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 § 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 1-11 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 1, the claim recites in part: the cooling component being configured to dissipate waste heat generated by the environment sensor and/or environment heat supplied to the sensor module from the exterior of the sensor module from the sensor module and/or from the environment sensor. The first component part being movable in such a manner with respect to the second component part that the cooling component provides a smaller cooling surface and/or a smaller cooling volume in the retracted position than in the extracted position.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites in part: the first component part engages at least partially in the second component part or at least partially surrounds the second component part in order to thus provide the smaller cooling surface and/or the smaller cooling volume than in the extracted position.
The Examiner notes that the above "and/or" language opens the claims to indefinite interpretations.
Claims 3-10 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 1.
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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. (US 2023/0001890) in view of Rakoczi et al. (DE 10 2020 202 696).
Reg. Cl. 1, Davidson et al. discloses; A sensor module comprising: a sensor
viewing area, an environment sensor, which is configured for charting a vehicle environment through the sensor viewing area, and a cooling element (310) having one or more cooling components wherein the cooling component has a first component part and a second component part (Paragraph [0065]), the cooling component being configured to dissipate waste heat generated by the environment sensor and/or environment heat supplied to the sensor module from the exterior of the sensor module from the sensor module and/or from the environment sensor, the environment sensor being disposed on the sensor module so as to be movable between a retracted position and an extracted position.
Davidson et al. fails to disclose; however, Rakoczi teaches the first component part (17) being movable in such a manner with respect to the second component part (16) that the cooling component provides a smaller cooling surface and/or a smaller cooling volume in the retracted position than in the extracted position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davidson et al’s sensor module for vehicles with Rakoczi’s first component part being movable in such a manner with respect to the second component part that the cooling component provides a smaller cooling surface and/or a smaller cooling volume in the retracted position than in the extracted position.
Doing so would provide an effective and efficient means of dissipating heat from the sensor module.
Reg. Cl. 2, Davidson et al. as modified by Rakoczi et al teaches
wherein the first component part is movable in such a manner with respect to the second component part that, when in the retracted position, the first component part engages at least partially in the second component part or at least partially surrounds the second component part in order to thus provide the smaller cooling surface and/or the smaller cooling volume than in the extracted position.
Reg. Cls. 3 and 5, Davidson et al. as modified by Rakoczi et al. teaches wherein
the first component part is formed to be complementary to the second component part, and wherein the first component part is extractable and retractable with respect to the second component part.
Reg. Cl. 4, Davidson et al. discloses; wherein the first component part is
disposed directly or indirectly on the environment sensor and is thus extractable and retractable with the environment sensor, the second component part being disposed on an immovable casing or on an immovable support component of the sensor module.
Reg. Cl. 6, Davidson et al. discloses; wherein the cooling component has a heat
exchanger.
Reg. Cl. 9, Davidson et al. discloses; wherein the cooling component has a
cooling channel, the first component part having a cooling channel base, and the second component part having a cooling channel lid.
Reg. Cl. 10, Davidson et al. as modified by Rakoczi et al. discloses; A roof
sensor module for forming a vehicle roof, which is disposed on a vehicle chassis as a pre-assembly construction unit, the roof sensor module having a panel component acting as a roof skin at least in areas and a sensor module according to claim 1, the sensor module being disposed on the panel component.
Reg. Cl. 11, Davidson et al. as modified by Rakoczi et al. discloses; A motor
vehicle comprising: a vehicle chassis, a sensor module according to claim 1, and/or a roof sensor module for forming a vehicle roof, the roof sensor module having a panel component acting as a roof skin at least in areas and the sensor module being disposed on the panel component, the sensor module and/or the roof sensor module being disposed on the vehicle chassis as a pre-assembly construction unit.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. (US 2023/0001890) in view of Rakoczi et al. (DE 10 2020 202 696) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Horvath et al. (US 5,014,117).
Reg. Cl. 7, Davidson et al. as modified by Rakoczi et al, fails to discloses;
however, Horvath et al. teaches wherein the cooling component has a cooling body, the first component part and the second component part each have a plurality of cooling fins, the cooling fins of the first component part interlacing with the cooling fins of the second component part in such a manner when in the retracted position that the cooling volume of the cooling body is reduced with respect to the extracted position (Figs. 7-13 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davidson et al’s sensor module for vehicles with Horvath et al.’s teachings of the first component part and the second component part each have a plurality of cooling fins, the cooling fins of the first component part interlacing with the cooling fins of the second component part in such a manner when in the retracted position that the cooling volume of the cooling body is reduced with respect to the extracted position.
Doing so would provide a heatsink wherein a first fin set is interspersed with a
second fin set to remove / cool heat generated devices, as stated by Horvath.
Reg. Cl. 8, Davidson et al. as modified by Rakoczi et al, fails to discloses;
however, Horvath et al. teaches wherein the cooling fins are formed in such a manner that they touch when in the extracted position, the cooling fins preferably being trapezoidal or inflated, and a corresponding cross section of the cooling fins preferably being designed to incline from a corresponding free top end to a corresponding free bottom end (Figs. 7-13 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to furthermore modify Davidson et al.’s sensor for vehicles with Horvath et al.’s wherein the cooling fins are formed in such a manner that they touch when in the extracted position, and the use of cooling fins being well known to be designed in all kinds of shapes and sizes, preferably being trapezoidal or inflated, and a corresponding cross section of the cooling fins preferably being designed to incline from a corresponding free top end to a corresponding free bottom end.
Doing so would provide a heatsink structure with two sets of connected cooling
fins designed in a particular manner to remove heat from electrical devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Applicant is advised to review all the prior art cited on the PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to TERRELL L MCKINNON whose telephone number is
(571)272-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 am to 4:30
pm.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, Terrell L McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights