DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Velasco (US 2020/0216034).
Velasco discloses a vehicle roof module (30,48,50) forming a vehicle roof on a motor vehicle (32), as shown in Figure 1. The roof module (30,48,50) has a panel component (30,48,50) whose outer surface forms at least sections of a roof skin (30,48,50), as shown in Figure 1. The roof skin (30,48,50) acts as an outer sealing surface of the roof module (30,48,50), as shown in Figure 1. The roof module (30,48,50) has at least one environment sensor (42) which sends and receives electromagnetic signals for charting the vehicle environment via a see-through area (36) and having at least one cleaning apparatus (38), as shown in Figures 1-5. The cleaning apparatus (38) cleans the see through area (36), as disclosed in paragraph [0022]. The cleaning apparatus (38) comprises essentially oblong nozzle bodies (68,70,78), each having a plurality of ejection nozzles (40,72,80), as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 2, each nozzle body (68,70,78) is essentially tube or hose shaped having a hollow cross section, as shown in Figure 4 and disclosed in paragraph [0034].
In reference to claim 3, each nozzle body (68,70,78) has a plurality of holes or slits (40,72,80), as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
In reference to claim 4, each ejection nozzle (40,72,80) is oriented essentially in the same or different direction in relation to the see through area (36), as shown in Figure 2C. The nozzles are spaced along the tube/nozzle body, as shown in Figure 4, which wraps around the see through area, as shown in Figure 2C.
In reference to claim 6, the nozzle body(68,70,78) has a plurality of ejection nozzles (40,72,80) oriented in a manner in relation to the see-through area that an air current strikes the see through area from the outside along a movement direction. The ejection nozzles wrap completely around the see through area (36), as shown in Figure 2C. Some of the ejection nozzles are oriented in the claimed manner.
In reference to claim 7, the panel component (30,48,50) has an essentially oblong guide channel in front of the see through area (36) and formed between rails (52), as shown in Figure 3. The guide channel is offset rearward in the direction of an interior with respect to the outer surface of the roof skin (30,48,50) and is configured for at least partially receiving the at least one nozzle body (68,70,78), as shown in Figures 1-3.
In reference to claim 8, the guide channel is inserted in the roof skin (30,48,50) in the manner of a groove or channel, as shown in Figure 3.
In reference to claim 9, the nozzle body (68,70,78) is pivotable in the guide channel about axis (A) in the guide channel, as disclosed in paragraphs [0030] and [0032].
In reference to claims 10 and 11, the claims further limit only one of the options of claim 1 without claiming that it must be present. Anything that meets one of the alternatives of claim 1 meets this limitation without having the flow guiding contour. References that disclose these features are located on the attached PTO 892.
In reference to claim 12, the nozzle body (68,70,78) is integrated in a support body (38), as shown in Figures 3-5.
In reference to claim 15, the environment sensor (42) is a lidar sensor, as disclosed in paragraph [0028].
In reference to claim 17, a vehicle has the roof module of claim 1, as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 18, the cleaning apparatus (38) is connected to a fan of the compressor via a supply line (76), as shown in Figure 4 and disclosed in paragraph [0039]. Air current generated by the fan is ejected from the ejection nozzle (80) for purpose of cleaning and de-icing the see through area (36).
In reference to claim 19, the fan is comprised in the roof module or in an air conditioning system, as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 20, the cleaning apparatus comprises several supply lines (64,66,76) for different cleaning fluids, as disclosed in paragraphs [0034] and [0040].
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velasco et al. (US 2020/0216034) in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2019/0278078).
Velasco et al. discloses a supply line (76) of the cleaning apparatus interacts in such a manner with the environment sensor (42) that waste heat of a component is dissipated via the supply line (76) and heats a cleaning fluid flowing via the supply line (76), as disclosed in paragraph [0040].
However, Velasco et al. does not explicitly state the component is the environment sensor.
Krishnan et al. teaches using waste heat from a environment sensor (26) to heat cleaning air for the see through area (20), as shown in Figure 5 and disclosed in paragraph [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the waste heat from the environment sensor to heat the supply line of Velasco et al., as taught by Krishnan et al. with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a simple and effective way to cool the sensor and use warm air to clean the see through area in a compact module to reduce cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13, and 14 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the rejection of claim 1 by stating Velasco does not have any “flow guiding contours”. Claim 1 states “the cleaning apparatus comprises an essentially oblong nozzle body having a plurality of ejection nozzles and/or a flow guiding contour”, so claim 1 requires a plurality of ejection nozzles OR a flow guiding contour. Velasco has a plurality of ejection nozzles so Velasco does not need to disclose a flow guiding contour to meet the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant has argued the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 by stating Velasco does not disclose a deliberately guided airflow directed along a defined movement direction toward the see-through area, but instead Velasco merely provides a general spray or air distribution. In reference to claim 4, Velasco discloses the nozzles. The claim requires each nozzle to be oriented in the same or different direction. The nozzles of Velasco are oriented in the same or different direction. In reference to claim 6, Velasco discloses airflow directed to strike the see-through area from the outside. Applicant has not stated how Velasco does not meet specific claim limitations.
The applicant has argued the rejection of claims 10 and 11 by stating the limitations are a required structural limitation, not an alternative. The claims depend from claim 1. Claim 1 claims “ejection nozzles and/or a flow guiding contour”. Claims 10 and 11 only limit the flow guiding contour without requiring the and/or limitation from claim 1 to include the flow guiding contour. The result is claim 10 requires ejection nozzles or a flow guiding contour with the additional limitations of claim 10. Claim 11 is read the same way. Amending claims 10 and 11 to include the limitation --the cleaning apparatus comprises the flow guiding contour—would overcome this issue. However, references were previously provided that disclose flow guiding contours so the limitations could be rejected by art if applicant amends the claims in this manner.
Applicant has argued the rejection of claim 16 by stating Krishnan provide no clear rationale to specifically use the environment sensor as a heat source within Velasco’s system. The applicant has stated the office action does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Velasco to meet the claim limitation. The proposed modification would require specific thermal coupling and routing of the supply line relative to the environmental sensor. Velasco already knows how to transport and use waste heat to heat the cleaning fluid flowing via the supply line, as disclosed in paragraph [0040]. Krishnan teaches using the environmental sensor as the heat source of the waste heat to heat cleaning fluid, as disclosed in paragraph [0055]. The applicant has stated the rationale is generic. Cooling the environmental sensor maintains the sensor’s temperature in an optimal range, as taught by Krishnan in paragraph [0030]. The benefits of using warm air to clean the see through area is discussed, see Velasco in paragraph [0052] and Krishnan in paragraph [0030]. The rationale in the rejection is from the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to claims 5, 13, and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 5, 13, and 14 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights