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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. Previous rejections are withdrawn, new rejections are set froth herein and are made final.
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 14 and 16 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the control being responsive to at least one sensor in order to adjust the air stream based on a dirtiness of the at least one sensor”. It is unclear if this is the same or different than the previously mentioned sensors. As such the claim is determined to be indefinite. For Examination purposes, it will be assumed it’s the same sensor.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the first duct includes a wall connecting the inlet opening to the outlet orifice, the wall having a smooth internal face without irregularities or sharp edge corners”. It is unclear what is meant by “a smooth internal face without irregularities or sharp edge corners”. As such the claim is determined to be indefinite. For examination purposes, if the flow path appears to be free of large obstructions, it will meet the limitation s of the 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 11-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US2020/0180566) in view of Matsunaga (US 2022/0097657).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a cleaning device for at least one vehicle sensor (Item 1 or 2), comprising
an air stream generator (Item AP),
an air stream transport duct (Items H1, H2, H3, and 3-5) for conveying an air stream over a first sensor (Item 2) from a discharge orifice (Item 4a) of the air stream generator, the first sensor being a camera connected to a data acquisition system (Paragraph 19),
the air stream duct being a first duct (depending on interpretation, Item H1, 5 or H3) having at least one inlet opening (H1 to AP or 5a) for the air stream and at least one outlet orifice for the air stream (Item 4 to Item 2),
wherein a cross section of the inlet opening of the first duct is larger than a cross section of the outlet orifice of the first duct (Paragraph 23-25 and 36-39);
a second sensor (Item 1; Paragraph 19)
and the air stream transport duct includes a second duct (Item H3) configured to bring the air stream to the second sensor.
Saito fails to explicitly disclose a radial flow fan having a propeller configured to rotate about an axis of rotation, an intake orifice through which air is aspirated axially along the axis of rotation, and a discharge orifice through which an air stream is expelled radially relative to the axis of rotation, the discharge orifice being in aeraulic communication with an air stream transport duct.
Matsunaga teaches a sensor cleaner wherein a radial flow fan having a propeller configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (Item 12), an intake orifice (Item 6d/12a) through which air is aspirated axially along the axis of rotation, and a discharge orifice (12b) through which an air stream is expelled radially relative to the axis of rotation, the discharge orifice being in aeraulic communication with an air stream transport duct. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the air stream generator of Saito for the radial fan of Matsunaga. Radial fans are known in the art to deliver air, leading to the predictable result of the air being delivered to multiple sensors (Matsunaga Paragraphs 10-12)
Regarding claim 2 Saito in view of Matsunaga disclose the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the first duct includes a channel connecting the inlet opening to an outlet opening (Saito Item H3) for the air stream of the channel, and a nozzle (Item 4) connecting the outlet orifice (Item 4a or 3a) to an inlet orifice (H3 to 4), of the nozzle, the inlet orifice of the nozzle facing the outlet opening of the channel (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Saito discloses a driving assistance module for a vehicle, comprising
An accumulation sensor (Item 2) and a cleaning device (Figure 2-8), with the cleaning device including an air stream generator (Item AP),
an air stream transport duct (Items H1, H2, H3, and 3-5) for conveying the air stream over a first sensor from a discharge orifice of the air stream generator,
the air stream duct having at least one inlet opening (H1 to AP) for the air stream and at least one outlet orifice for the air stream (Item 4 to Item 2),
wherein a cross section of the inlet opening of the duct is larger than a cross section of the outlet orifice of the duct and wherein an internal cross section of the first duct decreases continuously from the inlet opening to the outlet orifice, the internal cross section being measured in a plane perpendicular to an overall flow direction of the air stream in the first duct; (Figure 2, H1 to h3 to 4 continuously decreases ; Paragraph 23-25 and 36-39)
a second sensor (Item 1); and
a second duct configured to bring the air stream to the second sensor.
Saito fails to explicitly disclose a radial flow fan having a propeller configured to rotate about an axis of rotation, an intake orifice through which air is aspirated axially along the axis of rotation, and a discharge orifice through which an air stream is expelled radially relative to the axis of rotation, the discharge orifice being in aeraulic communication with an air stream transport duct.
Matsunaga teaches a sensor cleaner wherein a radial flow fan having a propeller configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (Item 12), an intake orifice (Item 6d/12a) through which air is aspirated axially along the axis of rotation, and a discharge orifice (12b) through which an air stream is expelled radially relative to the axis of rotation, the discharge orifice being in aeraulic communication with an air stream transport duct. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the air stream generator of Saito for the radial fan of Matsunaga. Radial fans are known in the art to deliver air, leading to the predictable result of the air being delivered to multiple sensors (Matsunaga Paragraphs 10-12)
Regarding claim 9, Saito in view of Matsunaga disclose the driving assistance module as claimed in claim 7, wherein the outlet orifice of a nozzle is configured such that the air stream sweeps a receiving and/or transmitting outer surface of the accumulation sensor (Paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 11, Saito in view of Matsunaga disclose the cleaning device of claim 1. Saito fails to explicitly disclose wherein a rotational speed of the propeller is between 1000 rpm and 10,000 rpm, with the air stream having a speed of between 0 m/s and 20 m/s. In paragraph 30-32 of Saito its discussed how there is not a need for a great flow rate, rather a satisfactory rate would suffice. Thus, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Saito in view of Matsunaga it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the rotational speed of the propeller is between 1000 rpm and 10,000 rpm, with the air stream having a speed of between 0 m/s and 20 m/s. Since these numbers have a lot to do with the size of the fan, and the size of the object(s) intended to be cleaned. Further in the instant application Paragraphs [84] applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Saito in view of Matsunaga disclose the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the radial flow fan includes a casing having four lateral walls extending from a lower base to an upper base along a vertical axis, the lower base and the upper base each extending in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the propeller, and the axis of rotation being parallel to the vertical axis (Matsunaga Figures 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 13, Saito in view of Matsunaga disclose the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the intake orifice is provided with a cover configured to limit entry of dust and foreign bodies into the air stream generator (Matsunaga Item 7).
Regarding claim 16, Saito disclose the cleaning system of claim 6. Saito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first duct includes a wall connecting the inlet opening to the outlet orifice, the wall having a smooth internal face without irregularities or sharp edge corners (Saito gives more of a flow diagram than an operating model).
Matsunaga teaches a device cleaner wherein the first duct includes a wall connecting the inlet opening to the outlet orifice, the wall having a smooth internal face without irregularities or sharp edge corners (Figure 4b and 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito to be similar to the smooth flow path of Matsunaga. It is known in the art the sharp turns and rough walls only decrease the flow efficiencies of a fluid. By making them relatively smooth and free flowing, it ensures there are minimal losses.
Regarding claim 17, Saito disclose the cleaning system of claim 7. Saito fails to explicitly disclose the discharge orifice has a rectangular outline as seen in a plane perpendicular to an overall flow direction of the air stream.
Matsunaga further teaches a device cleaner wherein the discharge orifice has a rectangular outline as seen in a plane perpendicular to an overall flow direction of the air stream (Figure 11, near 97a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the block diagram nozzle of Saito for the actual working nozzle of Matsunaga. Such a modification would lead to the predicable result of the nozzle properly working and spraying the sensor.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2020/0180566) in view of Matsunaga (US 2022/0097657) in view of Karasik (US2018/0079392).
Regarding claim 3, Saito in view of Matsunaga disclose the cleaning device of claim 2. Saito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first duct includes a sleeve for holding the nozzle at the channel.
Karasik teaches a sensor cleaning device wherein the duct includes a sleeve (Fig 5, Items 102 and 118) for holding the nozzle at the channel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito to include the sleeve of Karasik. Such a modification would allow for the nozzle of Saito to easily connect to the sensor without the need for extra tools.
Regarding claim 4, Saito in view of Matsunaga in view of Karasik disclose the cleaning device of claim 3. As currently modified, Saito fails to explicitly disclose wherein an internal cross section of the nozzle decreases from the inlet orifice to the outlet orifice.
Karasik further teaches wherein an internal cross section of the nozzle decreases from the inlet orifice to the outlet orifice (best shown in Figure 13b, the nozzle decreases from diameter 852 to 866a/b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito with the plurality of small nozzles as taught by Karasik. Creating a plurality of fluid pathways from several different angles increases the cleaning ability (Karasik Paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 5, Saito in view of Matsunaga in view of Karasik disclose the cleaning device of claim 4, wherein the nozzle includes a ventilation grille extending in a plane perpendicular to an overall flow direction of the air stream in the nozzle (Karasik Item 104).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2020/0180566).
Regarding claim 6, Saito discloses a cleaning system, comprising
a cleaning devices (Paragraphs 2-5 discusses the need for multiple sensors for the front, rear and sides), with each cleaning device including
an air stream generator (Item AP),
an air stream transport duct (Items H3) for conveying an air stream over a first sensor (Item 2) from a discharge orifice of the air stream generator,
the air stream transport duct, being a first duct, includes an inlet opening for the air stream and an outlet orifice for the air stream, wherein a cross section of the inlet opening of the duct is larger than a cross section of the outlet orifice of the first duct and wherein an internal cross section of the first duct decreases continuously from the inlet opening to the outlet orifice, the internal cross section being measured in a plane perpendicular to an overall flow direction of the air stream in the first duct (Figure 2, H1 to h3 to 4 continuously decreases, Paragraph 23-25 and 36-39 , near Item 4),
wherein a channel of one of the cleaning devices has an identical shape to a channel of at least one other one of the cleaning devices (Figure 2 Items 5b and 5c appear the same diameter), and
in a nozzle of one of the cleaning devices has a different shape to another nozzle of the other of the cleaning devices (Item 4 in figure 2 is different than the nozzle of Item 3)
a second sensor (Item 1); and
the air stream transport duct includes a second duct (Item h2) configured to bring the air stream to the second sensor from an exhaust port of the air stream generator.
Saito fails to disclose at least two cleaning devices with each cleaning device including
an air stream generator. Paragraphs 2-5 discusses the need for multiple sensors for the front, rear and sides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito to have multiple cleaning devices for the different sensors located on the front, side, rear, or roof of the car. Such a modification is viewed as a duplication of parts, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Such a modification would allow for each of the sensors to have their own air generator which would allow for the right amount of air to be generated and keep pneumatic lines from being ran across all of the car, which would reduce the risk of an air leak over time.
Regarding claim 15, Saito disclose the cleaning system of claim 6, wherein the internal cross section of the first duct is constant over a first portion of the first duct and then becomes smaller and remains constant over a second portion of the first duct (Figure 2, H1 to h3 to 4 become smaller and smaller).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2020/0180566) in view of Hattori (US 2011/0073142).
Regarding claim 8, Saito in view of Matsunaga disclose the driving assistance module of claim 7. Saito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the accumulation sensor is configured to command the cleaning device to start up.
Hattori teaches a driving assistance module with a sensor cleaner wherein the sensor is configured to command the cleaning device to start up (Paragraph 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito to include the start cleaning process as taught by Hattori. Allowing the sensor to detect dirt, and clean itself would allow for the sensor to remain clean without the user needing to pay attention to the quality of the lends. Further with self-driving cars, and sensors handling more functions in an automobile, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to automatically maintain the sensor to be clean. That way the input data isn’t skewed by the presence of dirt/debris.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2020/0180566) in view of Matsunaga (US 2022/0097657) in view of Krishnan (US 10,802,121).
Regarding claim 14, Saito in view of Matsunaga disclose the cleaning device of claim 1. Saito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the air stream generator is configured to be controlled in terms of power, the control being responsive to at least one sensor in order to adjust the air stream based on a dirtiness of the at least one sensor.
Krishnan teaches a cleaning device wherein the air stream generator is configured to be controlled in terms of power, the control being responsive to at least one sensor in order to adjust the air stream based on a dirtiness of the at least one sensor (Column 6 Lines 13-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saito to increase or decrease pressure of the air generator as taught by Krishan. Such a modification would ensure the nozzles had enough pressure power to remove any dirt or debris on the sensor to ensure the sensor remained clean and functionable. It would also conserve energy by now continuously keeping the pressure at that higher level. Recognizing when the system needs to operate at he higher level saves energy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 under 102- Saito have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Saito in view of Matsunaga
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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights