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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Mizuno does not teach amended claims, as Mizuno teaches a first and second nozzle being opened and blocked by a driver, and not depending on movement of the nozzle.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues against Mizuno, but not Grasso or Sakai. Grasso, the primary reference cited, does teach controlling two nozzles based on movement back and forth (See Grasso pg. 8). Mizuno was used to teach different fluids coming from each nozzle, while Grasso teaches the movement of the nozzle. Thus, the argument against Mizuno is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grasso (EP 3141441 A1) in view of Sakai (US 11993230 B2), further in view of Mizuno (US 20190061698 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Grasso teaches a sensor module for a sensor (Fig 1, detection system 1), the sensor module comprising:
a motor (Fig 1, operating member 21 and page 5, third paragraph (highlighted) of attached pdf)
a housing part including a cover (Fig 1, housing 2 and optical face 3);
and a cleaning device (Fig 2, cleaning device 13),
the cleaning device including a fluid nozzle assembly including a first fluid nozzle (Fig 4, plurality
of nozzles 22),
the fluid nozzle assembly being movable along a surface of the cover using the motor, and being
configured to direct a fluid stream onto the surface of the cover (Fig 3, cleaning ramp 14 along path 15 and page 4, third full paragraph (highlighted) of attached pdf).
wherein: the first fluid nozzle includes a first outlet opening and a second outlet opening pointing in different directions relative to one another and configured to output a respective fluid stream, in order to clean an area of the surface of the cover (Page 6, third paragraph),
the motor moves the first fluid nozzle along a curved path in a first direction along the curved path (Fig. 3, cleaning ramp 14 along path 13 and pg. 4, third full paragraph) and,
Grasso does not teach a camera disposed on the cleaning device, wherein the camera detects a locality of a dirt particle on the cover in order to target the fluid stream at the dirt particle.
Sakai teaches a vehicle cleaner system which includes a dirt sensor (Fig 17A, dirt sensor 2130) which can detect which region of a plurality of regions dirt it on (Col 23, lines 29-35). A nozzle is then controlled to spray water to remove the dirt from the region (Col 23, lines 36-62 – describing nozzle only pointing to one region).
It would have been obvious to use the dirt removal method as taught by Sakai with the sensor module as taught by Grasso because only targeting the region of the sensor in which dirt is sensed reduces the obstruction to the sensor by the cleaning fluid.
Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai, does not teach subsequent to moving the first fluid nozzle in the first direction along the curved path, the motor moves the first fluid nozzle along the curved path in a return direction that is opposite to the first direction, in response to the motor moving the first fluid nozzle along the curved path in the first direction along the curved path, the first outlet opening is controlled into an open state and the second outlet opening is controlled into a blocked state, and in response to the motor moving the first fluid nozzle along the curved path in the return direction, the first outlet opening is controlled into the blocked state and the second outlet opening is controlled into the open state.
However, Grasso does teach emitting different fluids for backward/forward movement (pg. 8, second paragraph). Thus, Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai does not teach the fluids coming from a first and second outlet opening.
Mizuno teaches a cleaning apparatus which comprises two nozzles (Fig 2A, air passage Ra and water passage Rw) which can be controlled so that only one emits their respective fluid at a time ([0040)).
It would have been obvious to use the multiple nozzles each configured to emit different cleaning fluids, as taught by Mizuno, with the sensor module as taught by Grasso modified in view of Sakai. As Grasso already has multiple nozzles and tubular elements to hold multiple fluids, it would be simple for one skilled in the art to dedicate separate nozzles to each fluid and emit at different times, as this would allow each cleaning fluid to work independently and prevent them from being mixed together.
Regarding Claim 12, Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai and Mizuno, teaches the sensor module as recited in claim 11, wherein the first fluid nozzle includes a first outlet opening, the outlet opening being punctiform and/or linear (Grasso Fig 4:, showing nozzles 22 as points).
Regarding Claim 14, Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai and Mizuno, teaches the sensor module as recited in claim 11, wherein the first fluid nozzle is also configured to direct the fluid stream onto the surface of the cover at an angle of 30 to 60 with respect to a surface normal of the cover (Grasso page 6, third paragraph (highlighted) of attached pdf - different angles – note the range in Grasso of -15 to +15 degrees overlaps with that of the claim).
Regarding Claim 17, Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai and Mizuno, teaches the sensor module as recited in claim 11, wherein the first fluid nozzle is configured to carry out a self-rotation using the motor (Grasso page 5, fourth paragraph (highlighted) of attached pdf- describing pivoting).
Regarding Claim 18, Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai and Mizuno, teaches the sensor module as recited in claim 11, wherein the cleaning device also includes a heating device that is configured to control a temperature of the fluid stream (Grasso Fig 4, heating means 23).
Regarding Claim 19, Grasso teaches a LIDAR sensor, comprising:
a sensor module for the LIDAR sensor (Fig 1, detection system 1),
the sensor module including: a motor (Fig 1, operating member 21 and page 5, third paragraph (highlighted) of attached pdf),
a housing part including a cover (Fig 1, housing 2 and optical face 3,
and a cleaning device (Fig 2, cleaning device 13),
the cleaning device including a fluid nozzle assembly including a first fluid nozzle (Fig 4, plurality of nozzles 22),
the fluid nozzle assembly being movable along a surface of the cover using the motor, and being configured to direct a fluid stream onto the surface of the cover (Fig 3, cleaning ramp 14 along path 15 and page 4, third full paragraph (highlighted) of attached pdf).
wherein: the first fluid nozzle includes a first outlet opening and a second outlet opening pointing in different directions relative to one another and configured to output a respective fluid stream, in order to clean an area of the surface of the cover (Page 6, third paragraph),
the motor moves the first fluid nozzle along a curved path in a first direction along the curved path (Fig. 3, cleaning ramp 14 along path 13 and pg. 4, third full paragraph) and,
Grasso does not teach a camera disposed on the cleaning device, wherein the camera detects a locality of a dirt particle on the cover in order to target the fluid stream at the dirt particle.
Sakai teaches a vehicle cleaner system which includes a dirt sensor (Fig 17A, dirt sensor 2130) which can detect which region of a plurality of regions dirt it on (Col 23, lines 29-35). A nozzle is then controlled to spray water to remove the dirt from the region (Col 23, lines 36-62 – describing nozzle only pointing to one region).
It would have been obvious to use the dirt removal method as taught by Sakai with the sensor module as taught by Grasso because only targeting the region of the sensor in which dirt is sensed reduces the obstruction to the sensor by the cleaning fluid.
Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai, does not teach subsequent to moving the first fluid nozzle in the first direction along the curved path, the motor moves the first fluid nozzle along the curved path in a return direction that is opposite to the first direction, in response to the motor moving the first fluid nozzle along the curved path in the first direction along the curved path, the first outlet opening is controlled into an open state and the second outlet opening is controlled into a blocked state, and in response to the motor moving the first fluid nozzle along the curved path in the return direction, the first outlet opening is controlled into the blocked state and the second outlet opening is controlled into the open state.
However, Grasso does teach emitting different fluids for backward/forward movement (pg. 8, second paragraph). Thus, Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai does not teach the fluids coming from a first and second outlet opening.
Mizuno teaches a cleaning apparatus which comprises two nozzles (Fig 2A, air passage Ra and water passage Rw) which can be controlled so that only one emits their respective fluid at a time ([0040)).
It would have been obvious to use the multiple nozzles each configured to emit different cleaning fluids, as taught by Mizuno, with the sensor module as taught by Grasso modified in view of Sakai. As Grasso already has multiple nozzles and tubular elements to hold multiple fluids, it would be simple for one skilled in the art to dedicate separate nozzles to each fluid and emit at different times, as this would allow each cleaning fluid to work independently and prevent them from being mixed together.
Regarding Claim 20, Grasso teaches a transportation vehicle (Abstract - motor vehicle),
comprising: a LIDAR sensor, including:
a sensor module for the LIDAR sensor (Fig 1, detection system 1), the sensor module including:
a motor (Fig 1, operating member 21 and page 5, third paragraph (highlighted) of attached pdf),
a housing part including a cover (Fig 1, housing 2 and optical face 3,
and a cleaning device (Fig 2, cleaning device 13),
the cleaning device including a fluid nozzle assembly including a first fluid nozzle (Fig 4, plurality of nozzles 22),
the fluid nozzle assembly being movable along a surface of the cover using the motor, and being configured to direct a fluid stream onto the surface of the cover (Fig 3, cleaning ramp 14 along path 15 and page 4, third full paragraph (highlighted) of attached pdf).
wherein: the first fluid nozzle includes a first outlet opening and a second outlet opening pointing in different directions relative to one another and configured to output a respective fluid stream, in order to clean an area of the surface of the cover (Page 6, third paragraph),
the motor moves the first fluid nozzle along a curved path in a first direction along the curved path (Fig. 3, cleaning ramp 14 along path 13 and pg. 4, third full paragraph) and,
Grasso does not teach a camera disposed on the cleaning device, wherein the camera detects a locality of a dirt particle on the cover in order to target the fluid stream at the dirt particle.
Sakai teaches a vehicle cleaner system which includes a dirt sensor (Fig 17A, dirt sensor 2130) which can detect which region of a plurality of regions dirt it on (Col 23, lines 29-35). A nozzle is then controlled to spray water to remove the dirt from the region (Col 23, lines 36-62 – describing nozzle only pointing to one region).
It would have been obvious to use the dirt removal method as taught by Sakai with the sensor module as taught by Grasso because only targeting the region of the sensor in which dirt is sensed reduces the obstruction to the sensor by the cleaning fluid.
Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai, does not teach subsequent to moving the first fluid nozzle in the first direction along the curved path, the motor moves the first fluid nozzle along the curved path in a return direction that is opposite to the first direction, in response to the motor moving the first fluid nozzle along the curved path in the first direction along the curved path, the first outlet opening is controlled into an open state and the second outlet opening is controlled into a blocked state, and in response to the motor moving the first fluid nozzle along the curved path in the return direction, the first outlet opening is controlled into the blocked state and the second outlet opening is controlled into the open state.
However, Grasso does teach emitting different fluids for backward/forward movement (pg. 8, second paragraph). Thus, Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai does not teach the fluids coming from a first and second outlet opening.
Mizuno teaches a cleaning apparatus which comprises two nozzles (Fig 2A, air passage Ra and water passage Rw) which can be controlled so that only one emits their respective fluid at a time ([0040)).
It would have been obvious to use the multiple nozzles each configured to emit different cleaning fluids, as taught by Mizuno, with the sensor module as taught by Grasso modified in view of Sakai. As Grasso already has multiple nozzles and tubular elements to hold multiple fluids, it would be simple for one skilled in the art to dedicate separate nozzles to each fluid and emit at different times, as this would allow each cleaning fluid to work independently and prevent them from being mixed together.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grasso (EP 3141441 A1), in view of Sakai (US 11993230 B2), in view of Mizuno (US 20190061698 A1), further in view of Krishnan (US 20180354468 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai and Mizuno, teaches the sensor module as recited in claim 12, but not wherein a cross section of the first fluid nozzle that tapers toward the first outlet opening is triangular or circular.
Krishnan teaches a method of cleaning a vehicle sensor which includes a nozzle (Fig 1, nozzle 20)
which has a circular outlet ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to use the nozzle outlet as taught by Krishnan in the sensor as taught by Grasso, as modified in view of Sakai and Mizuno, because a circular fluid opening is well-known in the art, and a circular opening allows for even fluid flow and since a circular opening is easier to make than more complex shapes.
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 CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights