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 .
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 4 and 5 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 4 recites the limitation "the nozzle" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are more than one nozzle recited in line 4, it is unclear which particular nozzle is referred by the Applicant. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: “intake portion” and “sensing portion” in claim 1, where the term “portion” is the placeholder and “intake” and “sensing” are the functional language.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krishnan et al. (US20180354468. Krishnan hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Krishnan discloses a sensor barrier structure (Figs. 1-7) comprising:
an intake portion (20) provided in an environmental sensor (10, 16. [0041]) installed in a vehicle (12),
wherein the environmental sensor comprises a sensing portion (16 and 46) configured to (capable of) detect surrounding environment of the vehicle, and a passage of fluid flow (from 114 to 88 to 54) is formed from the intake portion to the sensing portion in the environmental sensor.
With respect to claim 2, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 1, wherein the passage of fluid flow has a cross-sectional area (at 112. Fig. 4) gradually decreasing from the intake portion to (in the direction of) the sensing portion.
With respect to claim 3, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 1, wherein the intake portion is disposed to (capable of) face a front (portion) of the vehicle (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 4, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 1, wherein the passage of fluid flow comprises:
a distal (top) portion being an inlet (86) for a fluid and provided in the intake portion; and
one or more (annular) nozzles (88) being an outlet (Fig. 6) for the fluid passing through the passage of fluid flow and provided in the environmental sensor,
wherein the nozzle is disposed (downward) to face the sensing portion.
With respect to claim 6, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 1, wherein the intake portion has a cross-sectional area (at 112. Fig. 4) gradually decreasing towards (in the direction of) an inner side of the environmental sensor.
With respect to claim 7, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 6, wherein the intake portion comprises a distal portion (at 79. Fig. 4), an extension (sidewall of 112), and a proximal portion (184) provided in the passage of fluid flow, and
wherein:
the distal portion is an inlet for a fluid,
the extension extends from the distal portion inward of the environmental sensor and has a cross-sectional area decreasing inward of the environmental sensor, and
the proximal portion is a distal (downstream) end of the extension and is in communication with a nozzle assembly (88, 80, 82) disposed in the environmental sensor.
With respect to claim 8, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a nozzle assembly (88, 80, 82) disposed in the environmental sensor,
wherein the nozzle assembly forms a portion of the passage of fluid flow from the intake portion to the sensing portion (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 11, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 1, wherein the environmental sensor further comprises a cap (192) provided with the intake portion, the cap being mounted on an upper portion (Fig. 6) of the environmental sensor.
With respect to claim 12, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 1, wherein the environmental sensor is a lidar sensor ([0011], [0029] and [0041]) mounted on a roof of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rice et al. (US 20210309186. Rice hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Rice discloses a sensor barrier structure (Figs. 1-12) comprising:
an intake portion (560, 565) provided in an environmental sensor (125, 232, 234, 236, 300, 400, 500, 600 and 700. [0026]- [0026]) installed in a vehicle (105),
wherein the environmental sensor comprises a sensing portion (elements of the sensors and the curved lens) configured to (capable of) detect surrounding environment of the vehicle, and a passage of fluid flow (from 561 to the curved lens) is formed from the intake portion to the sensing portion in the environmental sensor.
With respect to claim 2, Rice discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 1, wherein the passage of fluid flow has a cross-sectional area (from 570 to 531) gradually decreasing from the intake portion to (in the direction of) the sensing portion.
With respect to claim 8, Rice discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a nozzle assembly (Figs. 5 and 9) disposed in the environmental sensor, wherein the nozzle assembly forms a portion of the passage of fluid flow from the intake portion to the sensing portion.
With respect to claim 9, Rice discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 8, further comprising: an inlet (from 850/950 to 570 to 531) configured to (capable of) communicate with the intake portion, a plurality of radial passages (defined by 935. Fig. 9) branching from the inlet, the radial passages each having a nozzle (930A-H) facing the sensing portion.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 210835223. Li hereinafter).
With respect to claim 13, Li discloses an environmental sensor (lidar 322 . Figs. 1-13) disposed on a vehicle (10) and configured to (capable of) sense a surrounding environment, the environmental sensor comprising:
a passage of fluid flow (from 317 to 321) configured to (capable of) receive a traveling wind of the vehicle to form a flow passage of the traveling wind (the through hole 317 is downward, which can prevent rainwater from entering the air curtain machine protective cover 315 , play the role of protecting the air curtain machine, and can play the role of supplementing air for the air curtain machine 33. Page 11, first paragraph),
wherein the passage of fluid flow receives the traveling wind to (capable of) form an air curtain (in addition to the air curtain machine 33) at the environmental sensor.
With respect to claim 14, Li discloses the environmental sensor according to claim 13, wherein the air curtain is formed at a (front) portion of the environmental sensor facing a front (portion) of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 15, Li discloses the environmental sensor according to claim 13, wherein the passage of fluid flow is configured to (capable of) direct the received traveling wind to a sensing portion (322) of the environmental sensor.
With respect to claim 16, Li discloses the environmental sensor according to claim 13, wherein the passage of fluid flow is configured to (capable of) allow the traveling wind to be introduced into an intake portion (opening of 33. Fig. 6) and sprayed through a nozzle (331) and to have a cross-sectional area decreasing from the intake portion to the nozzle.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Chung (US 20210048532).
With respect to claim 5, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 4 except for wherein the one or more nozzles are spaced apart from each other within a predetermined range in a portion of the environmental sensor facing a front of the vehicle.
However, Chung teaches a sensor barrier structure (Figs. 1-15) comprising: an intake portion (upper and lower portions of 204 with 208) provided in an environmental sensor (optical system 200) installed in a vehicle ([0003]), wherein the environmental sensor comprises a sensing portion (202) configured to (capable of) detect surrounding environment of the vehicle, and a passage of fluid flow (from 210 to 212. The fluid can from top to bottom or bottom to top. [0081]) is formed from the intake portion to the sensing portion in the environmental sensor. Chung further teaches wherein the passage of fluid flow comprises: a distal (inlet) portion being an inlet (downstream of 210) for a fluid and provided in the intake portion; and one or more nozzles (208) being an outlet (Fig. 6) for the fluid passing through the passage of fluid flow and provided in the environmental sensor, wherein the nozzle is disposed (upward or downward. [0081]) to face the sensing portion, wherein the one or more nozzles are spaced apart from each other within a predetermined range in a (top and bottom) portion of the environmental sensor facing a front of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of one or more nozzles are spaced apart from each other within a predetermined range, as taught by Chung, to Krishnan’s structure, in order to allow the cleaning fluid to flow out of or into the enclosed chamber to clean the sensing portion (Fig. 6 and [0079]).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Rice.
With respect to claim 9, Krishnan discloses the sensor barrier structure according to claim 8, wherein the nozzle assembly comprises:
an inlet (86) configured to (capable of) communicate with the intake portion.
Krishnan fails to disclose a plurality of radial passages branching from the inlet, the radial passages each having a nozzle facing the sensing portion.
However, Rice teaches a sensor barrier structure (Figs. 1-12) comprising: an intake portion (560, 565) provided in an environmental sensor (125, 232, 234, 236, 300, 400, 500, 600 and 700. [0026]- [0026]) installed in a vehicle (105), wherein the environmental sensor comprises a sensing portion (elements of the sensors and the curved lens) configured to (capable of) detect surrounding environment of the vehicle, and a passage of fluid flow (from 561/850/950 to the curved lens) is formed from the intake portion to the sensing portion in the environmental sensor. Rice also teaches a nozzle assembly (Figs. 5 and 9) disposed in the environmental sensor, wherein the nozzle assembly forms a portion of the passage of fluid flow from the intake portion to the sensing portion. Rice further teaches an inlet (from 850/950 to 570 to 531) configured to (capable of) communicate with the intake portion, a plurality of radial passages (defined by 935. Fig. 9) branching from the inlet, the radial passages each having a nozzle (930A-H) facing the sensing portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a plurality of radial passages branching from the inlet, as taught by Rice, to Krishnan’s fluid passage, in order to assist in directing the pressurized fluid to the respective nozzle ([0132] and Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 10, Krishnan’s sensor barrier structure modified by Rice’s plurality of radial passages, Krishnan further discloses wherein the passage of fluid flow has a cross-sectional area (at 112. Fig. 4) gradually decreasing from the inlet to the nozzle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a sensing protection device: Rice ‘450, Ekola et al., Ybarra, Newman, Rice ‘907, Pennecot et al., Schmidt and Garcia Crespo et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 February 5, 2026