DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 7/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending, Claims 2-5 and 17-18 are withdrawn, and Claims 1, 6-16 and 19-20 have been examined.
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 without traverse of Species 1C and 2C, Claims 1, 6-16, 19 and 20, in the reply filed on 7/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-5 and 17-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/24/2025.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud et al. (US 2017/0297536 A1).
Re claim 1, Giraud discloses a protection device (abstract) for protecting a sensor (ref. 3, intended use) mounted on an unmanned aerial vehicle (regarding “an unmanned aerial vehicle”, this is a statement of intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Giraud since the prior art meets all the structural elements of the claim(s) and is capable of being mounted adjacent or on any sensor/vehicle, if so desired. See MPEP 2114.), the protection device comprising: a housing (ref. 1); and a nozzle (ref. 9) provided in the housing and connected to a container (ref.13, 19 ¶ [0055] connected to inside air), wherein the protection device is configured to protect the sensor by discharging a content of the container from the nozzle.
To any extent Giraud is unclear as to a distinct container (Giraud disclosing a pump housing and a pathway connected to an interior of a vehicle as a fluid source), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a filtered container (e.g. ¶ [0018]). Giraud further discloses a variety of liquid cleaning background art and it further being obvious to incorporate such if so desired (¶ [0007]-[0011]).
Re claim 11, Regarding “wherein the housing has a concave portion having a cylindrical or substantially tapered shape from an inlet of the housing toward a bottom portion, and the sensor is attached to the bottom portion, and the nozzle is provided on a side surface of the concave portion”, Giraud further discloses the concave portion (see fig. 1, ref. 9 and ref. 17 form a concave portion in which sensor 3 sits at a “bottom”/trough of the concave portion and the nozzles on a side. Regarding “cylindrical or tapered shape”, the mere change in shape for purposes of adapting to the sensor, e.g. a circular sensor, is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of focusing cleaning on the desired sensor. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Change in Shape.
Re claims 12-15, Regarding “the container”, as discussed above, Giraud further discloses a variety of known liquid cleaning nozzles (inherently having containers), the inclusion or substitution of such is prima facie obvious. wherein the content is discharged from the nozzle in a direction different from a direction toward the sensor (see fig. 1 arrows directed down-left). wherein the discharged content contains a liquid (¶ [0007]-[0011] known in the art to clean with liquid). wherein the discharged content contains a repellent for a living body (intended use. Here, the contents of the container or type of liquid is simply a matter of intended use and even air or water could be considered “repellent”. See MPEP 2114.).
Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud et al. (US 2017/0297536 A1) in view of Gilbertson (US 2020/0180563 A1).
Re claims 6-8 and 10, Giraud discloses as shown above, but does not explicitly disclose an information acquisition unit configured to acquire information from an outside, wherein the content is discharged from the nozzle based on the information acquired by the information acquisition unit. However, Gilbertson discloses it is well-known in the sensor protecting art (abstract) to provide an information acquisition unit (ref. 550 monitoring sensor ¶ [0057]-[0060]) configured to acquire information from an outside, wherein the content is discharged from the nozzle based on the information acquired by the information acquisition unit (¶ [0060] contaminant removal system 1200 to engage). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the protection device of Giraud to further include an information acquisition unit, as suggested by Gilbertson, in order to automate cleaning/protection of the sensor.
Re claims 7-8 and 10 wherein the foreign object detection unit is provided closer to an inlet of the housing than the sensor (the mere rearrangement of the foreign object detection unit relative to the inlet of the housing and the sensor, is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of close wiring and mounting. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts), and the nozzle is provided between the sensor and the foreign object detection unit (the mere rearrangement of the nozzle relative to the sensor and the foreign objection detection unit is similarly simply an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes close cleaning. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts). Regarding “wherein the foreign object detection unit includes a light receiving portion, and is configured to detect a change in an amount of received light when the foreign object approaches the light receiving portion”, Gilbertson further discloses detecting changes in images, light, signal intensity (¶ [0056]-[0058] and it thus being obvious to incorporate such into the foreign object detection unit for detecting blockage/build up). Regarding “wherein the nozzle is provided between the sensor and an inlet of the housing, and the foreign object detection unit is configured to operate as the sensor”, as discussed above, the rearrangement of the nozzle is prima facie obvious, and the use of the sensor as a foreign objection detection unit is also contemplated by Gilbertson (¶ [0056]-[0058] signal intensity).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraud et al. (US 2017/0297536 A1) in view of Gilbertson (US 2020/0180563 A1), and further in view of Brown et al. (US 9,783,166 B1).
Re claim 9, Giraud/Gilbertson discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein the foreign object detection unit includes an energization portion, and is configured to detect a change in resistance when the foreign object comes into contact with the energization portion. However, Brown discloses it is known to provide an energization portion and detect a change in resistance (claim 10, one or more resistance sensors…to general signals…to detect specified surface properties of the windscreen; surface properties of the patterns change (for example through dirt, water etc. deposition). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include an energization portion and resistance, as suggested by Brown, in order to provide selective response to surface alterations.
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0262582 A1) in view Giraud et al. (US 2017/0297536 A1), and/or further in view of Gilbertson (US 2020/0180563 A1)
Re claims 16 and 19-20, Independent claims 16 and 20 define over claim 1 above only in the positive inclusion of an unmanned aerial vehicle. Wang further discloses it is known in the art to provide an unmanned aerial vehicle (abstract, ¶ [0003]) including sensor protection (abstract, claim 1 airflow generating device). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate the protection device of Giraud to an unmanned aerial vehicle as in Wang, in order to clean and protect optical sensors commonly present on UAVs. Re claim 20, Gilbertson discloses detecting a foreign object, as shown in the rejection to claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711