DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
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
Claims 1-2, 4, & 6-30 are pending on the application, of which claims 1 & 29 are amended, claims 23-27 are withdrawn, and claims 3 & 5 are cancelled and claim 30 is newly added.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although examiner does agree that the references utilized in the rejection do not explicitly state that change in the amount of fluid from one cycle to the next is linear or nonlinear, it is believed that such a limitation is inherently present. The limitation of a change in amount from one cycle to a next cycle being linear is an inherent feature of subsequent cycles. Specifically, in the instance of subsequent cycles compared to each other, there are only two data points of reference (e.g., the current cycle and the next cycle) in the discrete cycles being compared. Thus, the change from one cycle to the next can always be considered linear when compared for each set of subsequent discrete cycles.
If applicant intended to mean that for all discrete cycles of N, where N is greater than 2, the change in the amount of cleaning fluid for all cycles is either linear or non-linear, when all cycles are compared as a whole; then the limitation of being linear or non-linear encompasses all changes in the fluid amount. Thus, if a fluid amount changes from one cycle to the next it can be considered to be either linear or non-linear.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 8, the phrase “evaluation device having the sensor” is utilized. Based on the disclosure, the meaning of such a phrase is understood to mean that the evaluation device is in communication with the sensor (see Fig.1B & [0082-0089]).
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 1-2, 4, 6-22, & 28-30 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.
In claims 1 & 29 applicant states that a “change in amount of cleaning fluid from one cycle to a next cycle is linear or nonlinear”. It is unclear as to how a change in cleaning fluid from one cycle to a next cycle can be considered nonlinear. Specifically, the language of the claim indicates that a change is nonlinear from one cycle (termed cycle A, henceforth) to a next cycle (termed cycle B, henceforth). However, the claim language also appears to suggest indicates that cycle B is subsequent to cycle A as it would be considered a next cycle. Thus, the claim indicates that two subsequent cycles can have a nonlinear change in the fluid amount. However, cycle A and cycle B represent two discrete data points, and a discrete change between two subsequent and discrete data points is not understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be capable of being nonlinear. Rather, two subsequent discrete data points would always present with a linear change. It is unclear if applicant is referring to such as an optional limitation in the instance of multiple cycles N, where N>2. Or if applicant is attempting to indicates that when all cycles are compared together they have a nonlinear change in the amount of fluid (e.g., all cycles N exist on a curve and said curve is nonlinear). Clarification and correction are required.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 16-22 & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldovino (US20190077376A1) in view of Irie (US20150203076A1) and Bacchus (US20190106085A1).
As to claims 1 & 6-7, Baldovino discloses a vehicle sensor system (abstract) and method of cleaning said sensor surface (see Fig.1 ref 26 & Fig.6), the method comprising: applying compressed air to the surface of the sensor (Fig.6 ref 630) in an air cleaning step; checking an air cleaning result (Fig.6 ref 635) in a checking step; performing a hybrid cleaning step in the event of a negative air cleaning result (Fig.6 refs 640-655), wherein said hybrid cleaning step includes at least one of: applying an amount of cleaning fluid to the sensor surface in a at least one fluid cleaning step (Fig.6 ref 640 & 650), and applying an amount of compressed air to the sensor surface in a further air cleaning step (Fig.6 ref 655). Baldovino does not disclose recording the number of cycles, however such a feature would be obvious in view of Irie. Baldovino also does not disclose the amount of fluid depending on a number of cycles such that a larger number of cycles provides a greater amount of fluid, however such a feature would have been obvious in view of Bacchus.
Bacchus discloses an art related sensor cleaning system and method (abstract), wherein it is known to adjust cleaning amount/intensity/duration based on a number of previously attempted cycles (see Fig.4 refs 406-412, also [0037-0039]) such that as the number of attempts increases so too does the intensity/duration of the cleaning method until a maximum amount is reached. Increasing the duration/intensity of the cleaning process results in an increase in the amount of fluid used as the number of cycles increases. Bacchus further discloses that such a method applies to both liquid and compressed air cleaning processes [0020-0021 & 0035]. After performing a cleaning step Bacchus detects again whether the sensor needs cleaning (Fig.4 ref 408) and cleaning can be performed again until a termination condition is reached (Fig.4 see max intensity ref 410 reached or no further cleaning needed ref 408). Bacchus also indicates that an amount of compressed air may be increased as the number of cleaning cycles increases (see [0020-0021 & 0035], indicating the such control scheme of increasing intensity/duration applies to compressed air as well) up to a maximum (see Bacchus Fig.4).
Ire discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein a number of cleaning attempts are recorded (see Figs.15-20) in order to determine whether there is a fault in the cleaning process and the contaminant cannot be removed [0150, 0161, 0170, & 0179].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Baldovino to record the number of cycles attempted in order to determine whether the cleaning process can clean the contaminant or if an error is present (Irie [0150]).. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious increase liquid cleaning intensity and air cleaning intensity based on a larger number of cycles in order to attempt to effectively remove contamination from the sensor (Bacchus [0039]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to also increase the amount of compressed air applied in the air cleaning step as the number of cycles increases in order to effectively clean the sensor (Bacchus [0039]). Further, A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to repeat the hybrid cleaning until the sensor is clean (i.e., positive result of hybrid cleaning) or when a maximum intensity has been reached corresponding to a maximum number of cycles (see Bacchus Fig.4) to ensure efficient cleaning of the sensor. It is also noted that limitations pertaining to increasing the fluid or air based on the number of cycles are optional limitations not required when only a single cycle is performed. Thus, method is also met by Modified Baldovino merely performing a single cycle of a fluid cleaning step which results in the sensor becoming clean. The limitation of a change in amount from one cycle to a next cycle being linear is an inherent feature of subsequent cycles. Specifically, in the instance of subsequent cycles compared to each other, there are only two data points of reference (e.g., the current cycle and the next cycle) in the discrete cycles being compared. Thus, the change from one cycle to the next can always be considered linear when compared for each set of subsequent discrete cycles. If applicant intended to mean that for all discrete cycles of N, where N is greater than 2, the change in the amount of cleaning fluid for all cycles is either linear or non-linear, even when compared when all cycles are compared as a whole; then the following rejection is provided. The limitation of being linear or non-linear encompasses all changes in the fluid amount. Thus, if a fluid amount changes from one cycle to the next it can be considered to be either linear or non-linear.
As to claim 2, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the further air cleaning step is performed after the fluid cleaning step (Baldovino Fig.6).
As to claims 4 & 28, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the number of fluid cleaning cycles is recorded and increased after each cleaning fluid step (see Irie Figs.15-20) and cleaning fluid is increased up to a maximum amount (Bacchus Fig.4). Accordingly, when the number of cleaning cycles is recorded after each cleaning step it is increased by one.
As to claim 8, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the checking step for checking the air cleaning result and the hybrid cleaning result is performed by the sensor and an evaluation device (Baldovino [0060-0065], a computer reads on an evaluation device as it performs evaluations) which receives data from the sensor.
As to claim 9, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 6, wherein a checking step and further checking step are conducted after cleaning is completed (Baldovino Fig.6, see also Bacchus [0039]). Thus, there is some wait time after the cleaning steps during which checking is performed.
As to claims 11 & 18, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the air cleaning step is performed in an event of a negative initial cleaning result of an initial checking step (see Baldovino Fig.6 refs 620-625). Baldovino further discloses that cleaning signals and cleaning results (i.e., determinations of the sensor surface being dirty and requiring cleaning or not being dirty after cleaning) are determined from a comparison of an image signal (i.e., actual signal) and a setpoint signal (Baldovino [0061]). Thus, cleaning signals, cleaning results, and any negative determinations of said results are based on a comparison between the actual signal and the setpoint.
As to claims 16 & 19-20, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a cleaning signal and air cleaning result (i.e., determinations of the sensor surface being dirty and requiring cleaning or not being dirty after cleaning) is provided based on a brightness deviation from a threshold (Baldovino [0062 & 0083-0084]) or from a comparison of an image signal (i.e., actual signal) and a setpoint signal, where said setpoint signal could include a reference sensor signal (Baldovino [0061]) or a comparison signal with another sensor (Baldovino [0065]).
As to claim 17, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Baldovino further discloses that cleaning signals and cleaning results (i.e., determinations of the sensor surface being dirty and requiring cleaning or not being dirty after cleaning) are determined from a comparison of an image signal (i.e., actual signal) and a setpoint signal [0061]. Thus, cleaning signals, cleaning results (including air and hybrid cleaning results), and any negative determinations of said results are based on a comparison between the actual signal and the setpoint.
As to claims 21-22, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fluid cleaning step applies a liquid to the sensor surface (Baldovino Fig.6 refs 640 & 650) and the sensor is an optical sensor (Baldovino [0028]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldovino (US20190077376A1) in view of Irie (US20150203076A1) and Bacchus (US20190106085A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kline (US20190322245A1).
As to claim 10, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 9, but does not disclose the specific wait time for checking the sensor contamination state. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Kline.
Kline discloses an art related system and method for cleaning a sensor (abstract), wherein a known manner for implementing a feedback loop for checking and cleaning sensors is by checking the sensors after 0.5 seconds (i.e., 500 milliseconds) and then cleaning again with a higher pressure or longer as needed based on the secondary check [0044]. Thus, Kline indicates that a known time period for waiting and checking a sensor state after cleaning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Baldovino to utilize a wait time of 500 milliseconds before checking the sensor state, as such is a known wait time for doing so in the art. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known wait time when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldovino (US20190077376A1) in view of Irie (US20150203076A1) and Bacchus (US20190106085A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsiao (US20160272165A1) and Robertson (US20210109345A1).
As to claim 12, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose the air cleaning step being performed in response to a positive rain signal. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Hsiao and Robertson.
Hsiao discloses an are related camera cleaning system (abstract), wherein a camera checked for contaminants (Fig.7 ref 205) and is first cleaned by air (Fig.7 ref 206) if contaminants are present, and then cleaning via hybrid cleaning (Fig.7 refs 209-214) if a contaminant is present (Fig.7 ref 207). Hsiao further discloses that such a cleaning process can be performed in response to a water drop sensor detecting that water drops are present (Fig.7 ref 202 & 204, i.e., indicative of rain).
Roberson discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known cleaning processes can be performed when a rain sensor detects that is raining in order to remove rain form a sensor [0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Baldovino to also perform the air cleaning step when a rain sensor determines that it is raining in order to remove rain drops from the sensor (Hsiao [0071-0072] & Robertson [0047-0048].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldovino (US20190077376A1) in view of Irie (US20150203076A1) and Bacchus (US20190106085A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai (US20210031727A1) and Jansson (US20200139941A1).
As to claim 13, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a residual amount of liquid is determined (Baldovino Fig.6 ref 615) but does not disclose the determination of a residual amount or time based on a number of cycles. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Sakai and Jansson.
Sakai discloses an art related vehicle cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to monitor the level of remaining fluid and report such remaining fluid in order to provide a user knowledge regarding the amount of cleaning liquid available and its availability for travel [0090-0091]. Specifically, Sakai discloses that a residual amount of liquid can be determined based on the number of remaining cycles and remaining fluid cleaning operation time [0077 & 0079-0081] in order to provide a signal to a user regarding the sufficiency of the remaining liquid [0083 & 0088-0089].
Jansson discloses a manner of determining a fluid level (abstract), that is directed towards cleaning of sensors [0002] and is thus art related. Jansson indicates that the washer fluid level can be determined and the estimated number of cycles or remaining cleaning time can be deduced from the remaining fluid amount [0079] in order to allow a user knowledge regarding the availability of liquid [0005] for cleaning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Baldovino to determine an amount of residual fluid and/or remaining operating time based on the number of cycles in order to provide a user knowledge as to how much cleaning liquid is available and whether such an amount is sufficient (Sakai [0083 & 0088-0089] & Jansson [0005 & 0079]). Such a modification would allow a user to determine whether sufficient liquid is present for a trip.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldovino (US20190077376A1) in view of Irie (US20150203076A1) and Bacchus (US20190106085A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tani (US20180201231A1).
As to claims 14-15, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Bacchus indicates that the control scheme as seen by Fig.4 (i.e., multiple cleaning attempts and adjustment of fluid intensity) can be applied for compressed air [0020-0021 & 0035]. Thus, Bacchus indicates that another air cleaning attempt can be made with greater intensity should a first air cleaning attempt produce negative results, and checked whether the sensor is clean after said next air cleaning attempt until the sensor is clean or a maximum intensity has been reached. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also implement the same control scheme for air cleaning, such that after a first air cleaning a subsequent check is performed (Bacchus Fig.4 ref 408) and another air cleaning is performed with greater intensity (Bacchus Fig.4 ref 410 to refs 406) and then check the cleaning result once more (Bacchus Fig.4 ref 408) and to continue until the sensor is clean of a maximum intensity has been reached (Bacchus Fig.4 refs 408 no path & 410 yes path). Since Baldovino showcases that air cleaning is performed prior to hybrid cleaning, a skilled artisan would implement such features prior to attempting the hybrid cleaning in an attempt to reduce liquid consumption. Further, the usage of multiple air and liquid cleaning attempts is known in the art as well, as seen by Tani.
Tani discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein a cleaning process for a sensor (see Fig.4) may allow for air and liquid cleaning [0045-0054] of the sensor. Tani further discloses that a removal operation may perform a number of cleaning attempts during each removal operation in order to clear the sensor [0057-0059] and after which the sensor is checked for foreign substances again (see Fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Baldovino to implement another air cleaning attempt after the first air cleaning provides a negative result in order to reliably remove contaminants from the camera (Tani [0059] & Bacchus [0039]). Such a modification would also provide an additional checking step after the additional air cleaning attempt in order to confirm whether the sensor has been cleaned. If the sensor has not been cleaned then the process can be repeated until a positive result is obtained or a termination condition is achieved (see Bacchus Fig.4).
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldovino (US20190077376A1) in view of Bacchus (US20190106085A1).
As to claim 29, Baldovino discloses a vehicle sensor system (abstract) and method of cleaning said sensor surface (see Fig.1 ref 26 & Fig.6), the method comprising: applying compressed air to the surface of the sensor (Fig.6 ref 630) in an air cleaning step; checking an air cleaning result (Fig.6 ref 635) in a checking step; performing a hybrid cleaning step in the event of a negative air cleaning result (Fig.6 refs 640-655), wherein said hybrid cleaning step includes at least one of: applying an amount of cleaning fluid to the sensor surface in a at least one fluid cleaning step (Fig.6 ref 640 & 650), and applying an amount of compressed air to the sensor surface in a further air cleaning step (Fig.6 ref 655). Baldovino does not explicitly disclose the checking of the hybrid result, and repetition of the hybrid cleaning until the result is positive or a number of times of hybrid cleaning reaches a maximum value. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Bacchus.
Bacchus discloses an art related sensor cleaning system and method (abstract), wherein after performing a cleaning step Bacchus detects again whether the sensor needs cleaning (Fig.4 ref 408) and cleaning can be performed again until a termination condition is reached (Fig.4 see max intensity ref 410 reached or no further cleaning needed ref 408). Such a feature ensures the sensor is cleaning or conserves resources in the case of the sensor being unable to cleaned [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Baldovino to repeat the hybrid cleaning until the sensor is clean (i.e., positive result of hybrid cleaning) or when a maximum intensity has been reached corresponding to a maximum number of cycles (see Bacchus Fig.4) to ensure efficient cleaning of the sensor and possible conservation of resources (Bacchus [0039]). The limitation of a change in amount from one cycle to a next cycle being linear is an inherent feature of subsequent cycles. Specifically, in the instance of subsequent cycles compared to each other, there are only two data points of reference (e.g., the current cycle and the next cycle) in the discrete cycles being compared. Thus, the change from one cycle to the next can always be considered linear when compared for each set of subsequent discrete cycles. If applicant intended to mean that for all discrete cycles of N, where N is greater than 2, the change in the amount of cleaning fluid for all cycles is either linear or non-linear, even when compared when all cycles are compared as a whole; then the following rejection is provided. The limitation of being linear or non-linear encompasses all changes in the fluid amount. Thus, if a fluid amount changes from one cycle to the next it can be considered to be either linear or non-linear.
As to claim 30, Modified Baldovino teaches the method of claim 29, wherein the limitation of the change in the amount of cleaning fluid from one cycle to the next being non-linear is merely an optional limitation not required when the number of cycles are two and thus a linear change exists. Further, in the instance of subsequent multiple cycles, Bacchus indicates that changing of the intensity can result in improved cleaning (i.e., further or better removal of contaminants not removed from lower intensity, see [0037-0039] & Fig.4). Thus, Bacchus indicates that the amount of fluid is a result effective variable adjustable for effective cleaning of a surface. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to optimize the amount of fluid change from one cycle to the next to seek improved cleaning performance, including doubling, tripling, or other adjustments to the amount of fluid provided per subsequent cycle (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayashi (US20210009088A1) discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is seen that repetition of air cleaning can occur until for a predetermined number of times (Fig.14 refs S100-S101 & S103-S109). Hayashi also indicates that hybrid cleaning (e.g. see refs S113 & S115) can also be repeated a predetermined number of times (Fig.14 refs S100-S101, S103-S104 & S110-S116) after which the hybrid cleaning can be stopped cleaning.
Yamauchi (US20200391702A1) discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract also Figs.1 & 8), wherein a cleaning operation for a sensor can be repeated for a predetermined number of times if it is still dirty (see Fig.5 & Fig.10).
Krishnan (US20180354468A1) discloses an art related vehicle sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to clean a sensor multiple times until it is cleaned or produce a diagnostic code should the debris not be removed from the sensor [0068].
Kiyohara (US20150329083A1) discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract) wherein it is known to stop repetitive cleaning after a certain number of times in order to prevent waste of air and liquid [0040].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711