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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the surface” that should be “the top surface”.
Claim 1 recites “a top surface , ” with a minor grammatical error with an extra space before the comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakadoi (2021/0325667).
Regarding Claim 22, Nakadoi teaches a system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1a), comprising:
a piezoelectric transducer (Ref. 12&14, Fig. 1A, [0049]) coupled to a control circuit (Ref. 15, Fig. 1A, [0057]) configured to excite the piezoelectric transducer ([0057]);
a flat lens (Ref. 11, Fig. 1A) disposed on the piezoelectric transducer (Fig. 1 shows the lens disposed on the piezoelectric transducer); and
a bracket (Ref. 13, Fig. 1A) coupled to the flat lens (Fig. 1A), wherein the bracket extends from an outermost sidewall of the flat lens (Fig. 1A outer edge) in a direction away from the flat lens (Fig. 1A shows the bracket extending away from the outermost sidewall of the flat lens), and
wherein the bracket is configured to vibrate the flat lens responsive to the control circuit exciting the piezoelectric transducer ([0057]), and wherein the flat lens (11) is disposed on the piezoelectric transducer without the bracket intervening (Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 24, Nakadoi teaches the limitations of claim 22, as described above, and further teaches wherein a diameter of the flat lens (See annotated Fig. 1A below) is less than a diameter of the piezoelectric transducer (See annotated Fig. 1A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 28, Nakadoi teaches the limitations of claim 22, as described above, and further teaches wherein the bracket (13) and the piezoelectric transducer (12&14) meet at an outermost edge of a bottom surface of the flat lens (Fig. 1A).
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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakadoi (2021/0325667) in view of Magee (2018/0117642).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakadoi teaches a system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1a), comprising:
an ultrasonic transducer (examiner notes, it is old and well known in the art that ultrasonic transducers have frequencies above 20kHz, Ref. 7, Fig. 7, [0049] describes the frequency of the transducer is above 30kHz that would be in the ultrasonic range)
a bracket (Ref. 12, Fig. 1A) disposed on a top surface of the ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1A), the surface of the ultrasonic transducer defining a plane (See annotated Fig. 1A below);
a lens (Ref. 11, Fig. 1A) disposed on a top surface of the bracket (Fig. 1A), the lens having a lens axis (See annotated Fig. 1A below), a top surface ((See annotated Fig. 1A below), and an interior surface (Ref. 3 and See annotated Fig. 1A below) opposite the top surface (Fig. 1A), wherein the interior surface of the lens is disposed on the top surface of the bracket (Fig. 1A), and wherein the bracket separates the interior surface of the lens from the ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1A);
a cantilever (Ref. 13, Fig. 1A) coupled to the bracket (Fig. 1A), the cantilever having a sloped portion (Ref. 1, Fig. 1A) extending away from the plane as it extends farther from the lens axis (fig. 1A shows the sloped portion extends away from the plane as it extends from the lens axis); and
a control circuit (Ref. 15, Fig. 1A, [0057]) coupled to the ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1A) and configured to excite the ultrasonic transducer with a signal to clean the lens ([0057-0058]).
However, assuming arguendo that Nakadoi fails to teach an ultrasonic cleaner. Magee teaches a system (Ref. 200, Fig. 2) comprising a piezoelectric transducer (Ref. 102, Fig. 2, [0016]) used for ultrasonic cleaning acting as an ultrasonic transducer ([0022]). Given the teaching that piezoelectric transducers can be used for ultrasonic cleaning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the piezoelectric transducer, as taught by Nakadoi, as an ultrasonic transducer, as taught by Magee, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of removing dirt and/or water from the surface of the lens.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Nakadoi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Nakadoi further teaches wherein the ultrasonic transducer is a cylindrical transducer having a cylinder shape (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakadoi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Nakadoi further teaches wherein an outer diameter of the bracket (See annotated Fig. 1A below) is aligned with a diameter of the ultrasonic transducer (See annotated Fig. 1A below, examiner notes aligned is interpreted as arranged in a specific way and the outer diameter of the bracket are arranged parallel and aligned) and an inner diameter of the bracket (See annotated Fig. 1A below) is aligned with a diameter of the lens (See annotated Fig. 1A below, notes aligned is interpreted as arranged in a specific way and the outer diameter of the bracket are arranged parallel and aligned, if applicant intends for the diameters to overlap such a limitation is not required).
PNG
media_image3.png
440
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Nakadoi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Nakadoi further teaches wherein an outer diameter of the bracket (See annotated Fig. 1A above) is aligned with a diameter of the lens (See annotated Fig. 1A above, examiner notes aligned is interpreted as arranged in a specific way and the outer diameter of the bracket are arranged parallel and aligned) and an inner diameter of the bracket (See annotated Fig. 1A above) is aligned with a diameter of the ultrasonic transducer (See annotated Fig. 1A above, examiner notes aligned is interpreted as arranged in a specific way and the outer diameter of the bracket are arranged parallel and aligned).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakadoi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Nakadoi further teaches wherein the cantilever is integrated into the lens (note, examiner interprets integral as components to make a whole, Fig. 1A shows the cantilever (13) is integrated into the lens due to being interconnected with one another).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakadoi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Nakadoi further teaches wherein the cantilever is integrated into the bracket (note, examiner interprets integral as components to make a whole, Fig. 1A shows the cantilever (13) is integrated into the lens due to being interconnected with one another), wherein the cantilever extends from the interior surface of the lens (Fig. 1A), and past an outermost sidewall of the lens (Fig. 1A), wherein the ultrasonic transducer (14) extends from a bottom surface of the bracket (fig. 1A) at a location that is past the outermost sidewall of the lens (Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakadoi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Nakadoi further teaches wherein the cantilever protrudes outward along an axis of symmetry (examiner interprets an axis of symmetry is a vertical axis, Fig. 1A) from an edge of the lens (Fig. 1A shows the cantilever (13) from the edge of the lens).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakadoi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Magee further teaches wherein the lens is a curved lens (Fig. 1, [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the flat lens, as taught by Nakadoi, with a curved lens, as taught by Magee, since such a limitation would yield the predictable result of vibrating a lens.
Regarding Claim 10, Nakadoi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Nakadoi further teaches wherein the lens is a flat lens (Fig. 1A shows a flat lens).
Claims 19, 21, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto (2020/0406298) in view of Nakadoi (2021/0325667).
Regarding Claim 19, Fujimoto teaches A system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a piezoelectric transducer (Ref. 7, Fig. 2) coupled to a control circuit (Ref. 12, Fig. 1)configured to excite the piezoelectric transducer ([0041]);
a cantilever structure (Ref. 4&5, Fig. 2 shows there is a cantilever structure (5)) disposed on the piezoelectric transducer (Fig. 1A);
and a curved lens (Ref. 8, Fig. 2) having a lens axis (See annotated Fig. 2 below) and coupled to the cantilever structure (Fig. 2, [0049]), wherein the cantilever structure is connected to the curved lens at an outermost perimeter (See annotated Fig. 2 below) of a curved portion of the curved lens (Fig. 2) and is configured to vibrate the curved lens responsive to the control circuit exciting the piezoelectric transducer ([0041]).
Fujimoto fails to explicitly teach the cantilever structure includes a sloped extending at an angle other than 90 degrees relative to the lens axis. Nakadoi teaches a system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1a), comprising:
a piezoelectric transducer (Ref. 12&14, Fig. 1A, [0049]) coupled to a control circuit (Ref. 15, Fig. 1A, [0057]) configured to excite the piezoelectric transducer ([0057-0058]);
a cantilever structure (Ref. 13, Fig. 1A) disposed on the piezoelectric transducer (Fig. 1A), wherein the cantilever structure includes a sloped portion (Ref. 1, Fig. 1A) extending at an angle other than 90 degrees relative to the lens axis (Fig .1A, [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cantilever structure, as taught by Fujimoto, with a sloped portion, as taught by Nakadoi, to provide better contact with the glass and help hold the glass in place ([0006]).
PNG
media_image4.png
428
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Fujimoto as modified teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches wherein a diameter of the curved lens (See annotated fig. 2 below) is less than a diameter of the piezoelectric transducer (See annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
470
569
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 26, Fujimoto teaches the limitations of claim 25, as described above, and further teaches wherein the cantilever structure (4&5) has an uppermost surface (See annotated fig. 2 below) and a bottommost surface (See annotated fig. 2 below), wherein the uppermost and bottommost surfaces are substantially parallel to one another (fig. 2), and the piezoelectric transducer extends from the bottommost surface of the cantilever structure (Fig. 2 shows the piezoelectric transducer (7) extends from the surface in a vertical direction).
PNG
media_image6.png
347
569
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 27, Fujimoto teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches a gasket (Ref. 6, Fig. 2, examiner notes a gasket is interpreted as a seal that fills the space between two surfaces), wherein the gasket (6) is disposed on an uppermost surface of the cantilever structure (Fig. 2 shows the gasket on one of the uppermost surfaces of the cantilever structure (4)), wherein the gasket is laterally offset from the curved portion of the curved lens (Fig. 2).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto as modified as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Magee (2018/0117642, previously presented) and Atkins (NPL, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 20, Fujimoto teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and Fujimoto further teaches the lens is a curved lens (Fig. 2) to provide a field of a view for a camera (Ref. 10A, Fig. 2). Magee teaches a system with a piezoelectric transducer and bracket and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Magee further teaches wherein the curved lens is a fisheye lens ([0016] describes a fisheye lens). Atkins teaches fish eye lenses are known to have a field of view of 180 degrees ([Rectilinear and Fisheye Lenses]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the curved lens, as taught by Fujimoto, to be a fisheye lens have a field of a view of greater than 100 degrees for a camera, as taught by Magee in view Atkins, since such a modification would result in the predictable result of providing an optical path for imaging.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto as modified as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Magee (2018/0117642, previously presented) and Atkins (NPL, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 23, Fujimoto as modified teaches the limitations of claim 22, as described above, and Fujimoto further teaches a flat lens (([0039] describes the lens may also have a flat shape) to provide a field of a view for a camera (Ref. 10A, Fig. 2). Magee teaches a system with a piezoelectric transducer and bracket and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Magee further teaches wherein the flat lens is a fisheye lens ([0016] describes a fisheye lens). Atkins teaches fish eye lenses are known to have a field of view of 180 degrees ([Rectilinear and Fisheye Lenses]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flat lens, as taught by Fujimoto, to be a fisheye lens have a field of a view of greater than 100 degrees for a camera, as taught by Magee in view Atkins, since such a modification would result in the predictable result of providing an optical path for imaging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03 June, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakadoi in view of Magee. Nakadoi teaches A system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1a) comprising an ultrasonic transducer (Ref. 14, Fig. 1A, [0049]), a bracket (Ref. 12, Fig. 1A), a lens (Ref. 11, Fig. 1A) disposed on a top surface of the bracket (Fig. 1A), a cantilever (Ref. 13, Fig. 1A) coupled to the bracket (Fig. 1A), the cantilever having a sloped portion (Ref. 1, Fig. 1A) extending away from the plane as it extends farther from the lens axis (fig. 1A shows the sloped portion extends away from the plane as it extends from the lens axis), and a control circuit (Ref. 15, Fig. 1A, [0057]).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03 June, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fujimoto in view of Nakadoi. Fujimoto teaches a system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) with a piezoelectric transducer (Ref. 7, Fig. 2) and a cantilever structure (Ref. 4&5, Fig. 2 shows there is a cantilever structure (5)). Nakadoi teaches a cantilever structure (Ref. 13, Fig. 1A) includes a sloped portion (Ref. 1, Fig. 1A) extending at an angle other than 90 degrees relative to the lens axis (Fig. 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cantilever structure, as taught by Fujimoto, with a sloped portion, as taught by Nakadoi, to provide better contact with the glass and help hold the glass in place ([0006]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Nakadoi teaches a system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1a), comprising:
a piezoelectric transducer (Ref. 12&14, Fig. 1A, [0049]) coupled to a control circuit (Ref. 15, Fig. 1A, [0057]) configured to excite the piezoelectric transducer ([0057]);
a flat lens (Ref. 11, Fig. 1A) disposed on the piezoelectric transducer (Fig. 1 shows the lens disposed on the piezoelectric transducer); and
a bracket (Ref. 13, Fig. 1A) coupled to the flat lens (Fig. 1A), wherein the bracket extends from an outermost sidewall of the flat lens (Fig. 1A outer edge) in a direction away from the flat lens (Fig. 1A shows the bracket extending away from the outermost sidewall of the flat lens), and
wherein the bracket is configured to vibrate the flat lens responsive to the control circuit exciting the piezoelectric transducer ([0057]), and wherein the flat lens (11) is disposed on the piezoelectric transducer without the bracket intervening (Fig. 1A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujimoto (2018/0095272) and Tonar (2012/0243093) teach vibration devices with a lens and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights