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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 25 November 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11-12, and 15 remain pending in the application (claims 2, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 27 August 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 25 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103, Manninen in view of Richardson and Watterson have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kondo et al. (USPGPub 20200254980 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manninen et al. (USPGPub 20120030901 A1) in view of Richardson et al. (USPGPub 20200130652 A1) and Kondo et al. (USPGPub 20200254980 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Manninen teaches an air purge unit (see figure 2, support box 200 and outer components 204, 202, 110, and 106); an air supply port (212) for supplying air into the air purge unit (see figure 2, compressed air source 212 providing air into the aforementioned components); and an air blow-out port (106) for blowing the air to a lens surface (102) of a photoelectric sensor (see figure 1, airburst nozzle 106; ¶5, The standard air knife can be successful in keeping a majority of the dust away from the lens or window; and ¶16, apparatus 100 includes a housing 104 having a window 102 through which an optical sensing device (not shown) can "view" a monitoring/measuring target…airburst nozzle 106 can also be provided to direct bursts of compressed air onto the window 102 to periodically clear debris and maintain optimal viewing and lighting), wherein the photoelectric sensor comprises a second housing (104), the second housing (104) comprises a first side surface and a second side surface opposite to the first side surface, wherein the first side surface and the second side surface are positioned to sandwich the lens surface (102), and the air blow-out port (106) of the air purge unit is attached to only one of the first side surface and the second side surface of the second housing (104) (see figure 1, airburst nozzle 106 attached to only one side of the housing 104). However, Manninen fails to explicitly teach wherein the cleaning unit and the sensor are provided in separate housings, a plurality of air blow-out ports, wherein all of the plurality of air blow-out ports are provided side by side in a straight line; and wherein the first side surface and the second side surface are positioned to sandwich a front surface surrounding the lens surface, and the sidewall of the first housing is attached to only one of the first side surface and the second side surface of the second housing.
However, Richardson teaches wherein the cleaning unit and the sensor are provided in separate housings (see figure 8, air knife 720 (i.e. first housing) and sensor housing 115 (i.e. second housing)), and a plurality of air blow-out ports (558), wherein all of the plurality of air blow-out ports (558) are provided side by side in a straight line (see figure 5C, output channels 558 (i.e. blow-out ports) arranged in a straight line; and ¶40, The air knife may be configured such that a pressurized fluid input into the air knife is directed out of the air knife in a particular location. In this regard, pressurized fluid may be received at the input of the air knife, such as from an air pump, described herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manninen to incorporate the teachings of Richardson to instead include the cleaning unit and sensor in different housings in order to easily interchange said housings in the event that one becomes damaged or unusable, preventing the dismantling of a larger device. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have the ports all lined up in a straight line in order to blow debris in a single direction, and also when the shape of the optical element is not conducive to a circular or square arrangement of ports (see MPEP 2144.04 II). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the first side surface and the second side surface are positioned to sandwich a front surface surrounding the lens surface, and the sidewall of the first housing is attached to only one of the first side surface and the second side surface of the second housing.
However, Kondo teaches wherein the first side surface and the second side surface are positioned to sandwich a front surface surrounding the lens surface (101) (see figure 5, the first and second side surfaces being the top and bottom surface of the camera 100), and the sidewall of the first housing is attached to only one of the first side surface and the second side surface of the second housing (see figure 5, the air generation unit 4 being connected to only one of the first and second side surface via nozzle 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Manninen and Richardson to incorporate the teachings of Kondo to have the blow-out port arranged on one of the side surfaces as well as to have the lens surrounded by a surface in order to provide protection to the elements as well as, the mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify the function/operation of the device is an obvious matter of choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Regarding claim 3, Manninen as modified by Richardson and Kondo teaches the air purge unit according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of air blow-out ports (Manninen 106/108 | Richardson 558 | Kondo 62) are provided along an extending direction of the lens surface (Manninen 102 | Richardson 415 | Kondo 101) (Richardson, see figure 6, air knife 620 extending along the direction of housing 115 (which contains window 415 is shown in figure 4)).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manninen et al. (USPGPub 20120030901 A1) in view of Richardson et al. (USPGPub 20200130652 A1) and Kondo et al. (USPGPub 20200254980 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Krishnan (USPGPub 20180354469 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Manninen as modified by Richardson and Kondo teaches a plurality of air blow-out ports (Manninen 106/108 | Richardson 553 | Kondo 62) (Richardson, see figure 5C, plurality of output channels 558 (i.e. blow-out ports) arranged in a straight line). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of air blow-out ports are circular holes.
However, Krishnan teaches wherein the plurality of air blow-out ports (44) are circular holes (¶37, In at least one example of sensor 16, 18, 32, a pressurized first fluid F1, a pressurized second fluid F2, or a combination thereof may be received through the housing 36 (e.g., from one or more pumps—discussed below) and expelled downwardly from a circular nozzle 44 located atop the respective sensor to clean the window 42 thereof. According to one non-limiting example, first fluid F1 is a gas (e.g., compressed air)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Manninen, Richardson, and Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Krishnan to provide circular ports to expel the air because changing the shape of the nozzle does not change the function of the device and is merely a design choice (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manninen et al. (USPGPub 20120030901 A1) in view of Richardson et al. (USPGPub 20200130652 A1) and Kondo et al. (USPGPub 20200254980 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Shinsha et al. (JP 2014201150 A).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Manninen as modified by Richardson and Kondo teaches the plurality of air blow-out ports (Manninen 106/108 | Richardson 553 | Kondo 62) (Richardson, see figure 5C, plurality of output channels 558 (i.e. blow-out ports) arranged in a straight line). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein corners connecting inner surfaces of the plurality of air blow-out ports and a side wall surface of the housing are chamfered.
However, Shinsha wherein corners connecting inner surfaces of the plurality of air blow-out ports (21-24) and a side wall surface of the housing (12) are chamfered (see figure 4B, air holes 24 and 21 having chamfered (or beveled) edge to the sidewall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Manninen, Richardson, and Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Shinsha to have the air blow-out ports chamfered because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manninen et al. (USPGPub 20120030901 A1) in view of Richardson et al. (USPGPub 20200130652 A1), Kondo et al. (USPGPub 20200254980 A1), and Krishnan (USPGPub 20180354469 A1) as applied to claims 4 and 8 above, and further in view of Shinsha et al. (JP 2014201150 A).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Manninen as modified by Richardson, Kondo, and Krishnan teaches the plurality of air blow-out ports (Manninen 106/108 | Richardson 553 | Kondo 62 | Krishnan 44) (Richardson, see figure 5C, plurality of output channels 558 (i.e. blow-out ports) arranged in a straight line). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein corners connecting inner surfaces of the plurality of air blow-out ports and a side wall surface of the housing are chamfered.
However, Shinsha wherein corners connecting inner surfaces of the plurality of air blow-out ports (21-24) and a side wall surface of the housing (12) are chamfered (see figure 4B, air holes 24 and 21 having chamfered (or beveled) edge to the sidewall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Manninen, Richardson, Kondo, and Krishnan to incorporate the teachings of Shinsha to have the air blow-out ports chamfered because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
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 ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878