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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 3/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are drawn towards newly amended claim language. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103,
Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 including “a roof module for forming a vehicle roof on the motor vehicle, the roof module having a panel component, which at least partly forms a roof skin of the vehicle roof, the roof skin serving as an outer sealing surface, wherein the sensor module being disposed on the panel component and/or comprised by the panel component.”
Applicant contends:
“Claim 11 requires a sensor module according to claim 1. Rakoczi discloses only a generic electronic component. Further, there is no teaching in Rakoczi that the component is a vehicle environment sensor module.” There is no teaching or suggestion in the references related to integration of the components into the as claimed claim 11. Rakoczi does not disclose the sealing nature of the roof skin. Claim 11 requires the sensor module to be disposed on or comprised by a panel component forming a roof skin. In contrast, Rakoczi merely discloses a roof and a flap.” (Remarks of 7/20/2026; pages 8-9)
While Applicant’s points are understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, to address Applicant’s contention that Rakoczi only recites a generic electronic component. Per the Non-Final Rejection of 4/21/2026, paragraph [0014] of Rakoczi makes explicit mention that the term “component” typically refers to electronic components, such as control units, communication units or computing units. However, other components, such as batteries or drive components, can also be considered as “components” within the meaning of the invention; in principle, any vehicle component that heats up.
It is well within the level of ordinary skill to recognize that a vehicle embodied with a plurality of sensors (or “environment sensors” per the instant claim language) is routine and conventional in the art. Evidentiary support for this may be observed at least in part by prior art document US2018/0220555A1 incorporated by reference into Rakoczi’s teachings, which discloses roof mounted sensors of an autonomous vehicle (paragraph 0010 mentions that such sensors may be any sensor mounted to a roof region of a vehicle to provide semi-autonomous or autonomous driving features.).
Addressing Applicant’s contention that Rakoczi does not disclose the sealing nature of the roof skin. The relevant portion of claim 1 recites in part: “a roof module for forming a vehicle roof on the motor vehicle, the roof module having a panel component, which at least partly forms a roof skin of the vehicle roof, the roof skin serving as an outer sealing surface, wherein the sensor module being disposed on the panel component and/or comprised by the panel component.”
Per MPEP 2111.01 and following a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Rakoczi’s disclosure clearly accounts for a “roof module” for forming a vehicle roof on a vehicle. The roof module has a panel component (Figs. 1-4 illustrate “flap” element 4), which at least partly forms a roof skin of the vehicle roof. Rakoczi’s paragraph [0038] discloses that in Fig. 1, the flap 4 is shown in a closed position, in which a flap is flush with the surface of the roof 2. The roof skin serving as an outer sealing surface (See Rakoczi, paragraphs 0021-0022, 0038, which disclose the flap in a closed position such that the flap closes flush with the body of the roof of the vehicle. The sensor module “disposed on” and/or “comprised by” the panel component, (Figs. 1 and 2 of Rakoczi illustrate an electronic component 6 disposed on and/or comprised by the flap 4 insofar as the cooling device 1 is formed via the cooperation of the flap 4 directing airflow across cooling fins 16, which pass a cooling effect to the electronic component 6.
The Examiner notes that any details or limitations pertaining to the nature or construction of said “outer sealing surface” are absent from the claim, enabling a broad interpretation of what may constitute a “seal”. Is a rubber gasket, lining, etc. used to ensure a waterproof seal? Is the construction distinguishing in some way? If there are distinguishing features regarding the seal, the Examiner encourages exploring this as a possible route to overcome the applied prior art.
As is, Rakoczi’s flap 4 can reasonably be interpreted as the claimed “outer sealing surface” since it is shown to exhibit an ability to close so as to be flush with the vehicle roof.
“Claim 7, which depends from claim 6, claims the cover has an IR-reflective layer… The two references relate to different thermal problems. Muller addresses internal heat dissipation from electronics, while Bruce-Wen addresses surface-level solar exposure reduction via coatings. There is no teaching or suggestion in either reference to integrate an IR-reflective layer into Muller’s cooling architecture. Claim 7 requires an IR-reflective layer cooperating with the metallic housing heat-transfer system. Bruce-Wen merely teaches coatings applied to surfaces generally.” (Remarks of 7/20/2026; pages 9-10)
While Applicant’s points are understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the Examiner notes that due to the amendments to claim 1, the combined teachings should be taken with respect to Muller in view of Rakoczi in view of Bruce-Wen.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Bruce-Wen at paragraph [0054] highlights that different colors and surface textures are available and of particular benefit for different structures of a “roof pod assembly” (drawn towards the roof-mounted vehicle sensor system as claimed). Here, Bruce-Wen explicitly recites surfaces of a camera or radar module (environment sensor) may be black with a matte or non-glossy finish. In one scenario, the color scheme for adjoining sensors along the same surface or region of the sensor housing would be the same, e.g., black, even if the sensors are of different types (such as cameras and radar units). However, because darker colors may cause the sensor housing to heat up more than lighter colors, in certain situations the darker colors may be employed on generally vertical surfaces relative to the vehicle while lighter colors (e.g., white or off-white) may be used on generally horizontal surfaces. A thermal coating may be applied to certain surfaces to minimize the thermal load on sensors adjacent to that portion of the housing. Furthermore, thermal coatings to achieve a lower thermal load may be applied to some or all of the horizontal surfaces or other surfaces that tend to have direct or more extended exposure to sunlight. Thus, in some instances infrared (IR) reflective paint may be used, while in other instances IR absorbing paint may be used. Radar transmissive paints or other materials may be used along the surfaces of the radar modules. Furthermore, texture changes to surfaces can be used, as they can significantly reduce direct reflections into a sensor.
Bruce-Wen thus not only teaches/suggests the inventive aspect of including an infrared reflection layer “configured to reduce heat introduced into the sensor module from the outside” (heat imparted onto a roof pod due to a solar load), but does so in a highly-analogous context (a roof-mounted sensor system for an autonomous/self-driving vehicle).
It is a mischaracterization to reduce Bruce-Wen’s teachings as merely “coatings applied to surfaces generally”, when Bruce-Wen specifically addresses applying infrared reflective paint to surfaces of a vehicle sensor housing to reduce a solar load (heat from the outside) on electronic sensing components. The language of the claim simply recites that the “cover has an infrared reflection layer”, with no further details as to how the layer is constituted in, applied on, or otherwise affixed to the cover. Here, the inventive aspect is an infrared reflection layer configured to reduce heat introduced into a sensor module from outside, which Bruce-Wen addresses.
Additionally, in response to this argument, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
See the rejection below for how the cited art in light of new/existing references reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner’s interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 20170070652 A1) (hereinafter Muller) in view of Rakoczi et al. (DE102020202696B4; machine translation provided) (hereinafter Rakoczi).
Regarding claim 1, Muller discloses:
A sensor module for being disposed on a motor vehicle, the sensor module having at least one environment sensor configured to send and/or receive electromagnetic signals for detecting a vehicle environment and [See Muller, ¶ 0028-0030, 0032-0034, Figs. 1-2 disclose an “assistance system” 2 of a vehicle comprising a camera 4, which is discussed as detecting traffic signs (detecting a vehicle environment).]
a sensor housing at least partially surrounding and/or enclosing and/or encasing the at least one environment sensor, [See Muller, Fig. 2 illustrates a housing (elements 12/20/22) which visibly “at least partially” surrounds/encloses/encases the sensor.]
wherein the sensor housing has at least one housing portion made of a metallic material, [See Muller, ¶ 0009, 0010 discloses the camera housing comprises a first cooling body with first cooling fins. The first cooling body is advantageously produced from a thermally conductive material, in particular a metal.]
the housing portion being in heat-transferring connection with the at least one environment sensor, [See Muller, ¶ 0009, 0010 discloses the camera housing comprises a first cooling body with first cooling fins. Each of the first cooling fins comprises a right-angled profile, for example, which is connected by means of a plate, so that the cooling body essentially has a comb-shaped profile. Here, the cooling fins preferably point outwards, so that they at least partially form an outer boundary of the camera housing. The first cooling body is advantageously produced from a thermally conductive material, in particular a metal.]
Muller does not appear to explicitly disclose:
allowing exhaust heat emitted by the environment sensor and heat introduced into the sensor module from outside to be discharged via the at least one housing portion, and
a roof module for forming a vehicle roof on the motor vehicle, the roof module having a panel component, which at least partly forms a roof skin of the vehicle roof, the roof skin serving as an outer sealing surface,
wherein the sensor module being disposed on the panel component and/or comprised by the panel component.
However, Rakoczi discloses:
allowing exhaust heat emitted by the environment sensor and heat introduced into the sensor module from outside to be discharged via the at least one housing portion, and [See Rakoczi, ¶ 0014-0015, 0019, 0021-0023 discloses electronic component, such as control units, communication units, or computing units. It is noted that other components, such as batteries or drive components, can also be considered as "components" within the meaning of the invention; in principle, any vehicle component that heats up; See Rakoczi, Figs. 1 and 2 illustrates an electronic component moved between a retracted position (Fig. 1) and a deployed position (Fig. 2), wherein when the component is in a deployed position, heat is at least discharged along line (9). Further that the flap 4 cooperating with cooling fins 16 enables cooling of heating components in vehicles, and that with such an arrangement of the cooling devices in the body, airflow can be used in the cooling device.]
a roof module for forming a vehicle roof on the motor vehicle, the roof module having a panel component, which at least partly forms a roof skin of the vehicle roof, the roof skin serving as an outer sealing surface, [See Rakoczi, Figs. 1-4 illustrate “flap” element 4 constituting a panel component of a roof module, which at least partly forms a roof skin on a vehicle roof. See Rakoczi, ¶ 0038 discloses that in Fig. 1, the flap 4 is shown in a closed position, in which a flap is flush with the surface of the roof 2. See Rakoczi, ¶ 0021-0022, 0038 discloses that the flap in a closed position such that the flap closes flush with the body of the roof of the vehicle.]
wherein the sensor module being disposed on the panel component and/or comprised by the panel component. [See Rakoczi, Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate an electronic component 6 disposed on and/or comprised by the flap 4 insofar as the cooling device 1 is formed via the cooperation of the flap 4 directing airflow across cooling fins 16, which pass a cooling effect to the electronic component 6.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Muller to add the teachings of Rakoczi in order to selectively open and close a channel to provide heat dissipation and cooling to sensitive vehicle-mounted electronic components.
Regarding claim 2, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Muller discloses:
wherein the at least one housing portion has at least one side wall made of a metallic material, the at least one side wall being in heat-transferring contact with the at least one environment sensor. [See Muller, ¶ 0030-0034, Fig. 2 illustrates cooling body (34); See Muller, ¶ 0009, 0010, 0014 discloses the camera housing comprises a first cooling body with first cooling fins. Each of the first cooling fins comprises a right-angled profile, for example, which is connected by means of a plate, so that the cooling body essentially has a comb-shaped profile. Here, the cooling fins preferably point outwards, so that they at least partially form an outer boundary of the camera housing. The first cooling body is advantageously produced from a thermally conductive material, in particular a metal.]
Regarding claim 3, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Muller discloses:
wherein the at least one housing portion has multiple cooling fins and/or is provided with multiple cooling fins. [See Muller, Fig. 2 illustrates the housing with multiple cooling fins.]
Regarding claim 4, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Muller discloses:
wherein the multiple cooling fins extend essentially parallel to a direction of travel or longitudinally extend at an acute angle relative to the direction of travel, allowing headwind to flow along the cooling fins. [See Muller, Fig. 2 illustrates a vehicle camera capturing images corresponding with a front/forward direction of travel of a vehicle, wherein observably the fins extend parallel to the direction of travel.]
Regarding claim 5, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Muller discloses:
wherein the at least one housing portion fully surrounds and/or encloses the at least one environment sensor. [See Muller, Fig. 2 illustrates the housing (elements 12/20/22) fully surrounds the sensor.]
Regarding claim 6, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Muller discloses:
wherein the sensor housing has at least one cover externally covering and/or canopying and/or capping the at least one environment sensor. [See Muller, Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the sensor housing 22 at least covering/canopying/capping the sensor.]
Regarding claim 8, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Muller discloses:
wherein the at least one cover comprises plastic, preferably polycarbonate. [See Muller, ¶ 0009 discloses the first cooling body is advantageously produced from a thermally conductive material, in particular a metal or a thermally conductive plastic – further, a second cooling body consisting of a plastic which suitably has a comparatively high absorption coefficient. Muller thus suggests a choice of plastic, and one of ordinary skill would recognize the particular choice of plastic as both a matter of design preference and as being routine and conventional in the art.]
Regarding claim 10, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Muller discloses:
wherein the at least one environment sensor comprises a lidar sensor and/or a radar sensor and/or a camera sensor and/or a multi-camera sensor and/or an ultrasonic sensor. [See Muller, ¶ 0006-0009 discloses a camera sensor.]
Regarding claim 12, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Rakoczi discloses:
the roof module being disposed on a vehicle body of the motor vehicle as a structural unit. [See Rakoczi, ¶ 0038 discloses a cooling device integrated into a roof of a vehicle.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Muller discloses:
wherein the at least one side wall is in flat and/or direct heat-transferring contact with the at least one environment sensor. [See Muller, ¶ 0028-0034, Fig. 2 illustrates sidewalls of the housing 12/20/22 in heat-transferring contact with the sensor.]
Regarding claim 14, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Rakoczi discloses:
wherein the at least one housing portion fully surrounds and/or encloses the at least one environment sensor in a flush manner. [See Rakoczi, ¶ 0038 discloses a flap 4 flush with the surface of a roof and a sensor.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 1.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Rakoczi in view of Bruce-Wen et al. (US 20210293932 A1) (hereinafter Bruce-Wen).
Regarding claim 7, Muller in view of Rakoczi discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Muller in view of Rakoczi does not disclose:
wherein the at least one cover has an infrared reflection layer configured to reduce the heat introduced into the sensor module from outside.
However, Bruce-Wen discloses:
wherein the at least one cover has an infrared reflection layer configured to reduce the heat introduced into the sensor module from outside. [See Bruce-Wen, ¶ 0054 discloses that a thermal coating may be applied to certain surfaces to minimize the thermal load on sensors adjacent to that portion of the housing. Furthermore, thermal coatings to achieve a lower thermal load may be applied to some or all of the horizontal surfaces or other surfaces that tend to have direct or more extended exposure to sunlight. Thus, in some instances infrared (IR) reflective paint may be used, while in other instances IR absorbing paint may be used.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Muller in view of Rakoczi to add the teachings of Bruce-Wen in order to thermally treat a surface of a vehicle mounted camera to reduce a thermal load on sensitive electronic components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
