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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-10, 12-20 are now pending in the application. Claims 1, 12, 14, and 16 have been amended and claims 2 and 11 have been canceled by the Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.04, 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on provisional Application US 63266034 , filed 12/27/2021
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 1,3-6, 10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollar et al. (hereafter Kollar, of record) US 20100027119 A1 in view of Tonar et al. (hereafter Tonar) US 20120243093 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) an optical module (e.g. system 10 for protecting an emitter/receiver device e.g. camera, radiation source with window, lens, on a vehicle/housing 16, see Abstract, paragraphs [02-10, 34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76]), for corresponding to an optical component ( for e.g. optical component emitter or receiver with parts, paragraphs [02-10, 34-41]), and the optical module (10) comprising:
a panel (i.e. engaging surface 22a,b of window, lens, fixed cover of optical component, of optical device 12, paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], Figs. 2-11); and
a foreign object removal assembly, removing a foreign object that is attached to the panel in a physical way (i.e. as system 10 with e.g. actuator(s) 20 and active material (AM) for removal from 22a,b of e.g. undesirables, such as foreign objects, abrasive particulate matter, mud, ice, snow, water, wax, debris, dirt accumulation and other damaging conditions, e.g. paragraphs [5, 7, 36-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], Figs. 2-11),
the foreign object removal assembly comprises:
a vibration module (as actuator 20 of 18 that includes active material (AM), paragraphs [34-40]);
a lever, the lever moves relative to the panel (as leveraging system with 18 with lever arm 70, end of 18, and moving relative to and over and across 22a,b, of 12 by 20 including SMAs 28,44,66 mechanism 56 with levers 58, tube/rods 62,64, 58b, mated 68, that extend and move across and contact surface of portion of 22a,b see e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], as depicted in Figs. 2-11); and
a temperature control component, wherein the temperature control component is in contact with the panel, and the temperature control component increases temperature of the panel (i.e. as SMA 28, 44, 66 is temperature controlled element on or sides of 22a,b, that can increase temperature 22a,b by heating it, see e.g. paragraphs [09, 40, 47-52]).
wherein the panel is in direct contact with the lever (i.e. as 18 with lever arm 70, end of 18, is in direct contact and moving relative to and over and across 22a,b, of 12 by 20 including SMAs 28,44,66 mechanism 56 with levers 58, tube/rods 62,64, 58b, mated 68, that extend and move across and contact surface of portion of 22a,b see e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], as depicted in Figs. 2-11),
the panel is disposed between the lever and the vibration module when viewed along a direction parallel to a surface of the panel (e.g. as panel 22a,b of 12 is between 18/70 and actuator 20 with AM, SMAs 28 see e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], see specifically Figs. 9-11a,b), and
the panel is disposed between the lever and the temperature control component when viewed along the direction parallel to the surface of the panel (i.e. as panel 22a,b is between lever e.g. 18 and temperature component SMA 28 that is temperature controlled element on other side of 22a,b, see e.g. paragraphs [09, 40, 47-52, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], see specifically Figs. 9-11a,b).
But Kollar is silent that vibration module, in direct contact with the panel, the vibration module actuates the panel to vibrate, temperature control component is in direct contact with the panel, and that
the panel is in direct contact with the vibration module, the lever, and the temperature control component simultaneously (i.e. as noted 18 with lever arm 70, end of 18, is in direct contact with the panel 22a,b).
However, Tonar teaches in the same field of invention of a lens cleaning apparatus (see Figs. 2-15, 28-31, title, abstract, paragraphs [02-06, 80-88, 97-98, 109-124]) and further teaches that vibration module, in direct contact with the panel, the vibration module actuates the panel to vibrate (i.e. vibratory and heated lens cleaning apparatus with piezoelectric (PZT) transducer 16,device, optionally connector 24, that is in direct contact/bonded with lens cover panel 20(70) causing vibrations of the 20 (70), paragraphs [02-06, 80-89, 97-98, 109-116], e.g. providing that camera lenses cover are free of residual fluid and debris in an automotive environment), the temperature control component is in direct contact with the panel (i.e. as heater operably/directly coupled to the lens cover 20 by conductive layer and/or contact elements 58, 59 , paragraphs [05,83,93,109,116-117,120-123], e.g. Figs. 2-13, 28-31), and that
the panel is in direct contact with the vibration module, and the temperature control component simultaneously (i.e. as PZT transducer 16(24) and heater layer/58-59 are in direct contact with 20 (70) simultaneously, paragraphs [02-06, 80-89, 93, 97-98, 109-117,120-123], ], e.g. Figs. 2-13, 28-31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the protecting system with window for emitter/receiver (camera/light source) of Kollar, to include vibration module in direct contact with the panel and configured to vibrate the panel (lens cover), and temperature control component is in direct contact with the panel (lens cover), such that the panel is in direct contact with the vibration module, and the temperature control component simultaneously according to teachings of Tonar, in order to provide that camera lenses cover/panel are free of residual fluid and debris in an automotive environment, by efficiently removing debris and/or water (see Tonar abstract, paragraphs [2-3,79,116]).
Regarding claim 3, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the vibration module comprises a piezoelectric element (as actuator 20, cover 18 includes AM with piezoelectric materials paragraphs [34-40]).
Regarding claim 4, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the lever is positioned across at least a portion of the panel and in contact with the surface of the panel (as leveraging system with 18,70, end of 18, and moving over and across surface of 22a,b of 12, by actuator 20 including SMAs 28,44,66 mechanism 56 with levers 58, tube/rods 62,64, 58b, mated 68, arm 18/70, that extend and move across and contact surface of portion of 22a,b see e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], as depicted in Figs. 2-11).
Regarding claim 5, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the lever moves relative to the panel along a direction that is parallel to a width of the lever (i.e. as 18, end 18 moves across 22a,b, parallel to a width of lever, see e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], as depicted in Figs. 2-11).
Regarding claim 6, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the width of the lever (i.e. as in each case lever 18, end of 18, including SMAs 28,44,66 mechanism 56 with levers 58, 58b composites with tube/rods 62,64, also mated levers 68, and/or 18/70 have width, see e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], as depicted in Figs. 2-11), and an f-number of the optical component is greater than 5.6 (i.e. as best understood this limitation if a functional property of optical component which is not part of the optical module but is external to the optical module, specifically since claim 1 recites in the preamble that “optical module, for corresponding to an optical component”, therefore the optical component is not part of the optical module device but an object for intended use of the optical module, as it is held that “A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).” Moreover, any functional property such as f-number of an external object to the device such as optical component does not have any structural implications on the optical module. The recitation " f-number of the optical component is greater than 5.6 " is of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP §2111.04, §2114. The device of system 10 for protecting an emitter/receiver device 12 e.g. camera, radiation source that has window, lens, on a vehicle/housing 16, is fully capable or protecting emitter/receiver device 12 optical component such as camera lens or window or radiation source lens/window that can have such f-number, see, paragraphs [34-36, 56]). But Kollar is silent that the aperture of the optical component is greater than 5.6, and the width of the lever is less than 1 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to minimize width/thickness of lever as parts of18, wires 28-66, levers/rods/tubs of Kollar since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the width or thickness/size of such lever is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the such size influences light through window of the emitter/receiver device as taught by Kollar pars. [49, 56-58-51]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the width/thickness of such lever of Kollar in order to not obstructs the window 22b in the open position allowing functioning beam, radiation or otherwise signal to be transmitted or received by the device 12 (see pars. [49, 56-58-51]), and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because selecting thin lever designs for not obstructing the window of the receiver/emitter device is a routine activity in optical design. Claims 1 and 6 recite specific use with an optical component with specific f-number, however, this is intended use and the specific f-number has no structural implications on the optical module.
Regarding claim 10, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that there are a plurality of levers (i.e. as plurality in e.g. 18, 70, SMAs 28,44,66 mechanism 56 with levers 58, 58b composites with tube/rods 62,64, also mated levers 68, see e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], as depicted in Figs. 2-11).
Regarding claim 12, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) further comprising a circuit assembly (e.g. activation source 32, connections, controller 42, paragraphs [47-52]), electrically connected to the foreign object removal assembly (i.e. as system 10, 20 with SMAs is connected to 32-42 paragraphs [47-52]), wherein the temperature control component is arranged in the circuit assembly (i.e. as SMA 28,44 is arranged with 32, connections, and 42, paragraphs [47-52]).
Regarding claim 13, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) connecting the circuit assembly to the panel (i.e. as activation source 32, connections, controller 42 connected to 22a,c, and through 28 providing heating, see paragraphs [47-52]), but is silent connecting with a thermally conductive adhesive with thermal conductivity that is greater than 0.5 W-m-1-K-1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermal adhesive to connect the thermal circuit with temperature control element to panel using thermally conductive adhesive, in order to provide good heat conduction between the thermal circuit assembly and the panel so that heat energy is generated over a period sufficient to melt the ice, snow (see paragraphs [50-52]), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thermal conductivity of the thermally conductive adhesive to above range, in order that heat energy is generated over a period sufficient to melt the ice, snow (see paragraphs [50-52]), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the temperature control component (28,44, 32,42 and connections) comprises a shape memory alloy (i.e. as 28, 44 are SMAs, paragraphs [34-41, 45-61, 64-66, 69-76], as depicted in Figs. 2-11).
Regarding claim 15, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the temperature control component is located at an outside of the panel alloy (i.e. as connections, 32 and 42 are outside of 22a,b, paragraphs [45-52, 64-66], as depicted in Figs. 1-2, as applied to Figs. 3-11).
Regarding claim 16, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that a light passing through the panel and entering the optical component, wherein the temperature control component does not block the light (i.e. as connections, 32 and 42 are outside of light engaging surface 22a,b of emitter/receiver 12, see e.g. paragraphs [45-52, 64-66], as depicted in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that an inner space of the optical module is isolated from an outside (i.e. as inner space of 10, 20 e.g. retraction space 26 is inside housing 16, and/or center-high-mounted-stop lamp (CHMSL) 14, see paragraphs [35-39], see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the foreign object removal assembly (10, 20) comprises (i.e. previously mentioned as 20 has 18 on 22a,22b, moves reciprocal/vibrating fashion, e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], Figs. 2-11 with leveraging system with 18, end of 18, and moving over and across 22a,b, with 20 including SMAs 28,44,66 mechanism 56 with levers 58, tube/rods 62,64, 58b, mated 68 parts, 18/70, see e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], as depicted in Figs. 2-11), and a temperature control component (i.e. as SMA 28, 44, 66 is temperature controlled element on or sides of 22a,b, that can increase temperature 22a,b by heating it, see e.g. paragraphs [09, 40, 47-52]), wherein the lever is located above the vibration module and the temperature control component (as e.g. levers 58 are above vibration and temperature control i.e. SMA wires 28 with control as 28 are connected to 42, , 32, as depicted in Figs. 1-2, 6), and the vibration module extends below the temperature control component (i.e. as lowermost members 58a extend below SMA 28 that functions as temperature control, see Figs. 6, 1-2, see e.g. paragraphs [09, 34-41, 47-52, 56-58]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) a vehicle (16) comprising: a front windshield, a bumper (as vehicle includes front and back windshield and bumper, see Fig. 1, paragraphs [04, 34-35, 42]); and the optical module as claimed in claim 1, and located inside the vehicle (as 10, 12, 20 is arranged on vehicle 16, paragraphs [04, 34-35, 42]). Kollar does not expressly disclose that module (10, 20), is arranged on the front windshield, or regarding claim 20 arranged on the bumper and located outside the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the optical module (as system 10 of emitter/receiver 12 with actuators 12) on front windshield, and/or on bumper outside the vehicle cabin (since the emitter receiver 12 can function as object detection device with camera detecting objects in front of the vehicle, and for detecting close objects, arranged lower to the ground i.e. on the bumper, while in both cases enabling the normal functioning i.e. object detection , see paragraphs [4-6, 36, 45]), and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), and In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167 (MPEP §2144.04, sec. VI).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollar et al. (hereafter Kollar) US 20100027119 A1 as evidenced by or in view of Easton US 20220106941 A1 (both of record).
Regarding claim 7, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) further comprising an insulating adhesive, wherein the two ends of the lever are fixed to a shape memory alloy wire (i.e. as ends of 18 are attached to SMA wire(s) 28, 44, 66, as depicted in Figs. 2-11, e.g. paragraphs [34-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76]), but is silent about insulating adhesive and fixing via the insulating adhesive. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use insulating adhesive for connecting pieces and shape memory alloy components/wires, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, as demonstrated by Easton (see paragraphs 05-08). The benefits of these materials/qualities include providing additional strength for connecting SMA wire to support structure and movable component (e.g. Easton see paragraphs 04-08), and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 8, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the extension or contraction of the shape memory alloy wire is controlled by an electric current, and then the lever is driven to move horizontally relative to the panel (i.e. as 18, end of 18, levers 58, tube/rods 62,64, 58b, mated 68, and/or 18/70 are driven by current and thermal activation SMA 28,44,66 with e.g. source 32, controller 42, see e.g. paragraphs [38-41, 45-50, 52-61, 64-66, 69-76], Figs. 2-11).
Regarding claim 9, Kollar teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the lever comprises a metal (e.g. as composite lever(s) 58b rods/tubs 62,64 include AM as SMA wires 66, e.g. paragraphs [45-50, 52-61,], Figs. 2-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the remarks dated 04/13/2026 with respect to claim 1 and it’s dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights