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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of group I in the reply filed on 17 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that applicant argues that there would not be a serious burden in examining the inventions together. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus of group I can be used in processes that do not require the details of the method of group II, and the inventions of groups I and II are separately classified. Because the inventions of groups I and II are separately classified , there would be a serious burden in examining the inventions of groups I and II together. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 19-24 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 17 February 2026. 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. Claim s 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolic et al. (US 2012/0046765) in view of Hills et al. (US 7545076) . With respect to claim 1 , Nikolic et al. discloses an apparatus (Fig 2) comprising: a transducer (item 106) ; a driver circuit coupled to the transducer (Fig 2) ; and a controller coupled to the driver circuit, the controller configured to: obtain the power profile; determine a frequency of a driver signal based on the power profile; and provide the driver signal having the frequency to the driver circuit (Fig 6, paragraph 58). Nikolic does not disclose a memory configured to store a power profile, the power profile including a mapping between power metrics and oscillation frequencies of the transducer, the power metrics being indicative of a power delivered to the transducer ; that the controller is coupled to the memory; or that the power profile is obtained from the memory. Hills et al. teaches an apparatus including a drive circuit for a piezoelectric transducer that includes a memory configured to store a power profile (column 7, lines 13-10 and column 8, lines 37-41) , the power profile including a mapping between power metrics and oscillation frequencies of the transducer (column 7, lines 13-40) , the power metrics being indicative of a power delivered to the transducer (column 7, lines 13-40) ; that the controller is coupled to the memory (column 8, lines 37-41) ; and that the power profile is obtained from the memory (column 7, lines 13-10 and column 8, lines 37-41) . Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the memory of Hills et al. with the control circuit of the apparatus of Nikolic et al. for the benefit of providing control based on known, stored values of power and frequency (column 8, lines 37-41 of Hills et al.). With respect to claim 2 , the combination of Nikolic et al. and Hills et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Nikolic et al. discloses that the controller is configured to determine the frequency based on a first power metric mapped to the frequency indicating a maximum amount of power delivered to the transducer relative to other power metrics mapped to other frequencies of a frequency range in the power profile (Paragraph 58). With respect to claim 3 , the combination of Nikolic et al. and Hills et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Nikolic et al. discloses a filter circuit coupled between the driver circuit and the transducer (Paragraph 29) , wherein the first power metric indicates the maximum amount of power delivered to the driver circuit and to the transducer within the frequency range (Paragraph 58). With respect to claim 4 , the combination of Nikolic et al. and Hills et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Nikolic et al. discloses that each of the power metrics represents a voltage across the transducer (Paragraph 58) . With respect to claim 5 , the combination of Nikolic et al. and Hills et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Nikolic et al. discloses that each of the power metrics represents a current through the transducer (Paragraph 58). With respect to claim 6 , the combination of Nikolic et al. and Hills et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Nikolic et al. discloses that each of the power metrics represents an amount of power consumed by or rejected by the transducer (Paragraph 58). With respect to claim 7 , the combination of Nikolic et al. and Hills et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 6. Nikolic et al. discloses that each of the power metrics represents at least one of: an apparent power, a true power, or a reactive power (Paragraph 58). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolic et al. in view of Hills et al. and Senda et al. (US 2002/0008439) . With respect to claim 8 , the combination of Nikolic et al. and Hills et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Nikolic et al. does not disclose a lens mechanically coupled to the transducer, wherein the transducer is configured to vibrate the lens responsive to the driver signal to remove an object on a surface of the lens. Senda et al. teaches a piezoelectric device (Fig 1) including a lens (item 108) mechanically coupled to the transducer (item 107) , wherein the transducer is configured to vibrate the lens responsive to the driver signal to remove an object on a surface of the lens (Fig 1). Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the lens of Senda et al. with the apparatus of Nikolic et al. for the benefit of providing an object to be driven by the apparatus of Nikolic et al. (Fig 1, paragraphs 41-42 of Senda et al.). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-18 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or suggest “ a sensor circuit coupled to the transducer and to the controller; wherein the power profile is a first power profile, the frequency is a first frequency, and the controller is configured to: provide driver signals having a set of frequencies to the driver circuit; receive sense signals from the sensor circuit, the sense signals representing at least one of a first measurement of a voltage across the transducer when the transducer vibrates responsive to the driver signals, or a second measurement of a current through the transducer when the transducer vibrates responsive to the driver signals, generate a second power profile based on the at least one of the first or second measurements; determine a second frequency from the second power profile; determine a frequency difference between the first and second frequencies; determine whether the object is on the surface of the lens based on the frequency difference; and responsive to determining that the object is on the surface of the lens, provide the driver signal having the second frequency to remove the object ” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 9. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8932 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dedei Hammond can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7938 . 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. /DEREK J ROSENAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837