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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 2-7 have poor line quality, and thus do not meet the standards of 37 CFR 1.84(L). See example below. The drawings likely have grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. Drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
PNG
media_image1.png
274
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Numerals 34 and 38 are mentioned in the specification, but are not present in the drawings.
Fig. 7 is not understood. The specification states that “the optical axis 22 of the environment sensor looks at an angle to the direction of travel x” (Page 22, lines 17-18). It is noted that the travel direction “x” is not labeled in Fig. 7. It appears that the direction of travel is likely in the opposite direction of the wind “W.” In that case, the nozzles 24 appear to be located in midair, spaced away from the vehicle. It is unclear if the Fig. 7 view looks downward onto the roof from a position above the roof, or whether some other viewpoint is being used.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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:
The Title is overly wordy. Examiner suggests the following change: Vehicle roof module
Page 1, lines 26-27, the phrase “(e.g., lidar sensors, radar sensors, (multi- )cameras, etc. together with other (electrical) components)” is unclear in its use of double-parenthesis.
Page 21, line 2, it is believed that “might” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 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.
With regard to claim 2, the phrases “toward the front in front of the see-through area” and “toward the front in front of the at least one cleaning nozzle” are unclear. One reason for this lack of clarity is that the antecedent basis for the term “the front” is unclear. The term “the front” may refer to the term “a front, middle area of the roof skin” which is recited in lines 2-3. In that case, the phrase “toward the front” would still be indefinite because “toward” is an ambiguous term that could be taken to mean “proximate” or perhaps “facing” the front.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, these claims each have variations of the problem discussed above with respect to claim 2. For example, claims 3 and 4 use the phrase “toward the rear” which lacks antecedent basis and is unclear for the same reasons discussed above. Appropriate clarification is required for these claims as well.
Additionally, in claims 2-5, the phrases “when viewed in a direction of travel x” and “when viewed along the line of sight of the environment sensor” are unclear. It is unclear if this means that the viewer’s eyes should be actually pointed into the direction of travel while looking from the rear of the car, or while looking from the front of the car. Also, it is unclear if an element is “in front of” the sensor if it is the first thing you see when looking from the perspective of the sensor, or if the element would obscure the sensor when you are looking at the sensor from a different perspective. Additionally, the phrase “when viewed along the line of sight of the environment sensor” can potentially refer to a direction that is opposite to the direction of travel, which may reverse the terms “front” and “rear” relative to what they are when considering the direction of travel. It is suggested that the claims be amended to have a universal directional framework that provides for a clear relative positioning of each element.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Krishnan et al. (US 2022/0089129, hereinafter Krishnan).
With regard to claim 1, Krishnan teaches a roof module (note that the “roof module” is the entire roof assembly pictured in Fig. 2, provided below) for forming a vehicle roof on a motor vehicle, the roof module comprising:
a panel component (128), which at least partially forms a roof skin of the
vehicle roof (see Fig. 2, provided below), the roof skin serving as an outer sealing surface of the roof module (at least in the some portions of the roof not covered by housing 130, the panel component 128 forms the outer sealing surface of the roof module);
at least one environment sensor (106) configured to send and/or receive
electromagnetic signals through a see-through area (i.e. “windows” 112) so as to detect a vehicle environment; and
at least one cleaning nozzle (110) configured to clean the see-through area,
wherein at least one flow guiding element (108) is disposed on the panel component, the flow guiding element being configured to deflect headwind away from the see-through area (note airflow arrows “RA” in Fig. 2 provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
404
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, as best understood, Krishnan discloses that the at least one environment sensor (106), when viewed in the direction of travel x, is disposed in a front, middle, area of the roof skin (note that the front, middle “area” is broadly stated, and cameras 106 meet this broad limitation), and a line of sight of the environment sensor is oriented in the direction of travel (see Fig. 2, provided above, where the left side of the Fig. is the front side of the vehicle), the at least one cleaning nozzle (110), when viewed along the line of sight of the environment senor, is disposed toward the front in front of the see-through area (nozzle 106 is more to the left side of the figure, i.e. in front of the see-through area 112), and the at least one flow guiding element (108), when viewed along the line of sight of the environment senor, is disposed toward the front in front of the at least one cleaning nozzle (deflector 108 is to the left in Fig. 2, i.e. in front of the nozzle 110).
With regard to claims 3-5, as best understood, these claims only refer to a roof module, and not a vehicle (note that the same is true of claim 2 above). Claim 15 requires a vehicle, but claims 2-5 do not. Therefore, any references to a direction of travel in claims 2-5 can be arbitrarily defined. Furthermore, cars can operate in forward and reverse gears, and turn in a great number of directions, thus further diluting the “direction of travel” limitations. See interpretations for each claim below.
PNG
media_image3.png
505
695
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
457
760
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 6, Krishnan teaches that the at least one flow guiding element (108) is disposed on the roof skin in a rigid manner relative to the roof skin (this is the case as shown in Figs. 3 and 4) or formed by the roof skin.
With regard to claim 10, Krishnan teaches that the at least one cleaning nozzle is integrated in the at least one flow guiding element and/or disposed on the at least one flow guiding element (the nozzle 110 is integrated with or disposed on the deflector 108), and/or the at least one flow guiding element at least externally acts as a wind deflector and/or a wind guiding element and/or a spoiler (the deflector 108 acts as a wind deflector and/or a spoiler).
With regard to claim 11, Krishnan teaches that at least part of a housing of the at least one cleaning nozzle serves as the at least one flow guiding element (the housing of the nozzle 110 is the deflector 108, as seen in Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 14, Krishnan teaches that the at least one environment sensor is a lidar sensor and/or a radar sensor and/or a camera sensor and/or a multi-camera sensor (paragraph 0036 teaches at least LIDAR and camera sensors).
With regard to claim 15, Krishnan teaches a motor vehicle comprising a roof module according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1, which shows the entire car).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Jenkins (US 2003/0066909).
With regard to claims 7-9, and 12, Krishnan fails to disclose that a drive is configured to move the at least one flow guiding element between a retracted position
and at least one deployed position, that the drive is activated by the at least one nozzle, and that the drive is hydraulic, pneumatic, or mechanical. Krishnan also fails to disclose that the nozzle is configured to be moved between a retracted and deployed position.
Jenkins discloses a cleaning nozzle device for a vehicle, where a cleaning nozzle (6) and wind deflector (5) are actuated from a retracted (Fig. 1) to a deployed position (Fig. 2) by a drive that is hydraulically operated by the pressure of the cleaning fluid within the nozzle (see paragraph 0018).
PNG
media_image5.png
310
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
310
330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Krishnan such that the nozzle and deflector were movable and actuated hydraulically by the cleaning fluid as taught by Jenkins, in order to provide a cleaner aesthetic appearance when the nozzle is not in use (Jenkins, Paragraph 0006).
With regard to claim 13, Krishnan fails to teach that the at least one cleaning nozzle is disposed outside of a field of view of the environment sensor.
Jenkins teaches that a cleaning nozzle can be positioned outside of the “field of view” of an element to be cleaned (in this case, a headlight), at least in an initial position (i.e. Fig. 1).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Krishnan by making the deflector element 108 and nozzle 110 retractable, as taught by Jenkins, in order to provide a cleaner aesthetic and to provide an unblocked field of view when the nozzle is not in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of the state of the art at the time of filing of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676