other sensor housings may also be disposed along vehicle 150 of Fig. 1B.”) each of the plurality of sensor pods removably coupled to the frame.
Yet Shane fails to teach each of the plurality of sensor pods removably coupled to the frame.
McKendrick teaches a similar roof mounted sensor pod assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches each of the plurality of sensor pods removably coupled to the frame (Pg. 8 – Fig. 7 (equates to each of the plurality of sensor pods removably coupled to the frame as the figure shows the pods fixed to the brackets being detachable.)). It would have been an advantageous addition to the vehicle disclosed by Shane to include each of the plurality of sensor pods removably coupled to the frame as this allows for easy repairs to take place on only the pods that need repairing rather than having to take apart the whole system for a single repair.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include each of the plurality of sensor pods removably coupled to the frame ensuring the repairmen has an easier and more efficient time making necessary repairs to the respective sensor pods.
Regarding claim 21 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following Limitations:) The vehicle of claim 16, wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more brackets integral with the vehicle. ( Pg. 14 – [0058] – “According to one aspect of the technology, the main framework of the base section for the roof pod is a compression molded SMC (sheet molding compound) structure” & See Also Pg. 15 – [0059] – “In certain areas where for packaging and integration purposes the SMC structure 602 may be weakened by, for example cutting holes in it or reducing the cross-sectional area, this can be compensated for by adding sheet metal aluminum brackets or other reinforcement components that are bolted to the structure using rivet nuts or are otherwise affixed thereto” & See Also [0045] – Pg. 26 – Fig. 4 – 312 & See Also Pg. 39 – Fig. 6a Pg. 11 – [0045] - “The front support member 312 may be affixed adjacent or along the left/right A pillars of the vehicle frame, while the rear support member 312 may be affixed adjacent or along the left/right C ( or D) pillars of the vehicle frame.” (equates to wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more brackets integral with the vehicle as the frame can be integrated with brackets as seen from the second quote and the brackets are then integral to the vehicle as Fig. 4 shows the connection between the pod and vehicle and fig. 6a shows where the SMC structure 602 would integrate into the sensor pod of this art. ))
Regarding claim 22 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches (Shane Discloses the following Limitations:)The vehicle of claim 21, wherein the sensor pod comprises a plurality of sensor pods, (Pg. 6 – [0025] – “roof pod 102 also includes an upper section raised above the base section. Each of the base section and upper section may house different sensor units configured to obtain information about objects and conditions in the environment around the vehicle. The roof pod 102 and other sensor housings may also be disposed along vehicle 150 of Fig. 1B.”) each of the plurality of sensor pods removably coupled a respective bracket of the one or more brackets.
Regarding claim 23 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The vehicle of claim 16, as previously mapped above.
Yet Shane fails to teach wherein the vehicle portion includes a post and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post
McKendrick discloses a similar roof mounted sensor assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches wherein the vehicle portion includes a post (Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – lines 30-34 – “…adjustment screws 315…and fasteners 330 (illustrated in FIGS. 17-22). In these or other embodiments, the leveling assembly 300 may help enable the sensors 150/250 described above to be adjustably mounted to a portion of a vehicle…” (equates to wherein the vehicle portion includes a post as the fasteners are the post that are integrated to the vehicle and allow for adjustability between the sensor pod and vehicle portion )) and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post. (Pg. 22 – Fig. 21 & See Also Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – lines 30-34 – “…adjustment screws 315…and fasteners 330 (illustrated in FIGS. 17-22). In these or other embodiments, the leveling assembly 300 may help enable the sensors 150/250 described above to be adjustably mounted to a portion of a vehicle…” (equates to and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post as Fig. 21 shows the mount coupling to the sensor pods having a socket ensuring the fasteners of this art equating to the post of this application can be received by the sensor pod ensuring adjustable mounting)). It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounted sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane to include wherein the vehicle portion includes a post and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post as this allows for an easily detachable sensor pod to be integrated into the vehicle body, thus allowing for easier repairs to take place if the sensor pod can be easily removed from the vehicle portion.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the vehicle portion includes a post and the sensor pod portion includes a socket, the socket configured to receive the post as allowing an easily attachable and removable way to access the sensor pod ensures an easier time for the repairmen to make adjustments to sensors that have failed.
Regarding claim 27 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The vehicle of claim 16, as previously mapped above.
Yet Shane fails to teach wherein the connecting assembly is configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion.
McKendrick teaches a similar roof mounted sensor pod assembly (abstract). McKendrick teaches wherein the connecting assembly is configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The sensor roof pods are configured to couple to a vehicle. A sensor roof pod may be positioned atop a vehicle proximate a front of the vehicle, proximate a back of the vehicle, or at any position along a top side of the vehicle being coupled, for example, using a mounting shim or a tripod” & See Also Pg. 37 – Col. 4 – lines 30-34 – “…adjustment screws 315…and fasteners 330 (illustrated in FIGS. 17-22). In these or other embodiments, the leveling assembly 300 may help enable the sensors 150/250 described above to be adjustably mounted to a portion of a vehicle…” & See Also Pg. 37 – lines 26-28 – “…one or more embodiments of the present disclosure. The leveling assembly 300 may include a plate 305, a mount 310…” & See Also Pg. 19 – Fig. 18 (equates to configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion as the mount of this art or ledge of this application is meant to couple to the vehicle and be rigidly attached thus support the weight of the sensor pod that would be placed within it by use of the posts or fasteners. Thus, would be able to support to the weight of the sensor pod during the installation as the vehicle would be configured to drive around with the attachment and would have to support the installation. It would also have to support the weight of itself before the sensor pod is attached as it would have to bear the weight of itself and the sensor pod when in a driving type operation.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounted sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane to include wherein the connecting assembly is configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion ensuring the sensor pod can have its weight supported by a ledge and post ensuring no structural damage would occur to the vehicle bearing the sensor pod.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the connecting assembly is configured to support the weight of the sensor pod during installation of the sensor pod and prior to securing of the sensor pod to the vehicle portion ensuring the sensor pod can be supported by an accompanying post and ledge integral to the vehicle ensuring no damage occurs to the vehicle nor sensor pod from its addition to the vehicle body.
Claims 9, 10, 14, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shane, McKendrick and Kuzdal as applied above, and further in view of Stoeckl (DE102021107167B3)
Regarding claim 9 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 7, as mapped above.
Yet both fail to teach wherein the post and the socket are configured to operate as an axle to allow rotation of the sensor pod with respect to the vehicle portion.
Stoeckl teaches a similar vehicular mounted sensor module (Abstract). Stoeckl teaches wherein the post and the socket are configured to operate as an axle to allow rotation of the sensor pod with respect to the vehicle portion (Pg. 4 – [0015] – “Since the sensor module can be pivoted about the vehicle's vertical axis within the receptacle, turning the screw element screwed into the guide element clockwise or counterclockwise pivots the sensor module about the vehicle's vertical axis” & See Also Pg. 3 – [0009] – “An adjustment device for adjusting a position of a sensor module within a receptacle formed in a vehicle part…” (equates to wherein the post and the socket are configured to operate as an axle to allow rotation of the sensor pod with respect to the vehicle portion as the screw or post allows for rotatable adjustments to be made within the receptacle or socket for the sensor pod of this art to operate as an axle letting the sensor pod rotate with respect to the vehicle)). It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounted sensor assembly disclosed by Shane-McKendrick to include the post and the socket are configured to operate as an axle to allow rotation of the sensor pod with respect to the vehicle portion as this allows for more robust adjustability between the sensor pod and vehicle allowing for multiple orientations to be attained as well as adjustments to be made to the sensor ensuring proper positioning for detection after installation.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the post and the socket are configured to operate as an axle to allow rotation of the sensor pod with respect to the vehicle portion as this allows for the sensor to be positioned precisely depending on the vehicle it is installed within allowing for more vehicles to be configured to work with this same roof mounted sensor assembly.
Regarding claim 10 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 1, as previously mapped.
Yet both fail to teach wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks.
Stoeckl teaches a similar vehicular mounted sensor module (Abstract). Stoeckl teaches wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks. (Pg. 9 - (Original Document) – Fig. 2 & See Also Pg. 4 – [0021] – “In an advantageous embodiment, the second locking device has at least two second snap hooks, which have a receiving groove for the positively receiving the section of the sensor module. This enables secure attachment of the coupling element to the sensor module”).
Stoeckl does not explicitly teach the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks as the hooks are on the sensor pod of this art and the opening is configured to be included in the vehicle portion. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to swap the hooks to be incorporated into the vehicle portion and the opening in the sensor pod portion as there’s a limited number of arrangements (See MPEP 2143 (I)(E) - "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;), being two, in which the hooks and openings can have been placed reversibly on the opposite portion of the sensor mounting assembly. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A) “REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS”. It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounting sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane-McKendrick to include wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks as this allows for a strong connection to be made between the sensor pod and vehicle portion and still allow for detachability and easy repairs to be made upon the sensor pod when needed.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks as this allows for the sensor pod to be rigidly attached to the vehicle portion during installation.
Regarding claim 14 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet both fail to teach wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion.
Stoeckl teaches a similar vehicular mounted sensor module (Abstract). Stoeckl teaches wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion. (Pg. 5 – [0026] – “Advantageously, the sensor module has projections that engage in recesses in the receptacle, which enable guided rotation about the rotational axis to adjust the position of the sensor module.” & See Also Pg. 3 – [0009] – “An adjustment device for adjusting a position of a sensor module within a receptacle formed in a vehicle part…” (equates to wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion as the adjustment device of this art allows for the sensor pod to be rotatably adjusted relative to the receptacle of the vehicle portion portion.)). It would have been an advantageous addition to roof mounted sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane-McKendrick to include wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion as this allows for precise placement of the sensor pod ensures the data is collected to a precisely oriented sensor pod.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion as this allows for a variety of positions for the sensor pod to be placed within and allows for adjustability even after the sensor pod is coupled to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 24 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The vehicle of claim 16, as previously mapped above.
Yet both fail to teach wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks.
Stoeckl teaches a similar vehicular mounted sensor module (Abstract). Stoeckl teaches wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks. (Pg. 9 - (Original Document) – Fig. 2 & See Also Pg. 4 – [0021] – “In an advantageous embodiment, the second locking device has at least two second snap hooks, which have a receiving groove for the positively receiving the section of the sensor module. This enables secure attachment of the coupling element to the sensor module”).
Stoeckl does not explicitly teach the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks as the hooks are on the sensor pod of this art and the opening is configured to be included in the vehicle portion. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to swap the hooks to be incorporated into the vehicle portion and the opening in the sensor pod portion as there’s a limited number of arrangements (See MPEP 2143 (I)(E) - "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;), being two, in which the hooks and openings can have been placed reversibly on the opposite portion of the sensor mounting assembly. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A) “REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS”. It would have been an advantageous addition to the roof mounting sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane-McKendrick to include wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks as this allows for a strong connection to be made between the sensor pod and vehicle portion and still allow for detachability and easy repairs to be made upon the sensor pod when needed.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the vehicle portion includes one or more hooks and the sensor pod portion includes one or more openings, the one or more openings configured to receive the hooks as this allows for the sensor pod to be rigidly attached to the vehicle portion during installation.
Regarding claim 26 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The vehicle of claim 16, as previously mapped above.
Yet both fail to teach wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion.
Stoeckl teaches a similar vehicular mounted sensor module (Abstract). Stoeckl teaches wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion. (Pg. 5 – [0026] – “Advantageously, the sensor module has projections that engage in recesses in the receptacle, which enable guided rotation about the rotational axis to adjust the position of the sensor module.” & See Also Pg. 3 – [0009] – “An adjustment device for adjusting a position of a sensor module within a receptacle formed in a vehicle part…” (equates to wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion as the adjustment device of this art allows for the sensor pod to be rotatably adjusted relative to the receptacle of the vehicle portion portion.)). It would have been an advantageous addition to roof mounted sensor pod assembly disclosed by Shane-McKendrick to include wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion as this allows for precise placement of the sensor pod ensures the data is collected to a precisely oriented sensor pod.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the sensor pod portion is rotatably coupled or slidably coupled to the vehicle portion as this allows for a variety of positions for the sensor pod to be placed within and allows for adjustability even after the sensor pod is coupled to the vehicle.
Claims 11, 12, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal as applied above, and further in view of Kawashima (US 7,240,555 B2).
Regarding claim 11 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet all Shane-McKendrick fail to teach wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial.
Kawashima teaches a similar sensor pod (abstract). Kawashima teaches wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial. (Pg. 11 – “FIG. 7A is a diagram showing a state before rotation of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus relative to the holding member; FIG. 7B is a diagram showing a state after rotation of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus;” & See Also Pg. 1 – Abstract – “of a holding member at a first angular position of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus when the ultrasonic sensor apparatus is axially installed to the holding member… then the sensor apparatus is rotated to a second angular position to release engagement between the rest of the engaging portions of the sensor apparatus and the rest of the engaging portions of the holding member. Thereafter, the sensor apparatus is axially pulled away from the holding member to uninstall the sensor apparatus from the holding member”) & See Also
PNG
media_image1.png
889
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(equates to wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial as the figures show the rotation of the sensor assembly and how there’s a position where the axes are aligned in fig. 7a which corresponds to installation and fig. 7b where the axes are misaligned which corresponds to the detachment and thus the central longitudinal axes have each claimed configuration.). It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Shane-McKendrick to include wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial as this allows for the connecting assembly to allow the sensor pod to be easily installed and uninstalled.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial as the technician working upon the sensor pod can easily move the sensor pod into multiple positions allowing for easy removal and diagnosis thus reducing the time spent uninstalling and reinstalling a cumbersome sensor pod back to the vehicle once the necessary repairs are made.
Regarding claim 12 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The roof mounted sensor pod assembly of claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet all Shane-McKendrick fail to teach wherein the sensor pod is configured to rotate between an uninstalled position and an installed position.
Kawashima teaches a similar sensor pod (abstract). Kawashima teaches wherein the sensor pod is configured to rotate between an uninstalled position and an installed position (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “of a holding member at a first angular position of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus when the ultrasonic sensor apparatus is axially installed to the holding member… then the sensor apparatus is rotated to a second angular position to release engagement between the rest of the engaging portions of the sensor apparatus and the rest of the engaging portions of the holding member. Thereafter, the sensor apparatus is axially pulled away from the holding member to uninstall the sensor apparatus from the holding member”). It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Shane-McKendrick to include wherein the sensor pod is configured to rotate between an uninstalled position and an installed position as this allows for an easy installation and detachment from the vehicle when repairs are needed on the sensor pod.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the sensor pod is configured to rotate between an uninstalled position and an installed position as this lessens the time it takes for installation and detachment between the sensor pod and vehicle thus easing the burden placed on the repairmen during the operation freeing the worker to do more with his time than spend it uninstalling and reinstalling the sensor pod.
Regarding claim 25 Shane-McKendrick-Kuzdal teaches The vehicle of claim 16, as previously mapped above.
Yet all Shane-McKendrick fail to teach wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial.
Kawashima teaches a similar sensor pod (abstract). Kawashima teaches wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial. (Pg. 11 – “FIG. 7A is a diagram showing a state before rotation of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus relative to the holding member; FIG. 7B is a diagram showing a state after rotation of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus;” & See Also Pg. 1 – Abstract – “of a holding member at a first angular position of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus when the ultrasonic sensor apparatus is axially installed to the holding member… then the sensor apparatus is rotated to a second angular position to release engagement between the rest of the engaging portions of the sensor apparatus and the rest of the engaging portions of the holding member. Thereafter, the sensor apparatus is axially pulled away from the holding member to uninstall the sensor apparatus from the holding member”) & See Also
PNG
media_image1.png
889
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(equates to wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial as the figures show the rotation of the sensor assembly and how there’s a position where the axes are aligned in fig. 7a which corresponds to installation and fig. 7b where the axes are misaligned which corresponds to the detachment and thus the central longitudinal axes have each claimed configuration.). It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Shane-McKendrick-Stoeckl to include wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial as this allows for the connecting assembly to allow the sensor pod to be easily installed and uninstalled.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein each of the sensor pod and the vehicle portion has a longitudinal, centerline axis, and wherein the sensor pod has a first position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are misaligned and a second position where the longitudinal, centerline axes are aligned and coaxial as the technician working upon the sensor pod can easily move the sensor pod into multiple positions allowing for easy removal and diagnosis thus reducing the time spent uninstalling and reinstalling a cumbersome sensor pod back to the vehicle once the necessary repairs are made.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-27 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 1-2, “On page 2, the Office Action rejects claims 1-8, 13, 15, 16-23 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over International Application Publication No. WO-2021/021516 to Shane et al. (hereinafter "Shane") in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,186,234 to McKendrick et al. (hereinafter "McKendrick"). The Applicant traverses the rejection.
As agreed to during the examiner interview, Shane and McKendrick fail to disclose or render obvious "sensor pod extends distally from the distal side surface and distally beyond the first lateral side or the second lateral side such that the sensor pod has a field of view of the first lateral side or the second lateral side" as recited in amended claims 1 and 16.
Therefore, claims 1 and 16, and the claims depending respectively therefrom, are patentable over the combination of Shane and McKendrick. Withdrawal of the rejection is requested. ” - Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 & 16 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.
Applicant argues on page 2, “On page 19, the Office Action rejects claims 9, 10, 14, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shane in view of McKendrick and further in view of German Patent Publication No. DE102021107167 to Stoeckl (hereinafter "Stoeckl"). The Applicant traverses the rejection. Claims 9, 10, 14, 24, and 26 depend from claims 1 and 16, respectively, and Stoeckl fails to remedy the deficiencies of Shane and McKendrick. Accordingly, claims 9, 10, 14, 24, and 26 are patentable for at least the same foregoing reasons. Withdrawal of the rejection is requested.” - As to point (b) see point (a)
Applicant argues on page 2, “On page 24, the Office Action rejects claims 11, 12, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shane in view of McKendrick as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,240,555 to Kawashima (hereinafter "Kawashima"). The Applicant traverses the rejection. Claims 11, 12, and 25 depend from claims 1 and 16, respectively, and Kawashima fails to remedy the deficiencies of Shane and McKendrick. Accordingly, claims 11, 12, and 25 are patentable for at least the same foregoing reasons. Withdrawal of the rejection is requested.” - As to point (c) see point (a)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Higashimachi (US20220203904) – “A vehicle sensor attaching structure in which a plurality of kinds of external sensors for detecting an external condition of a vehicle is attached on a roof of the vehicle, the vehicle sensor attaching structure including: a common sensor unit that is fixed to the roof of the vehicle and to which at least one kind of the external sensor is attached; and an option sensor unit that is attachable to the common sensor unit in at least two directions of a vehicle left side, a vehicle right side…”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
2/19/26