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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/22/2025 and 3/5/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/22/2025.
Cancellation of claim 24 , filed 12/22/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to claims 1, 4, 10, 15-16, 20-21, 23, 25-27, and 31 filed 12/22/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claim 33-34, filed 12/22/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments to the specifications and the claims, the previous objections to the specification, objections to the claims, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons given as follows.
On pgs. 14-15 of the Remarks, Applicant appears to make preemptive arguments that Nabavi in view of Bronson does not disclose the newly amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees, noting that Applicant’s arguments are largely unpersuasive for engaging in improper piecemeal analyses that attack individual references (i.e. Bronson), instead of providing due consideration to the combination of references as appropriate. Applicant is thus reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As a consequence of the above, the majority of Applicant’s arguments regarding Bronson’s failure to disclose certain features are frankly irrelevant to the rejections of record and those to be applied towards the amended claims below. For instance:
Applicant states, on pg. 14 of the Remarks, that
“Bronson fails to disclose or suggest that a portion of its apron 28 [i.e. part of the claimed housing] extends from a periphery of the shield 24 onto the shield 24 [i.e. the claimed optical surface]”,
and on pg. 15, that
“since the apron 28[i.e. part of the claimed housing] does not extend onto the shield 24 [i.e. the claimed optical surface] as set out above, Bronson also necessarily fails to disclose or suggest that the wiper arms 36 [i.e. the claimed wiper] would or could be disposed in the housing 10 or the apron 24 [sic, 28] [i.e. the claimed housing] adjacent to the aperture 30 [i.e. the claimed opening]”,
in an apparent attempt to argue that Bronson (on its own) fails to capture “a housing… to cover a portion of the optical surface” and “a wiper disposed in the housing adjacent to the opening” as newly amended into claim 1.
However, Examiner will note that housing and wiper structures covering the optical surface can certainly be identified in Nabavi’s disclosure, which Applicant has failed to consider in their arguments – and that when such structures are taken in combination with those disclosed by Bronson (e.g. with Bronson’s aperture 30 corresponding to the claimed opening), all of the claim limitations can trivially be satisfied. See the rejection of the newly amended claim 1 below.
On pg. 15 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts Bronson’s failure to capture the “transmission of light through a liquid film covering the field of view portion of the optical surface” as newly amended into claim 1 – arguing that
“[Bronson’s] wiper blade 48 would remove cleaning fluid 29 from portions of the shield 24 […] Bronson wipes the cleaning fluid before these portions of the shield 24 would be disposed in front of the lens 20.”
Setting aside the fact that Bronson does not particularly limit the type of cleaning fluid – and the fact that cleaning solutions which leave protective, e.g. hydrophobic, coatings have certainly been available on the broader market for at least some decades – Applicant’s arguments continue to neglect Nabavi’s disclosure, from which Examiner identifies a protective liquid film covering a field of view -- not Bronson. Applicant has entirely to even mention Nabavi in regards to this argument, and it is thus found to be highly irrelevant.
Note also that, on pg. 14 of the Remarks, Applicant states
“At best, Bronson discloses that the shield 24 may be larger than the aperture 30 and the shield 24 may be positioned "behind aperture 30" (see again paragraph [0032] of Bronson)”
However, Examiner will point out that the cited ¶ 32 of Bronson, cited also in the previous office action, more specifically states
“Shield 24 may be larger than aperture 30 and thus positioned either in front of aperture 30 or behind aperture 30. Shield 24 may be smaller than aperture 30 and thus may be placed within aperture 30.”
From this, it is clear that the relative size difference between shield 24 and aperture 30 are free to adjust so that a designer can position them at will. Evidently, Applicant has simply failed to properly consider the actual evidence applied in the rejections of record, and plainly mischaracterizes/misinterprets the pertinent prior art. This further weakens much of Applicant’s arguments which are based on such a faulty premise (e.g. “apron 28 does not extend onto the shield 24” – Remarks, pg. 15, related to item A above)
Next, regarding claim 4, Applicant on pg. 15 states that
the wiper of Nabavi cannot act as a compliant element to urge either the inner housing or outer housing into contact with itself. Due to its compliance, the wiper may force the inner and outer housings apart, but it cannot exert a force on itself.
However, Applicant has apparently overlooked the fact that a force applied to Nabavi’s (compliant) wiper will transmit through the material. Examiner has not remotely suggested that the wiper exerts some sort of external force on itself – this is clearly a strawman argument. Instead, Examiner will note that trivial consideration of the basic forces involved will certainly allow one to identify a compliant element of the wiper which influences the contact forces occurring at the wiper-surface interface.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant states that
Nabavi explains that Figure 30 is a cross-section of the optical assembly of Figure 29. In Figure 29, the optical device 126 is clearly spaced farther from housing 936 than appears in Figure 30. In the correct top-view orientation, there would be no vignetting at the position of optical device 126
However, as explained in the rejection, embodiments where the wiper (and attached housing) is actuated to move about the window will have the housing cross into the field of view. FIG. 30’s cross-section is a good illustration this as it projects the system into a plane and shows the overlap between the wiper and field of view within that plane. Displacement in FIG. 30’s out-of- -page direction – i.e. the space Applicant mentions being shown in FIG. 29’s top-view – is frankly irrelevant because FIG. 29’s simple snapshot does not capture the fact that the wiper closes the distance in the out-of-the-page direction as it traverses its circular path atop of the surface. Alternatively, we can consider, for example, FIG. 29’s top view where the wiper’s position is reflected across the horizontal axis to another position on its circular path. The degree of overlap with the field of view will approximately equal that identified in the annotated FIG. 30, while the space Applicant points to in the original FIG. 29 is entirely a nonissue.
Regarding amended claim 25, Applicant should refer to the updated rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-23 and 25-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 11-13 “a wiper disposed… and including… and urged” is improperly structured for a list. Coordinating conjunctions (“and”) should only precede the final item of a list; it should not separate every listed item.
In claim 1, line 18, “a liquid applicator…” is not indented to match the other indentations Applicant has recently inserted on lines 6, 11, 14, and 20.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-23 and 25-34 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 7 recites “the periphery” which lacks a proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear whether “the periphery” is intended for “the optical surface” introduced in line 6 prior, for some other feature, or for the overall apparatus. For examination purposes, “the periphery” shall be read as “the periphery of the optical surface”
Regarding claims 1-2 and 23, line 12 of claim 1, line 2 of claim 2, and line 11 of claim 23 each recite “a portion of the optical surface”, overloading the phrase with multiple introductions and causing ambiguity as to whether each “portion of the optical surface” refers to a common object or distinct ones. For examination purposes, no particular assumption will be made regarding the identity of a given “portion of the optical surface”, which will be read in an abstract/indefinite manner such that any arbitrary “portion” that satisfies a limitation reciting such a “portion” will qualify.
Regarding claim 16, line 3 recites “the opening”, but this follows Applicant amending “an opening” to “a reservoir opening” on line 2 of the same claim. It appears “the opening” on line 3 should read “the reservoir opening” – especially to avoid confusion with the “opening” that was recently amended into line 8 of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-18, 23, 25, 27, 29-30, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabavi (US 20170239693 A1) in view of Bronson (US 20020139394 A1).
Regarding claim 1, --Nabavi discloses an apparatus (optical assembly 920; see FIGs. 28 and 30, both annotated below, and ¶s 187-190) for cleaning an optical surface (optical window 928) protecting an underlying optical device (126), at least a field of view portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) corresponding to a field of view of the optical device (optical window 928) being covered by an optically transparent liquid film disposed to protect the optical surface (optical window 928) (see ¶s 3-4 regarding thin films of protective, e.g. non-stick, liquid; see also ¶s 109-115 providing properties/examples of non-stick liquids including hydraulic oils; Examiner notes hydraulic oils are often clear in color – i.e. transparent to visible light), the apparatus comprising:
a housing (housing 938 with enclosure 944) extending from the periphery onto the optical surface (optical window 928) to cover a portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) outside of the field of view portion of the optical surface (optical window 928), and transmission of light through the liquid film covering the field of view portion of the optical surface (optical window 928);
a wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) disposed in the housing and including an edge extending across at least a portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) and urged into close proximity with the optical surface (optical window 928), the edge being defined between a leading face and a trailing face;
an actuator operable to move at least one of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) and the optical surface (optical window 928) to cause the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) to traverse the optical surface (optical window 928) such that the leading face dislodges contaminants entrained in the liquid film or adhered to the optical surface (optical window 928) to produce a cleaned portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) (see also ¶s 5-9);
a liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) disposed to dispense liquid for renewing the liquid film on the cleaned portion of the optical surface (optical window 928)(see also ¶s 5-9); and
[AltContent: textbox (FIGs. 28 and 30 of Nabavi are annotated to highlight various features.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
525
1271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the edge of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) comprises a sufficiently rigid material selected to resist deformation that would permit contaminants to pass under the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) while traversing the optical surface (optical window 928) (see also ¶ 5: “The wiper is configured to clean the optical window by, for example, scraping or wiping away contaminants”; evidently, the wiper is sufficiently rigid to resist deformation that would allow said contaminants to pass).
Nabavi does not disclose
a housing extending around a periphery of the optical surface, the housing defining an opening disposed to permit transmission of light through the field of view portion of the optical surface;
the wiper disposed adjacent to the opening
Nabavi and Bronson commonly relate to wipers for optical surfaces.
Bronson discloses (see FIGs. 2-5, ¶s 29-35)
a housing (housing 10 with apron 28) extending around a periphery of the optical surface (shield 24), the housing (housing 10 with apron 28) defining an opening (aperture 30 of apron 28) disposed to permit transmission of light through the field of view portion of the optical surface (shield 24);
the wiper (wiper arm 36) disposed adjacent to the opening (aperture 30 of apron 28).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nabavi and Bronson, in order to supplement limited areas of the prior’s disclosure with more complete/overall/device-level structure (e.g. more extended housing for the entire apparatus, which is not discussed with much specificity for Nabavi’s optical assembly 920).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses (see annotated FIG. 28+30 above, ¶s 187-190) wherein the leading face is oriented at an obtuse angle to a portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) to be traversed to dispose the leading face to lift the contaminants away from the optical surface (optical window 928) while traversing (see also ¶s 177-186, regarding angled/tapered wipers (optical body cleaning mechanisms 732 and 832) and the scraping/wiping of foreign matter in another two embodiments (optical assemblies 720 and 820) which are “substantially identical” (as stated in ¶ 187) to that of the current embodiment (optical assembly 920 with optical body cleaning mechanism 932 shown in FIGs. 28-30)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
----Nabavi further discloses wherein the edge of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) is urged into close proximity with the optical surface (optical window 928) by one of:
a compliant element configured to force the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) and the optical surface (optical window 928) toward each other;
a compliant element configured to provide an adjustable force for forcing the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) and the optical surface (optical window 928) toward each other; or
a material compliance associated with the edge of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932).
(See ¶ 189: “the wiper is further configured and arranged such that its outermost edge is flush against and exerts a positive pressure against the outer surface of [the optical window 928 of] optical body 924”. See also ¶ 179 regarding elastomeric – i.e. compliant – wiper materials; note the embodiment (optical assembly 720) discussed here is “substantially identical” (as stated in ¶ 187) to that of the current embodiment (optical assembly 920).)
Regarding claim 7, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
----Nabavi further discloses wherein the optical surface (optical window 928) comprises a surface of a window disposed to protect the underlying optical device (126) and wherein the actuator is operable to cause at least one of:
a rotation (about axis A in annotated FIG. 28+30 above; see also ¶ 187) of the window (optical window 928); and
a linear displacement of the window (optical window 928).
(See also ¶s 11-12 discussing both linear and rotational modes of actuation.)
Regarding claim 8, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
----Nabavi further discloses wherein the edge of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) is disposed at an angle that is less than a right angle to a traversing direction with respect to the optical surface (optical window 928), such that dislodged contaminants will have a component of motion along the edge of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) during traversing. (See ¶ 108; Nabavi discloses that “Introducing an angle to the wiper edge with respect to the radius of movement [i.e., at an angle less than 90° to the traversing direction] can have the effect of driving the fouling matter to the outer periphery of the optical surface”.)
Regarding claim 9, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses (see the annotated FIG. 28+30 above, ¶ 187)
wherein the optical surface (optical window 928) comprises a surface of a circular window disposed to protect the underlying optical device (126), the optical device (126) having a field of view through a portion of the window (optical window 928),
PNG
media_image3.png
407
793
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 30 of Nabavi is newly annotated to highlight additional features)]and wherein the actuator is operable to cause a rotation of the window (optical window 928) about a central axis (axis A), the central axis (axis A) being disposed outside the field of view portion of the window (optical window 928) (note the lateral displacement between optical device 126 and axis A in annotated FIG. 28(+30) above; axis A thus lies outside of optical device 126’s field of view when only optical window 928 is rotating).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses
wherein the liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) is also disposed within the housing (housing 938 with enclosure 944),
wherein the housing (housing 938 with enclosure 944) extends into the field of view portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) vignetting a first portion of light impinging on the optical surface (optical window 928) (see the newly annotated FIG. 30 above; as the housed wiper/applicator combination moves about the optical window, the housing crosses into optical device 126’s field of view), and
wherein a second portion of light not vignetted by the housing (housing 938 with enclosure 944) is sufficient to produce an image of the field of view of the optical device. (Examiner notes that wipers are commonly arranged on surfaces/windows so as not to significantly obstruct the view (e.g. of optical devices). Examiner further notes that Nabavi’s disclosure directly addresses the issue of (self-)cleaning optical bodies/windows which do not interfere with normal operations of the optical device; see background/issues discussed in ¶ 2: “The situation is worsened when… an installation location which is hard to reach or doing so would require shutting down the operation”. See also ¶ 100: “In the examples described herein, the device, system and/or assembly includes techniques and methodologies for providing a self-cleaning feature so that the one or more optical devices can continually provide acceptable results (e.g., reception or transmission of optical signals, such as light, electromagnetic energy, etc.)”. Therefore, despite the fact a (first) portion of light in optical device 126’s field of view may be partially impinged during self-cleaning cycles, as shown in the newly annotated FIG. 30 above, a (second) portion of light which does reach optical device 126 (which may be a sensor, detector, camera, etc., per ¶ 117) must be sufficient or “acceptable” for producing an image.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses wherein the actuator is configured to cause movement in a first direction (“single direction”, see ¶ 187) to cause the leading face of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) to traverse the optical surface (optical window 928) to produce the cleaned portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) while the liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) renews the liquid film on the cleaned portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) (see also ¶s 5-9).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses wherein the actuator is configured to cause movement in a first direction (“single direction”, see ¶ 187) to cause the leading face of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) to traverse the optical surface (optical window 928) to produce the cleaned portion of the optical surface (optical window 928), the actuator being further configured to cause movement in a second direction (“reciprocating rotation”, “angular oscillation”, see ¶ 187) to cause the liquid applicator to renew the liquid film on the cleaned portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) (see also ¶s 5-9).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses (see the annotated FIG. 28+30 above) wherein the trailing face of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) is disposed at an acute angle to the optical surface (optical window 928) such that the respective angles of the leading face and trailing face define an area of contact at the edge for contacting the optical surface (optical window 928).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 13.
Nabavi further discloses wherein the leading face and trailing face of the wiper are formed to cause the area of contact (see the annotated FIG. 28+30 above) to have a uniformity generally corresponding to a surface roughness (i.e. an intrinsic property) of the optical surface (optical window 928) such that the area of contact remains submerged within a film thickness of the liquid film as the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) traverses the optical surface (optical window 928). (Examiner notes the area of contact is 2-dimensional object formed at the interface of the wiper and window. Thus any liquid film having finite thickness would submerge the area of contact automatically.)
Regarding claim 15, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses (see annotated FIG. 28+30 above) wherein the liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) comprises:
a liquid reservoir (fluid chamber 940) disposed within the housing (housing 938 with enclosure 944); and
a compliant seal (primary seal 216) disposed behind the trailing face of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932), the compliant seal (primary seal 216) being configured to dispense liquid from the liquid reservoir (fluid chamber 940) for renewing the liquid film. (See ¶ 188 – primary seal 216 is formed around the bottom opening of housing 938 in fluid applicator 936, and leads to the fluid chamber 940. See also ¶ 5: “the seal can also function to help form or maintain a thin layer of liquid…”. Refer also to ¶s 127-129 and 169-174 for more details on primary seal 216’s operation in other related embodiments.)
Regarding claim 16, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 15.
Nabavi further discloses (see annotated FIG. 28+30 above)
wherein the liquid reservoir (fluid chamber 940) includes a reservoir opening disposed proximate to the optical surface (optical window 928) and
wherein the compliant seal (primary seal 216) is configured to enclose the opening to limit discharge of the liquid from the liquid reservoir (fluid chamber 940) when the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) is not moving relative to the optical surface (optical window 928). (See ¶ 5: “A seal or the like is employed… in order to contain the liquid within the fluid chamber and to prevent the leakage thereof”. Refer also to ¶s 127-129, 169-174 for more specific details on primary seal 216’s operation in other related embodiments.)
Regarding claim 17, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 16.
Nabavi further discloses (see ¶ 190 and FIG. 31, annotated below, regarding an integrated fluid applicator and wiper apparatus which “can also be employed” in the optical assembly 920):
wherein the compliant seal (primary seal 216) includes a first portion disposed proximate the trailing face of the wiper (or secondary seal 218) and a second portion spaced apart from the trailing face, and
further comprising an applicator shield (i.e. another wiper, or secondary seal, 218) extending along the second portion of the compliant seal (primary seal 216), the applicator shield (secondary seal 218) being operably configured to protect the second portion of the compliant seal (primary seal 216) and to prevent ingress of contaminants into the volume of the liquid reservoir (fluid chamber 1040).
(See also ¶ 180; to prevent contaminants from bypassing the wiper and contacting the fluid applicator, the space between the wipers and applicators “may be optionally enclosed, and completely sealed”.)
PNG
media_image5.png
451
757
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 31 of Nabavi is annotated to highlight various features)]
Regarding claim 18, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 15.
Nabavi further discloses (see ¶ 105) wherein the compliant seal (primary seal 216) comprises an energized seal (“dynamic rod seal”) having an elastomeric portion and an energizing portion (“The face or rod seal could be…. an O-ring energized U-cup or lip seal, a metal spring energized U-cup or lip seal,…”), the energizing portion (“O-ring… metal spring”) operably configured to urge the elastomeric portion (“U-cup”) into contact with the optical surface (optical window 928). (See newly annotated FIG. 30 below with a schematic O-ring energized U-cup.)
PNG
media_image7.png
393
667
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 30 of Nabavi is again annotated, together with a schematic cross section of an O-ring energized U-cup seal)]
Regarding claim 23, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses (see ¶s 187-190, annotated FIG. 28+30 above; see also ¶s 5-9) wherein the optical surface (optical window 928) comprises a surface of a circular window disposed to protect the underlying optical device (126), and wherein:
the actuator is operably configured to cause the window (optical window 928) to rotate relative to the housing (housing 938 with enclosure 944) to cause the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) to dislodge contaminants on a portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) that passes under the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) into the housing (housing 938 with enclosure 944); and
the liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) is disposed to renew the liquid film on the cleaned portion of the optical surface (optical window 928) that emerges from the housing (housing 938 with enclosure 944).
Regarding claim 25, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Bronson further discloses wherein the housing (housing 10 with apron 28) includes a seal disposed between the housing (housing 10 with apron 28) and the optical surface (shield 24) and surrounding the opening (aperture 30). (See ¶ 32: “Apron 28 has an aperture 30”, “a sealing material, such as soft rubber or neoprene, is used to seal any gaps between shield 24 and aperture 30.”)
Nabavi further discloses (see ¶s 187-190, annotated FIG. 28+30 above; see also ¶s 5-9) the seal (primary seal 16) being in liquid communication with a reservoir (fluid chamber 940) containing liquid for applying and replenishing the liquid film. (¶ 188: “fluid chamber 940 in fluid communication with an opening”, “a groove[…] of the opening that is configured to receive the primary seal 216”)
Regarding claim 27, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses:
wherein the wiper comprises a second wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932), the second wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) including the edge comprising the sufficiently rigid material selected to resist deformation (as established in claim 1 above, Nabavi discloses, in ¶ 5: “The wiper is configured to clean the optical window by, for example, scraping or wiping away contaminants”; evidently, the wiper is sufficiently rigid to resist deformation that would allow said contaminants to pass. See also ¶ 179 regarding hard elastomer materials for Nabavi’s wipers),
Bronson further discloses:
wherein the wiper comprises a first wiper (first wiper arm 36) and a second wiper (second wiper arm 36) (see FIG. 3),
the first wiper (first wiper arm 36) including an edge fabricated from a material having a greater compliance than the edge of the second wiper (second wiper arm 36) (see ¶ 47: “With two or more wiper arms 36, combinations may be made of brushes as wiper blades 48 on one wiper arm 36 with soft rubber wiper blades 48 on another wiper arm 3”; Examiner notes that soft rubber is generally more compliant than the hard elastomers that were disclosed by Nabavi and mapped to the second wiper edge above); and
wherein the second wiper (second wiper arm 36) is operably configured to dislodge contaminants that pass under the first wiper (first wiper arm 36) while traversing the optical surface (shield 24) (see ¶ 47: “More than one wiper arm 36 may be provided, with a first wiper arm 36 being used for dislodging heavier debris and with an additional one or more wiper arm 36 being used for dry wipe…”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses wherein the wiper and liquid applicator are fabricated as a unitary body (see ¶ 190: “In other embodiments, an integrated fluid applicator and wiper (See FIG. 31) can be employed. The integrated fluid applicator and wiper of FIG. 31 can also be employed in other embodiments of the optical assembly described above”).
Regarding claim 30, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 29.
Nabavi further discloses (see newly annotated FIG. 30 below) wherein the liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) comprises a liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) edge disposed in spaced apart relation to the edge of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932), the liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) edge being in liquid communication with a liquid reservoir (fluid chamber 940) for dispensing liquid under the liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) edge and under the edge of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) onto the optical surface (optical window 928). (Note also, per ¶s 6-7 and 187, that relative motion between optical window 928 and the wiper+applicator combination 932+936 may occur in multiple passes/directions, such that fluid dispensed from the fluid applicator 936 passes under
PNG
media_image9.png
372
693
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 30 of Nabavi is again newly annotated to highlight various features)]the edges of both wiper and applicator.)
Regarding claim 33, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 25.
Nabavi further discloses (see ¶ 190 and FIG. 31 regarding an integrated fluid applicator and wiper apparatus which “can also be employed” in the optical assembly 920) wherein the wiper is provided by a first portion of the seal (secondary seal 218).
Regarding claim 34, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 33.
Nabavi further discloses wherein a second portion of the seal (primary seal 216) acts as the liquid applicator. (¶ 188: “fluid applicator 936 in this embodiment also includes an open ended housing 938”, “housing 938 includes a fluid chamber 940 in fluid communication with an opening”, “a groove[…] of the opening that is configured to receive the primary seal 216”)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over --Nabavi in view of Bronson, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses wherein the optical surface (optical window 928) comprises a surface of a window.
Nabavi, in the embodiment (optical assembly 920) cited above, does not disclose:
wherein the optical device is disposed within an inner housing including a window disposed to protect the underlying optical device, and
wherein the wiper is mounted to an outer housing enclosing the inner housing, and
further comprising a compliant element disposed between the inner housing and the outer housing, the compliant element being configured to urge the surface of the window into contact with the wiper.
Nabavi, in another embodiment (optical assembly 520; see ¶s 163-176 and FIGs. 20-22, where FIGs. 20 and 21 are annotated below for convenience), discloses:
wherein the optical device (126) is disposed within an inner housing (optical cylinder 524) including a window (optical window 528) disposed to protect the underlying optical device (126), and
wherein the wiper (secondary seal, or wiper, 218) is mounted (via gland 590) to an outer housing (outer fluid cylinder 558) enclosing the inner housing (optical cylinder 524), and
PNG
media_image11.png
773
1157
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIGs. 20 and 21 of Nabavi are annotated to highlight various features.)]further comprising a compliant element disposed between the inner housing (optical cylinder 524) and the outer housing (outer fluid cylinder 558), the compliant element being configured to urge the surface of the window (optical window 528) into contact with the wiper (secondary seal, or wiper, 218). (Note, per ¶ 129, that secondary seal or wiper 218 – disposed in gland 590 that is mounted on outer fluid cylinder 558 – “is fabricated out of an elastomer”, and is therefore compliant. Note also, per ¶ 171: “The secondary seal 218 is further configured and arranged such that its outermost edge is flush against and exerts a positive pressure against the optical cylinder 524”.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Nabavi’s previous embodiment (optical assembly 920 applied to claim 1 above) with aspects of Nabavi’s other embodiment (optical assembly 520), in order to provide additional/pertinent housing details (which are not discussed in as great detail for optical assembly 920) and make the previous embodiment more structurally whole.
Claims 5 and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabavi in view of Bronson, as applied respectively to claims 1 and 23 above, and in further view of Becker et al (US 20090229067 A1, hereinafter “Becker”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Modified Nabavi does not disclose wherein the edge of the wiper comprises a metallic material.
Nabavi and Becker commonly relate to wipers for optical surfaces.
Becker discloses wherein the edge of the wiper (scraper blade 110) comprises a metallic material (see FIG. 1, ¶ 32).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Nabavi with Becker’s metal scraper blade edge, in order to withstand high shear forces and to provide high hardness, wear-resistance, and rigidity (Becker ¶ 32).
Regarding claim 26, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 23.
---Bronson further discloses the housing (housing 10 with apron 28) at the periphery of the optical surface (shield 24). (See the left annotated FIG. 3(Bronson)+1(Becker) below)
Modified Nabavi does not disclose wherein a peripheral portion of the housing at the periphery of the optical surface progressively narrows in a direction of rotation of the window with respect to the housing such that contaminants on the optical surface become spaced apart from the peripheral portion of the housing as the window rotates relative to the housing.
Nabavi and Becker commonly relate to wipers for optical surfaces.
PNG
media_image13.png
635
1247
media_image13.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 3 of Bronson is annotated in the left panel to highlight the circular path taken by contaminant 22 and its relation to the peripheral portion defined by aperture 30 and housing 10.In the right panel, Bronson’s aperture 30 has been replaced with that of Becker’s window 104 (FIG. 1) to identify other features)]Becker discloses wherein the peripheral portion of the housing progressively narrows in a direction of rotation of the window with respect to the housing such that contaminants on the optical surface become spaced apart from the peripheral portion of the housing as the window rotates relative to the housing. (See the right annotated FIG. 3(Bronson)+1(Becker) below, where aperture 30 of Bronson’s FIG. 3 has just been replaced by window 104 of Becker’s FIG. 1.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Nabavi with Becker’s design by reducing the size of the opening to the window (and displacing it to maintain alignment with the underlying optical device), so that the demands and the size of the wiping apparatus may also be reduced.
Claims 6 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabavi in view of Bronson, as applied to claims 1, 29, and 30 above, and in further view of Weiler et al (CN 105329019 B, hereinafter “Weiler”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses wherein the edge of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) comprises a material having a Shore A durometer of at least 90 (see ¶ 179: “the wiper has a Shore A hardness in the range of about 85-95”, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Modified Nabavi does not disclose wherein the edge of the wiper comprises a thermoplastic material.
Nabavi and Weiler commonly relate to wiping devices for windows/surfaces.
Weiler discloses wherein the edge of the wiper comprises a thermoplastic material. (See ¶ 21: “at least one blade edge is made of a material from the group consisting of: TPE (thermoplastic elastomer), …”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nabavi with Weiler’s thermoplastic elastomer (“rubber-like”) blade edge, in order to minimize the risk of injury (Weiler ¶ 74).
Regarding claim 31, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 30.
Nabavi further discloses wherein the unitary body comprises a mounting portion (enclosure 944, to which “the wiper is mounted” – ¶ 190) and an engagement portion (i.e. the edge that engages with optical window 928) of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932), to permit the edge of the wiper (optical body cleaning mechanism 932) and the liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) edge to each engage the optical surface (optical window 928).
Modified Nabavi does not disclose wherein the unitary body also comprises at least one laterally sculpted portion between the mounting portion and the engagement portion of the wiper, the at least one laterally sculpted portion being configured to facilitate flexing of the engagement portion with respect to the mounting portion.
Nabavi and Weiler commonly relate to wiping devices for windows/surfaces.
Weiler discloses (see FIGs. 4A and 6(A,B), both annotated below, and described respectively in ¶s 59-75 and ¶s 78-92; note these correspond to two embodiments of a wiper blade 71 and 2, which are combinable as noted by Weiler – e.g. in ¶s 70 and 83) wherein the unitary body comprises at least one laterally sculpted portion between the mounting portion (upper part or portion 72/10) and the engagement portion (lower part or portion 73/12) of the wiper (wiper blade 71/2), the at least one laterally sculpted portion being configured to facilitate flexing of the engagement portion (lower part or portion 73/12) with respect to the mounting portion (upper part or portion 72/10).
PNG
media_image15.png
666
1413
media_image15.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIGs. 4A and 6(A,B) of Weiler are annotated to highlight various features)]It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Nabavi using aspects of Weiler’s wiper blade design which include cavities (or “laterally sculpted portions”), in order to reduce or avoid the accumulation of foreign matter when wiping/scraping (Weiler ¶ 14).
Regarding claim 32, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 29.
Modified Nabavi does not disclose wherein the wiper is fabricated from one of a Hydroxyacetone or a polyurethane material.
Nabavi and Weiler commonly relate to wiping devices for windows/surfaces.
Weiler discloses wherein the wiper is fabricated from one of a Hydroxyacetone or a polyurethane material. (See ¶65: "at least one protrusion 79 or at least one blade edge is made of a material from the group consisting of: TPE (thermoplastic elastomer), in particular TPE-S, TPE-O, TPE-U, ...", where Examiner notes that TPE-U is a common abbreviation for thermoplastic polyurethane.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nabavi with Weiler’s thermoplastic elastomer (“rubber-like”) blade edge, in order to minimize the risk of injury (Weiler ¶ 74).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over --Nabavi in view of Bronson, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Irie and Narita (JP 2015214269 A, hereinafter “Irie”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Modified Nabavi does not disclose wherein the liquid applicator comprises an absorbent material disposed in contact with or proximate the optical surface, the absorbent material acting as a reservoir for holding liquid, a portion of which is dispensed from the absorbent material for renewing the liquid film.
Nabavi and Irie commonly relate to wipers for optical surfaces.
Irie discloses (see ¶s 14-15) wherein the liquid applicator comprises an absorbent material (“cleaning liquid absorbent material”) disposed in contact with or proximate the optical surface (“the surface of the objective lens or protective glass is wiped with the cleaning liquid absorbent material”), the absorbent material (“cleaning liquid absorbent material”) acting as a reservoir for holding liquid (“the wiper blade being made of a cleaning liquid absorbent material capable of absorbing the cleaning liquid”), a portion of which is dispensed from the absorbent material (“cleaning liquid absorbent material”) for renewing the liquid film (“it becomes possible to perform drop control so that the cleaning liquid is dripped little by little from the wiper blade onto the lens surface or the protective glass surface, making it easier to form a film of the cleaning liquid on the objective lens surface or the protective glass surface”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Nabavi with Irie’s cleaning liquid absorbent material, in order to reduce frictional resistance with the optical surface and prevent scratching (Irie ¶ 15, 27).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over --Nabavi in view of Bronson, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Inoue (JP 2006176028 A) and Mercedez-Benz (NPL entitled What is Mercedes-Benz Magic Vision Control®?).
Regarding claim 20, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Modified Nabavi does not disclose wherein the liquid applicator comprises a spray nozzle in communication with a liquid reservoir, the spray nozzle being embedded in the wiper and oriented to spray liquid onto the optical surface.
Nabavi and Inoue commonly relate to wipers for optical surfaces.
Inoue discloses (see FIGs. 1 and 3, ¶s 12-17, 23-26) wherein the liquid applicator comprises a spray nozzle (cleaner nozzle 5) in communication (via hose 6) with a liquid reservoir (cleaner tank 2), the spray nozzle (cleaner nozzle 5) being oriented to spray liquid (cleaner/washer fluid 9) onto the optical surface (outer lens 4).
Nabavi and Mercedez-Benz commonly relate to wiping devices for windows/surfaces.
Mercedez-Benz discloses a spray nozzle embedded in the wiper (“wiper blades with laser-cut holes that produce a highly precise spray of washer fluid”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Nabavi with Inoue’s spraying cleaner nozzle, in order to facilitate easier cleaning of the optical surface using a higher pressure liquid delivery systems and to control liquid application/ejection (Inoue ¶s 15, 23-24).
It would have further been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also modify Nabavi with Mercedes-Benz, in order to minimize overspray and runoff.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over --Nabavi in view of Bronson, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Childers et al (US 20040086427 A1, hereinafter “Childers”).
Regarding claim 21, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Nabavi further discloses:
wherein the optical surface (optical window 528) is provided by an optical element disposed to transmit light to the optical device (126), and
wherein the liquid applicator (fluid applicator 936) comprises a liquid reservoir (fluid chamber 940) for renewing the liquid film (see also ¶s 5-9).
Modified Nabavi does not disclose:
the optical element including a plurality of narrow channels extending through the optical element and
the liquid reservoir in communication with the plurality of narrow channels, the plurality of narrow channels having respective openings at the optical surface operable to deliver liquid from the liquid reservoir to the optical surface for renewing the liquid film.
Nabavi and Childers commonly relate to fluidic processing for optical devices.
Childers discloses (see ¶s 33-35, 46-49, 69-73; FIGs. 3, 5, 10, 11-12, 17-19):
the optical element (substrate 160) including a plurality of narrow channels (interface passages 180(a-e)) extending through the optical element (substrate 160) and
the liquid reservoir ((reagent) reservoirs or (fluid storage) chambers 52) in communication with the plurality of narrow channels (interface passages 180(a-e)), the plurality of narrow channels (interface passages 180(a-e)) having respective openings (188) at the optical surface (surface 162) operable to deliver liquid (wash solutions 110, 112) from the liquid reservoir (reagent reservoirs 52) to the optical surface (surface 162).
(See also ¶ 89: “Compartments that carry fluid are passages…Compartments that hold fluid… are termed chambers or reservoirs… Fluid compartments within a microfluidic device that are fluidically connected form a fluid network”))
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Nabavi with elements of Childers’s microfluidic network and control systems thereof, in order to route fluids and regulate their transport/properties in an economical manner (Childers ¶ 1, 22).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over --Nabavi in view of Bronson and Childers, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Xu et al (US 20210370303 A1, hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 22, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 21.
Childers further discloses wherein the liquid reservoir (reagent reservoirs 52) is pressurized to a pressure level that is sufficient to cause liquid (wash solutions 110, 112) to flow through the plurality of narrow channels (interface passages 180(a-e)) (see ¶ 51).
Modified Nabavi does not disclose a pressure level that is sufficient to form the liquid film on the optical surface while not providing sufficient force to overcome the surface tension in the liquid film.
Nabavi and Xu commonly relate to fluid application.
Xu discloses a pressure level that is sufficient to form the liquid film on the optical surface while not providing sufficient force to overcome the surface tension in the liquid film. (See ¶s 10-14, 53; FIGs. 2-5 – Xu discloses designs for a multi-channel microfluidic circuit that produces liquid droplets with consistent size and reduced sensitivity to pressures, as compared to the prior art; Examiner notes that the presence of droplets directly indicates that the surface tension has not been overcome. Examiner also notes from FIG. 4 that the diameters of Xu’s droplets are roughly 45 microns, which is more than sufficient for producing films which may only require e.g. ~
O
[1-10] micron thickness.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Nabavi with teachings of Xu, in order to form the liquid film using methods that produce more consistently sized droplets with reduced sensitivity to pressures (Xu ¶ 11), which would in turn facilitate the formation of more uniform liquid films.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over --Nabavi in view of Bronson, as applied to claim 27 above, and in further view of Becker et al (US 20090229067 A1, hereinafter “Becker”) and Weiler et al (CN 105329019 B, hereinafter “Weiler”).
Regarding claim 28, modified Nabavi discloses the apparatus of claim 27.
Nabavi further discloses material having a Shore A durometer of at least 90 (see ¶ 179: “the wiper has a Shore A hardness in the range of about 85-95”, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Modified Nabavi does not disclose wherein the edge of the second wiper comprises a metallic material and wherein the edge of the first wiper comprises a thermoplastic material having a Shore A durometer of at least 90.
Nabavi and Becker commonly relate to wipers for optical surfaces.
Becker discloses wherein the edge of the second wiper (scraper blade 110) comprises a metallic material (see FIG. 1, ¶ 32).
Nabavi and Weiler commonly relate to wiping devices for windows/surfaces.
Weiler discloses wherein the edge of the first wiper comprises a thermoplastic material having a Shore A durometer of at least 90. (See ¶65: "at least one protrusion 79 or at least one blade edge is made of a material from the group consisting of: TPE (thermoplastic elastomer), in particular TPE-S, TPE-O, TPE-U, ...", where Examiner notes that TPE-U is a common abbreviation for thermoplastic polyurethane, whose Shore A hardness can reach ~95.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Nabavi with Becker’s metal scraper blade edge, in order to withstand high shear forces and to provide high hardness, wear-resistance, and rigidity (Becker ¶ 32).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to again modify Nabavi with Weiler’s thermoplastic elastomer (“rubber-like”) blade edge, in order to minimize the risk of injury (Weiler ¶ 74).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights