DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Paragraph 0053: The step denoted by reference character 516 is absent from the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0051: The sentences “In addition, the order of the operations may be re-arranged.A process is terminated when its operations are completed” contain a formatting error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It is unclear what is meant when an antenna is designed to “maintain performance under adverse weather conditions,” as stated in the written specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear which “head impact safety standard” the claimed invention should be tested for compliance under. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 20 will be examined on its merits as defined by the specification, that is the “head impact safety standard” is taken to mean the most up to date version of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201U at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 31, it is unclear what is claimed when an antenna is designed to “maintain performance under adverse weather conditions.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stallfort et al (US 20030122405 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stallfort teaches “A vehicle roof assembly comprising:
an outer RF transparent polymer roof panel (roof skin is formed from PC or ASA, which is intrinsically RF transparent, see paragraph 0028); and
an inner substrate assembly including an insulation layer (inner shell is formed of foamed plastic, which is intrinsically insulating, see paragraph 0019) integrated therein.”
Regarding claim 2, Stallfort teaches “The vehicle roof assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is composed of a material selected from a group of materials comprising Polycarbonate (PC), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), and Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA) (roof skin is formed from PC or ASA, see paragraph 0028).”
Regarding claim 8, Stallfort teaches “The vehicle roof assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel and the inner substrate assembly are bonded using an adhesive that allows for deflection of the vehicle roof assembly during an impact (roof panel and substrate are bonded via rubber layer, rubber is intrinsically compliant under deflection forces, see paragraph 0023 and 0025).”
Regarding claim 9, Stallfort teaches “The vehicle roof assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel includes one or more molded rib features and is devoid of an additional metallic roof crossbow (roof frame consists of a thickened portion to support roof panel, lacks metal cross member, see paragraph 0027).”
Regarding claim 10, Stallfort teaches “The vehicle roof assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is dent-resistant and corrosion-resistant (roof skin is formed from PC or ASA, which are both dent and corrosion resistant, see paragraph 0028).”
Regarding claim 11, Stallfort teaches “The vehicle roof assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel and the inner substrate assembly are configured to stroke together through a deflection (roof skin is formed from PC or ASA, which are able to withstand deflection without fracture, see paragraph 0028, inner shell is formed of foamed plastic, which is able to withstand deflection without fracture, see paragraph 0019).”
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berard et al. (US 20190299566 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Berard teaches “A vehicle roof assembly comprising: an outer RF transparent polymer roof panel (lamination interlayer is made of thermoplastic polymer, see paragraph 0012);
and one or more antennae integrated within the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel, wherein the one or more antennae are configured to communicate with external devices without metallic occlusion (antennae may be provided withing the layers of the roof assembly, roof assembly lacks large metal components that would significantly interfere with radio communication, see paragraph 0115).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stallfort et al. (US 20030122405 A1), in view of Berard et al. (US 20190299566 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Stallfort teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, except “further comprising one or more antennae integrated within the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel for communication with an external device.”
However, Berard teaches “further comprising one or more antennae integrated within the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel for communication with an external device (antennae may be layered inside the roof layers, see Berard, paragraph 0115).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the antennae layered inside the roof components as taught by Berard, into the RF transparent polymer roof taught by Stallfort, to enable radio based communication for the vehicle while making use of the large receiving area found on the roof of a vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Stallfort teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, except “wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is pre-populated with one or more electrical components and configured to be installed into a vehicle roof subassembly as a single unit.”
However, Berard teaches “wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is pre-populated with one or more electrical components and configured to be installed into a vehicle roof subassembly as a single unit (diode carrier is populated with a cluster of components before being installed into roof lamina, see Berard, paragraph 0230).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the clustered electronic components as taught by Berard, into the RF transparent polymer roof taught by Stallfort, to facilitate the inclusion of smart components beneficial for the driver of the vehicle, such as lighting elements, inside the roof assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Stallfort in view of Berard teaches “The vehicle roof assembly of claim 4, wherein the one or more electrical components includes an electrical component selected from a group comprising a map light, a microphone, a user-operable switch, a satellite communication component, a speaker, a Bluetooth low energy component, and a processor (diode carrier is populated with a cluster of light emitting diodes before being installed into roof lamina, see Berard, paragraph 0230).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the clustered lighting components as taught by Berard, into the RF transparent polymer roof taught by Stallfort, to facilitate the inclusion of lighting elements to aid with illuminating the interior of the car when in low light conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stallfort et al. (US 20030122405 A1), in view of Motemani et al. (WO 2025016595 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Stallfort teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, except “wherein the inner substrate assembly comprises a wrapped polymer substrate and an insulation layer bonded to the wrapped polymer substrate to enhance thermal and acoustic insulation properties of the vehicle roof assembly.”
However, Motemani teaches “wherein the inner substrate assembly comprises a wrapped polymer substrate and an insulation layer bonded to the wrapped polymer substrate to enhance thermal and acoustic insulation properties of the vehicle roof assembly (aerogel insulation layer is sandwiched between thermoplastic layers, see “Motemani Numbered,” paragraph 55).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a wrapped polymer substrate around an insulation layer as taught by Motemani, into the RF transparent polymer roof taught by Stallfort, to securely bind the insulation foam to the adjacent layers, facilitate proper adhesion and improve insulating properties, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Stallfort teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, except “wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is opaque to reduce solar radiation transmission into a vehicle interior.”
However, Motemani teaches “wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is opaque to reduce solar radiation transmission into a vehicle interior (see “Motemani Numbered,” paragraph 23).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate an opaque layer as taught by Motemani, into the RF transparent polymer roof taught by Stallfort, to shield vehicle occupants from sunlight that may be uncomfortable or distracting, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 12, 17-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard, JR et al. (US 20220289123 A1), in view of Stallfort et al. (US 20030122405 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Howard, JR teaches “A method for assembling a vehicle roof, the method comprising:
providing a roof panel (roof component, see paragraph 0012);
attaching a plurality of mounting brackets to the roof panel (alignment features, see paragraph 0017 and 0022);
aligning the outer roof panel using datum blocks (alignment protrusions, see paragraphs 0018 and 0023); and
securing an inner substrate assembly to the roof panel (roof liners, see paragraphs 0015, 0020, and 0025).”
Howard, JR does not teach “an outer RF transparent polymer roof panel; and an inner substrate assembly comprising integrated insulation.”
However, Stallfort teaches “an outer RF transparent polymer roof panel (roof skin is formed from PC or ASA, which is intrinsically RF transparent, see paragraph 0028); and an inner substrate assembly comprising integrated insulation (inner shell is formed of foamed plastic, which is intrinsically insulating, see paragraph 0019).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches “The method of claim 12, further comprising selecting a material for the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel from a group of materials comprising Polycarbonate (PC), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), and Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA) (roof skin is formed from PC or ASA, see Stallfort, paragraph 0028).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches “The method of claim 12, further comprising applying an adhesive between the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel and the inner substrate assembly to allow for deflection during an impact (roof panel and substrate are bonded via rubber layer, rubber is intrinsically compliant under deflection forces, see paragraph 0023 and 0025).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches “The method of claim 12, further comprising molding one or more rib features into an RF transparent polymer roof devoid of an additional metallic roof crossbow (roof frame consists of a thickened portion to support roof panel, lacks metal cross member, see paragraph 0027).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches “The method of claim 12, further comprising configuring the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel and the inner substrate assembly to stroke together through a deflection (roof skin is formed from PC or ASA, which are able to withstand deflection without fracture, see paragraph 0028, inner shell is formed of foamed plastic, which is able to withstand deflection without fracture, see paragraph 0019).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, Howard, JR, teaches “A vehicle roof assembly kit comprising:
an outer roof panel (roof component, see paragraph 0012);
a plurality of mounting brackets (alignment features, see paragraphs 0017 and 0022);
one or more datum blocks for alignment during assembly (alignment protrusions, see paragraph 0018 and 0023); and
an inner substrate assembly (roof liners, see paragraphs 0015, 0020, and 0025).”
Howard, JR, does not teach “an outer RF transparent polymer roof panel; and an inner substrate assembly comprising integrated insulation.”
However, Stallfort teaches “an outer RF transparent polymer roof panel (roof skin is formed from PC or ASA, which is intrinsically RF transparent, see paragraph 0028); and an inner substrate assembly comprising integrated insulation (inner shell is formed of foamed plastic, which is intrinsically insulating, see paragraph 0019).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly kit as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches “The vehicle roof assembly kit of claim 23, wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is composed of a material selected from a group of materials comprising Polycarbonate (PC), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), and Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA) (roof skin is formed from PC or ASA, see Stallfort, paragraph 0028).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly kit as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard, JR et al. (US 20220289123 A1), in view of Stallfort et al. (US 20030122405 A1), and eCFR Title 49 (published 2024).
Regarding claim 20, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, except “further comprising testing an assembled RF transparent vehicle roof for compliance with a head impact safety standard [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201U as of 06/28/2024].”
However, eCFR Title 49 teaches “testing an assembled vehicle roof for compliance with a head impact safety standard [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201U as of 06/28/2024]. (See eCFR Title 49, page 1)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to test the RF transparent polymer roof panel taught as taught by Stallfort and Howard, JR, under the standards set forth in the eCFR Title 19 document to certify that the roof panel is safe to use on a vehicle and allow the vehicle to be legally sold in the United states, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13 – 15 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard, JR et al. (US 20220289123 A1), in view of Stallfort et al. (US 20030122405 A1) and Berard et al. (US 20190299566 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, except “further comprising integrating one or more antennae within the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel for RF communication.”
However, Berard teaches “further comprising integrating one or more antennae within the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel for RF communication (antennae may be layered inside the roof layers, see Berard, paragraph 0115).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the installation of antennae layered inside the roof components as taught by Berard, into the RF transparent polymer roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, to enable radio based communication for the vehicle while making use of the large receiving area found on the roof of a vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, except “further comprising pre-populating the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel with one or more electrical components and configuring the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel to be installed into a vehicle roof subassembly as a single unit.”
However, Berard teaches “further comprising pre-populating the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel with one or more electrical components and configuring the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel to be installed into a vehicle roof subassembly as a single unit (diode carrier is populated with a cluster of components before being installed into roof lamina, see Berard, paragraph 0230).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the installation of clustered electronic components as taught by Berard, into the RF transparent polymer roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, to facilitate the inclusion of smart components beneficial for the driver of the vehicle, such as lighting elements, inside the roof assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort and Berard, teaches “The method of claim 14, wherein the one or more electrical components includes an electrical component selected from a group comprising a map light, a microphone, a user-operable switch, a satellite communication component, a speaker, a Bluetooth low energy component, and a processor (diode carrier is populated with a cluster of light emitting diodes before being installed into roof lamina, see Berard, paragraph 0230).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the clustered lighting components as taught by Berard, into the RF transparent polymer roof taught by Stallfort, to facilitate the inclusion of lighting elements to aid with illuminating the interior of the car when in low light conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches all the limitations of claim 23, except “further comprising one or more antennae for integration within the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel for communication with an external device.”
However, Berard teaches “further comprising one or more antennae for integration within the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel for communication with an external device (antennae may be layered inside the roof layers, see Berard, paragraph 0115).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly kit as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the antennae layered inside the roof components as taught by Berard, into the RF transparent polymer roof kit taught by Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, to enable radio based communication for the vehicle while making use of the large receiving area found on the roof of a vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches all the limitations of claim 23, except “wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is pre-populated with one or more electrical components and configured to be installed into a vehicle roof subassembly as a single unit.”
However, Berard teaches “wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is pre-populated with one or more electrical components and configured to be installed into a vehicle roof subassembly as a single unit (diode carrier is populated with a cluster of components before being installed into roof lamina, see Berard, paragraph 0230).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly kit as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the clustered electronic components as taught by Berard, into the RF transparent polymer roof kit taught by Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, to facilitate the inclusion of smart components beneficial for the driver of the vehicle, such as lighting elements, inside the roof assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort and Berard, teaches “The method of claim 23, wherein the one or more electrical components includes an electrical component selected from a group comprising a map light, a microphone, a user-operable switch, a satellite communication component, a speaker, a Bluetooth low energy component, and a processor (diode carrier is populated with a cluster of light emitting diodes before being installed into roof lamina, see Berard, paragraph 0230).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly kit as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the clustered lighting components as taught by Berard, into the RF transparent polymer roof kit taught by Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, to facilitate the inclusion of lighting elements to aid with illuminating the interior of the car when in low light conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard, JR et al. (US 20220289123 A1), in view of Stallfort et al. (US 20030122405 A1) and Motemani et al. (WO 2025016595 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, except “further comprising wrapping a polymer substrate of the inner substrate assembly and bonding an insulation layer to a wrapped polymer substrate to enhance thermal and acoustic insulation properties of a vehicle roof assembly.”
However, Motemani teaches “further comprising wrapping a polymer substrate of the inner substrate assembly and bonding an insulation layer to a wrapped polymer substrate to enhance thermal and acoustic insulation properties of a vehicle roof assembly (aerogel insulation layer is sandwiched between thermoplastic layers, see “Motemani Numbered,” paragraph 55).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the installation of a wrapped polymer substrate around an insulation layer as taught by Motemani, into the RF transparent polymer roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, to securely bind the insulation foam to the adjacent layers, facilitate proper adhesion and improve insulating properties, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, except “wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is treated to be opaque to reduce solar radiation transmission into a vehicle interior.”
However, Motemani teaches “wherein the outer RF transparent polymer roof panel is treated to be opaque to reduce solar radiation transmission into a vehicle interior (see “Motemani Numbered,” paragraph 23).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate a RF transparent polymer roof panel and inner substrate comprising insulation as taught by Stallfort, into the roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, to construct a vehicle roof that allows external radio communication with the devices inside without obstructing signals and maintains a sufficient level of acoustic and thermal insulation from its surroundings, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the installation an opaque layer as taught by Motemani, into the RF transparent polymer roof assembly process as taught by Howard, JR, in view of Stallfort, to shield vehicle occupants from sunlight that may be uncomfortable or distracting, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berard et al. (US 20190299566 A1), in view of Jung et al. (US 20260018778 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Berard teaches all the limitations of claim 28 above, except “wherein the one or more antennae are configured to meet specific Field-of-View (FOV) requirements, including a range of 0-30 degrees from a horizon for LTE communication and 75 degrees from zenith for GNSS communication.”
However, Jung et al. teaches “wherein the one or more antennae are configured to meet specific Field-of-View (FOV) requirements, including a range of 0-30 degrees from a horizon (see Jung, Figure 13B) for LTE communication (antenna communication system may be LTE, see Jung paragraph 0125) and 75 degrees from zenith (see Jung, Figure 13B) for GNSS communication (antenna elements may include GNSS antenna, see Jung paragraph 0141).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate an antenna system capable of receiving both LTE and GNSS signals into the RF transparent polymer roof including antennae as taught by Berard, to enable the vehicle to receive wireless data signals such as those for internet access or phone calls and receive navigational data such as those for a GPS system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jung, Figure 13B
Regarding claim 30, Berard in view of Jung teaches “The vehicle roof assembly of claim 28, wherein the one or more antennae are part of an electronic module that consolidates functions selected from a group comprising satellite communication, LTE communication, interior infotainment, and exterior RF communications (antenna module may consolidate GNSS, radio, WIFI, or satellite communication, see Jung paragraph 0141).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate an antenna system capable of receiving both LTE and GNSS signals into the RF transparent polymer roof including antennae as taught by Berard, to enable the vehicle to receive wireless data signals such as those for internet access or phone calls and receive navigational data such as those for a GPS system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references disclose smart roof assemblies for vehicles.
Newcomb et al. (US 20230249752 A1) discloses a vehicle roof with embedded heating elements in a polymer matrix.
Newcomb et al. (US 20230192195 A1) discloses a transparent vehicle roof formed of polymer and composite fibers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JRC/
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights