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 amendment filed on April 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner admits that Kawamura does not disclose the following features of the claim, but relies on Ghannam allegedly making up for the admitted deficiencies of Kawamura.
a controller configured to calculate a driving state score of the vehicle by combining each score of the at least two driving environment information using a weighted function and to set the operation period of the cleaning nozzle based on the driving state score, wherein the operation period of the cleaning nozzle is directly derived from the driving state score.
Initially, it is submitted that the combination of Kawamura and Ghannam is legally improper on grounds Ghannam is non-analogous art. Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (To be considered within the prior art for purposes of the obviousness analysis, a reference must be analogous). In particular, Ghannam is directed to controlling the operating speed of a rear wiper that wipes a rear window of a vehicle, which is not a relevant field to that of the present application (which is a cleaning nozzle that ejects a washing liquid for cleaning an object detecting sensor). In at least this regard, reliance on Ghannam to reject the claims of the present application is improper.
Moreover, the Abstract of Ghannam discloses that the controller is "configured to instruct the rear wiper to run at a predefined speed for a predefined time period based on a plurality of factors." Thus, Ghannam is directed to controlling the operating speed of a rear wiper. This is materially different from controlling "the operation period of the cleaning nozzle" for cleaning an object-detecting sensor, as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, controlling the speed and duration of a wiper differs from controlling the operation period for "ejecting a washing liquid," as required by claim 1. The claimed combination may concern regulation of liquid discharge from a cleaning nozzle, not adjustment of a mechanical wiper's speed.
In view of the foregoing, Ghannam does not teach or suggest the aforementioned features of claim 1, and fails to remedy the above deficiencies of Kawamura.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ghannam is a reasonable pertinent prior art to the problem faced by the inventor (please refer to MPEP 2141.01(a)). Claim 1 has the element: a driving environment acquirer configured to acquire at least two driving environment information of a vehicle. The reasoning for Ghannam is repeated: factors (driving environment information) for operating the rear wiper is closely related to driving environment information for setting the operation period of the cleaning nozzle because the same driving environment information are used to calculate the driving state score (need) for cleaning the rear window and the sensor window.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 20210362688 A1) in view of Ghannam et al. (US 20190210571 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura discloses:
An apparatus for cleaning an object detecting sensor {abstract: a cleaner unit to discharge a cleaning liquid to an external sensor}, the apparatus comprising: a driving environment acquirer configured to acquire at least two driving environment information of a vehicle {paragraph [0097] discloses V2X: inter-vehicle communication, road-to-vehicle communication, Vehicle Information and Communication System (VICS) to receive road traffic information. [0150] discloses at least two driving environment information: The cleaner control unit includes a vehicle speed information acquisition unit, a position information acquisition unit, and a traffic congestion information acquisition unit… The vehicle speed information acquisition unit is connected to the vehicle speed sensor as the external sensor, and acquires the vehicle speed information… The traffic congestion information acquisition unit is connected to a navigation system and the wireless communication unit, and acquires traffic congestion information output from the navigation system and the wireless communication unit. The navigation system and the wireless communication unit acquire VICS information from the outside of the vehicle, and output the traffic congestion information around the vehicle to the traffic congestion information acquisition unit based on the acquired VICS information. That is, [0150] discloses at least two driving information, vehicle speed based on a speed sensor, and traffic situation based on V2X}; a cleaning nozzle configured to eject a washing liquid for cleaning the object detecting sensor {[0130]: discharging the cleaning liquid from the liquid nozzle when the cleaner units are operated} according to an operation period of the cleaning nozzle {abstract: a discharge time, construed as the operation period, of the cleaning liquid varies}, the operation period being set based on the at least two driving environment information; {[0157]-[0159] discloses that the operation period being set based on the at least two driving environment information, vehicle position, vehicle speed and traffic congestion. [0157]: the current position of the vehicle is not within the predetermined range from the traffic congestion location, the cleaner control unit 1116 permits the operation of the cleaner unit. [0158]: when it is determined that the current position of the vehicle is within the predetermined range, the cleaner control unit determines whether the vehicle speed is equal to or smaller than the predetermined value. [0159]: When the vehicle speed is determined as equal to or smaller than the predetermined value V1, the cleaner control unit permits the operation of the cleaner unit. Abstract: control the cleaner unit such that at least one of a discharge amount of the cleaning liquid, a discharge amount of the cleaning liquid per unit time, the number of times of discharge of the cleaning liquid, the number of times of discharge of the cleaning liquid per unit time, and a discharge time of the cleaning liquid varies according to the vehicle speed information}. Examiner notes that the at least two driving environment information, vehicle position, vehicle speed and traffic congestion determines whether the cleaning nozzle is operated or not and the number of times of discharge and the discharge time of the cleaning liquid, which are construed as the operation period.
Kawamura does not disclose: a controller configured to calculate a driving state score of the vehicle by combining each score of the at least two driving environment information using a weighted function and to set the operation period of the cleaning nozzle based on the driving state score, wherein the operation period of the cleaning nozzle is directly derived from the driving state score.
Ghannam teaches in the abstract: the controller is configured to instruct the rear wiper to run at a predefined speed for a predefined time period based on a plurality of factors; paragraph [0011]: the plurality of factors includes at least two of a user input, a signal from a rain sensor, a speed of the motor vehicle, a signal from a front camera, a gear position, a signal from a rear camera, a vehicle-to-vehicle message; [0016]: assigning weights to the plurality of factors, and running the rear wiper based on a weighted sum (combining scores) of the plurality of factors (wherein the operation period is directly derived from the driving state score); [0039]: Regarding X2, vehicle speed, more wiping may be needed when the vehicle 10 travels at high speeds… Regarding X6, vehicle-to-vehicle communication, the vehicle 10 may make use of information from other vehicles.
Examiner notes that factors (driving environment information) for operating the rear wiper is closely related to driving environment information for setting the operation period of the cleaning nozzle because the same driving environment information are used to calculate the driving state score (need) for cleaning the rear window and the sensor window. Please refer to paragraph [0002] of the specification of the present application, which discloses: a control period time (CPT) of a lidar window cleaning nozzle is adjusted in consideration of a driving state of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghannam’s feature for calculating a driving state score of the vehicle by combining each score of the at least two driving environment information using a weighted function and to set the operation period of the rear wiper based on the driving state score to calculating the score to set the operation period of the cleaning nozzle and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Kawamura in order to keep a sensor window clean under varying driving environment, which, for example, includes vehicle speed, vehicle location and vehicle-to-vehicle communication.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Kawamura discloses: wherein the at least two driving environment information includes at least two of a location and a speed of the vehicle based on navigation, a speed of the vehicle based on a speed sensor, or a traffic situation based on vehicle-to-everything communication (V2X) {[0097], [0150]}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Kawamura discloses: wherein the object detecting sensor includes a lidar sensor {[0093]: The external sensor is a LiDAR}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, Kawamura discloses: wherein the controller sets the operation period of the cleaning nozzle to be shorter as the driving state score becomes higher {[0130] discloses that the operation period controlled to be shorter (smaller number of discharge times per predetermined interval) as the vehicle speed increases}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 2, Kawamura discloses: wherein the controller calculates the driving state score by combining a score given according to the location of the vehicle, a score given according to a speed of the vehicle, and a score given according to the traffic situation around the vehicle {[0004] discloses factors for calculating scores, location (general road, expressway, traffic congestion location), vehicle speed (traveling speed) and (traffic situation (traffic congestion)}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1, Ghannam teaches: wherein at least three differently weighted scores are assigned to one of the at least two driving environment information {[0039] teaches weight for vehicle speed (driving environment) depends on how high the speed is}.
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 weight for vehicle speed of Ghannam so that the weight is simplified into three classes, and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Kawamura in order to simplify the driving state score calculation thereby lowering the computational burden of the controller.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 12.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Ghannam and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20190351461 A1), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, modified Kawamura does not disclose: wherein the washing liquid is a mixture of a volatile washing liquid and a nonvolatile washing liquid.
Kim teaches mixture of a volatile washing liquid and a nonvolatile washing liquid in [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mixture of a volatile washing liquid and a nonvolatile washing liquid of Kim with the described invention of Kawamura in order to remove organic matter in the atmosphere as explained in [0011], [0012] of Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fuzakawa et al. (US 20200062222 A1) teaches a cleaning nozzle for detection sensor.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights