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 .
2. Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendments/remarks filed 3/17/25. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 13, 16, 18, 20 were amended. Claims 1-25 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2 of remarks, filed 3/17/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-14, 16, 17, 22, and 24-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deane and claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuzawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made further in view of US Pub. 2019/0275990 to Agrotis et al.
4. The rejections of claims 3-10 and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in the view of the amended claim set filed 3/17/25. However, new grounds of rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is made and presented in the following Office Action as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a module control unit” in claim 3 (Fig. 2: 210, “ECU 1,” understood to refer to an electronic control unit having a controller; “a device control unit” in claim 3 (Fig. 1: 211, understood to refer to an electronic control unit having a controller); “a heating device” in claim 17 (Fig. 1: 500, associated with a heat exchanger, or electric heating device with one or more heating wire [0077]); “a vehicle control unit” in claim 22 (Fig. 2: 1020, “V-ECU”, understood to refer to an electronic control unit having a controller).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-25 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 5 recites the limitation "the sensor cleaning module". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that line 3 establishes antecedent basis for “at least one sensor cleaning module”.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 does not further limit claim 8 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1, 3-17, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2020/0001832 to Deane et al. (hereinafter “Deane”) in view of US Pub. 2019/0275990 to Agrotis et al. (hereinafter “Agrotis”).
Regarding claim 1,
Deane discloses a sensor cleaning system (2810) for a vehicle (100) [see Fig. 28], the sensor cleaning system comprising:
at least one sensor cleaning module (2808a) having a valve unit (2806a);
said valve unit being configured to receive compressed air (from 2859) via a module compressed air port and to selectively output a compressed air cleaning pulse (by means of valves, 2808a) via a cleaning compressed air port;
said at least one sensor cleaning module having a module reservoir (2802) and a pump mechanism (2804);
said module reservoir being configured to receive and store a cleaning liquid (2801) provided via a module liquid port;
said module reservoir (2802) being connected to said pump mechanism (2804) for fluid transfer; and,
said pump mechanism (2804) being configured to provide the cleaning liquid (2801) in a form of a liquid cleaning pulse at a cleaning fluid port in dependence upon a control signal [see Fig. 28; ¶0182-¶0184, ¶0187; claims 1, 2, 8].
Deane does not explicitly teach that the compressed air is from a source external to the at least one sensor cleaning module. However it is known in the art to use compressed air from a source external to the sensor cleaning module; for example, Agrotis teaches that a compressed air source (211) is a stand-alone air compressor, wherein “the compressed air source 211 includes an air compressor that is disposed to supply compressed air to another on-vehicle system, such as an air brake, a ride leveling system, a ride control system, or another on-vehicle system”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Deane such that the compressed air is received from a source external to the at least one sensor cleaning module, as disclosed by Agrotis, such that the compressed air source may be beneficially used to supply another on-vehicle system.
Regarding claim 3,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein at least one of said sensor cleaning module has a module control unit (controller 2824 in Fig. 28) configured to control said valve unit; and, said sensor cleaning system has a device control unit (2824 may include “one or more controllers”[¶0056], or, alternatively, 106 [¶0057]) configured to control said valve unit of said at least one sensor cleaning module [Fig. 28; ¶0185].
Regarding claim 4,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, further comprising at least one cleaning nozzle (2864) connected to the sensor cleaning module for at least one of air transfer and fluid transfer; and, said at least one cleaning nozzle being configured to apply at least one of the liquid cleaning pulse and a compressed air cleaning pulse to a sensor surface [Fig. 28; ¶0184].
Regarding claim 5,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, further comprising: at least one further sensor cleaning module (multiple sensor cleaning modules, e.g. a first cleaning module for sensors on the rear bumper and a second cleaning module for sensors on the roof); wherein said sensor cleaning module and said at least one further sensor cleaning module are connected bidirectionally via at least one of an exchange line for fluid transfer and a control line for signal transfer [¶0178-¶0179].
Regarding claim 6,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 5, wherein: said sensor cleaning module is assigned to a first sensor cluster (located on the rear bumper) with a number of cleaning nozzles located together locally for at least one sensor; and, said at least one further sensor cleaning module is further assigned to a second cluster (located on the roof) with a number of cleaning nozzles located together locally for at least one sensor [¶0178].
Regarding claim 7,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 6, wherein each of said number of cleaning nozzles are for one sensor [e.g. Fig. 26-28].
Regarding claims 8-9,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said module reservoir is connected for fluid transfer to at least one liquid source (2802); and, said sensor cleaning module is lower than said at least one liquid source [Fig. 28; ¶0183].
Regarding claim 10,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 8, further comprising a pump (2804) configured to convey the cleaning liquid, wherein said pump is arranged in a liquid supply line connecting the sensor cleaning module to said at least one liquid source for fluid transfer or in an exchange line [Fig. 28; ¶0183].
Regarding claim 11,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein at least two cleaning nozzles (2864) are assigned to said at least one sensor cleaning module [Fig. 28; ¶0184].
Regarding claim 12,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein a cleaning nozzle is arranged separately from said at least one sensor cleaning module (multiple sensor cleaning modules, e.g. a first cleaning module with nozzles for sensors on the rear bumper and a separate second cleaning module with nozzles for sensors on the roof) [¶0178-¶0179].
Regarding claim 13,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 11, wherein a line length between said at least one sensor cleaning module and at least one of said cleaning nozzles assigned to said at least one sensor cleaning module is less than 80 cm (e.g. 15 cm, ¶0189).
Regarding claim 14,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said at least one sensor cleaning module has a module compressed air reservoir (2859) configured to receive and locally store the compressed air provided via said module compressed air port [Fig. 28; ¶0183].
Regarding claim 15,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, but Deane does not explicitly specify said module reservoir of said at least one sensor cleaning module has a capacity between 250 milliliters and 3000 milliliters. The capacity of the module reservoir would be obvious as being a known result effective variable, as it would affect how many times you could pulse the cleaning liquid before needing to refill [¶0187], and is thus obvious to determine an optimal/workable capacity of the module reservoir, through routine experimentation. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine the capacity of the module reservoir by utilizing routine experimentation since it has been known to optimize the parameter that is the result effective variable involving only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said sensor cleaning module is at least one of arranged and configured to use waste heat (recovered by centralized heater to heat washer fluid) of a heat source (e.g. internal combustion engine, exhaust system, warm battery encasement, etc.) of the vehicle [¶0063].
Regarding claim 17,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 16, further comprising a heating device (centralized heater) configured to absorb heat from the heat source (e.g. internal combustion engine, exhaust system, warm battery encasement, etc.) of the vehicle [¶0063].
Regarding claim 22,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 3, wherein said valve unit is controlled in dependence upon a control signal provided by a vehicle control unit (104) of the vehicle [¶0062].
Regarding claims 24-25,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses a vehicle (100) comprising the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a passenger car, a trailer, or a commercial vehicle [¶0054].
15. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2020/0062222 to Fukazawa et al. (hereinafter “Fukuzawa”) in view of US Pub. 2019/0275990 to Agrotis et al. (hereinafter “Agrotis”).
Regarding claim 1,
Fukuzawa discloses a sensor cleaning system for a vehicle (10c) [see Fig. 8], the sensor cleaning system comprising:
at least one sensor cleaning module having a valve unit (98);
said valve unit (98) being configured to receive compressed air (from 57) via a module compressed air port and capable of selectively outputting a compressed air cleaning pulse (to 57) via a cleaning compressed air port;
said at least one sensor cleaning module having a module reservoir (92) and a pump mechanism (96);
said module reservoir (92) being configured to receive (from 56) and store a cleaning liquid provided via a module liquid port;
said module reservoir being connected to said pump mechanism (via 94) for fluid transfer; and,
said pump mechanism (96) being configured to provide the cleaning liquid (to 110) in a form of a liquid cleaning pulse at a cleaning fluid port in dependence upon a control signal (compressed air control signal) [see Fig. 8; ¶0101-¶0106].
Fukuzawa does not explicitly teach that the compressed air is from a source external to the at least one sensor cleaning module. However it is known in the art to use compressed air from a source external to the sensor cleaning module; for example, Agrotis teaches that a compressed air source (211) is a stand-alone air compressor, wherein “the compressed air source 211 includes an air compressor that is disposed to supply compressed air to another on-vehicle system, such as an air brake, a ride leveling system, a ride control system, or another on-vehicle system”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fukuzawa such that the compressed air is received from a source external to the at least one sensor cleaning module, as disclosed by Agrotis, such that the compressed air source may be beneficially used to supply another on-vehicle system.
Regarding claim 2,
Fukuzawa in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said pump mechanism (96) is operated by compressed air (from 97); the control signal is in the form of a compressed air control signal; and, said valve unit (98) is configured for the selective output of the compressed air control signal via a control compressed air port (coupled to 97) [Fig. 8; ¶0104-¶0106].
16. Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deane in view of Agrotis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. 2018/0015908 to Rice (hereinafter “Rice”).
Regarding claim 18,
Deane in view of Agrotis discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that said at least one sensor cleaning module has a module housing surrounding said at least one sensor cleaning module.
However it is well known in the art to provide a housing surrounding a sensor cleaning module as claimed. For example, Rice discloses a sensor cleaning system for a vehicle wherein a sensor cleaning module is positioned inside a housing located on the roof of the vehicle [¶0033].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a module housing surrounding the at least one sensor cleaning module, as disclosed by Rice, in order to predictably house and protect components of the at least one sensor cleaning module.
Regarding claim 23,
Deane in view of Agrotis and Rice discloses the sensor cleaning system of claim 18, wherein Rice discloses that said module housing is made of at least one of plastic, aluminum, and cast aluminum [¶0038].
17. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deane in view of Agrotis and Rice as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US Pub. 2019/0359178 to Hornsby et al. (hereinafter “Hornby”).
Regarding claim 19,
Deane in view of Agrotis and Rice discloses the sensor cleaning module of claim 18, wherein Deane teaches that the sensor cleaning module comprises a plurality of switching valves (2808a), but does not expressly teach a plurality of valve inserts on the module housing for each of the respective valves.
However, the use of valve inserts as claimed is known in the art; for example, Hornby discloses a module housing having a plurality of valve inserts (38), each valve insert for selectively seating a closing element (36) of a valve body (34) for each of the respective valves [Fig. 1, 6; ¶0029]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Deane in view of Agrotis and Rice to include a plurality of valve inserts (at least a first, second, and third) in the module housing corresponding to the number of valves, as disclosed by Hornby, in order to predictably provide selective engagement with the respective valve bodies to sealingly close the outlet.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
19. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 20-21,
Deane in view of Agrotis and Rice does not teach or suggest all features of claim 20 reciting “wherein said plurality of valve inserts have a hollow cylindrical configuration and said switching valves each have a valve body with a first and a second axially adjacent valve chamber; said first axially adjacent valve chamber and said second axially adjacent valve chamber are pneumatically separated at least in one flow direction by a sealing ring bearing against an inner wall of a corresponding one of said plurality of valve inserts in a pressure-tight manner”. No available prior art is able to remedy the deficiencies of Deane in view of Rice. Upon a comprehensive search, no available prior art was able to teach or fairly suggest, singly or in combination, all features of claim 20. On this basis, claim 20, and therefore claim 21 depending therefrom, contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
20. 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.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS BUCCI whose telephone number is (571)270-5406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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 at (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.
/THOMAS BUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights