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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “injection nozzle provided in the environmental sensor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Refer to 35 USC 112(b) rejection below (as best understood, injection nozzle is provided in a housing of the environmental sensor, which surrounds a portion of the environmental sensor). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is less than 50 words (e.g. 18 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 is: “a rotating element…to rotate the film element with respect to the environmental sensor” in claim 1.
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.
Figs. 5-6, pp. [0044] disclose the sufficient structure of the “rotating element” is a roller or equivalent 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
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 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation “an injection nozzle provided in the environmental sensor and configured to inject a cleaning fluid onto the film element” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the injection nozzle is provided in the environmental and configured to inject a cleaning fluid onto the film element, which is recited to surround the environmental sensor. As best understood from disclosure, the sensor cleaning device includes a housing (reference number 100) and a film element (reference number 300), wherein the housing is configured to mount or embed at least a part of the environmental sensor (reference character “L”) and a portion of the environmental sensor may be surrounded by the housing (pp. [0041]); further, the housing is provided with an injection nozzle (reference number 150) in order for the injection nozzle to be configured to inject cleaning fluid onto the film element (pp. [0045]). Therefore, it is unclear how the environmental sensor itself includes an injection nozzle in the sensor. For examination purposes and as best understood, an environmental sensor is provided on the environmental sensor, such as provided on via intermediate components, e.g. a sensor housing.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a nozzle assembly" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14, which claim 15 depends from, introduces “a nozzle assembly configured to direct a driving air flow to the film element”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner whether “a nozzle assembly” in claim 15 should recite “a nozzle” structure (--a nozzle applicant’s disclosure and for examination purposes, the nozzle assembly is the same as previously cited in claim 14 (--[[a]]the nozzle assembly--).
Claims 13-14 and 16-20 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claims 11 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pawlowski (US Patent No. 9,380,190).
Regarding claim 1, Pawlowski (US Patent No. 9,380,190) discloses a sensor cleaning device (item 10; figs. 1-3) comprising:
an environmental sensor (item 18, which is defined as an imager; col. 1, ll. 48-53 and col. 3, ll. 20-22; fig. 3); and
a film element (item 14; figs. 1-3) disposed to surround the environmental sensor (col. 3, ll. 19-20; figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Pawlowski discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a rotating element (includes items 52, 54; fig. 3) disposed on the environmental sensor to rotate the film element with respect to the environmental sensor (col. 3, ll. 29-35; rotating element 52, 54 is driven by actuator 20 to rotate film element 14 around environmental sensor 18).
Regarding claim 5, Pawlowski discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 4, further comprising:
a contact element (item 40; figs. 2-3) mounted on the environmental sensor to contact the film element (col. 3, ll. 31-36; contact element 40 remains in contact with film element 14 while film element rotates).
Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Garcia Crespo (US Patent No. 10,549,726).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Garcia Crespo (US Patent No. 10,549,726) discloses a sensor cleaning device (fig. 2) comprising:
an environmental sensor (item 14; fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 63-64);
a film element (item 16; fig. 2) disposed to surround the environmental sensor (col. 2, ll. 67 through col. 3, ll. 3) and to be rotatable with respect to the environmental sensor (col. 3, ll. 55-56); and
an injection nozzle (item 56; fig. 4) provided on the environmental sensor (injection nozzle 56 provided on sensor 14 via intermediate components, i.e. via in contact with film element and sensor housing 22, in order to inject cleaning fluid onto outer surface of film element; similar to applicant’s disclosure) and configured to inject a cleaning fluid (item 54; fig. 2) onto the film element (col. 4, ll. 48-56).
Regarding claim 12, Garcia Crespo discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 11, further comprising:
a contact element (item 40; figs. 2 and 4) provided on the environmental sensor (contact element 40 provided on sensor via intermediate components, i.e. being in contact with film element; similar to applicant’s disclosure) and disposed to be in contact with the film element (col. 3, ll. 64-67).
Regarding claim 13, Garcia Crespo discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the contact element is a rubber element (contact element 40 is a wiper composed of rubber; col. 3, ll. 61-63).
Regarding claim 20, Garcia Crespo discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the environmental sensor is a LiDar sensor (col. 2, ll. 64-65).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawlowski (US Patent No. 9,380,190) in view of Alcaide Hernandez (US 2021/0009085).
Regarding claim 2, Pawlowski discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the environmental sensor, i.e. imager, is a LiDar sensor.
However, Alcaide Hernandez (US 2021/0009085) teaches an analogous sensor cleaning device comprising an environmental sensor (item 200; fig. 1) used for autonomous vehicles, wherein the environmental sensor is a LiDar sensor (pp. [0032]; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the environmental sensor, as disclosed in Pawlowksi, to be a LiDar sensor, as taught in Alcaide Hernandez, in order to provide the self-driving car with high-resolution, three-dimensional information about the surrounding environment (Alcaide Hernandez, pp. [0004]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawlowski (US Patent No. 9,380,190) and evidenced by Hu (US 2020/0114877).
Regarding claim 3, Pawlowski discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the type of material which the film element is composed of, specifically wherein the film element is a polyamide material, as required by the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film element to be composed of a polyamide material 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 obvious design choice. As an example, Hu (US 2020/0114877) teaches an environmental sensor enclosure (item 300; fig. 3), wherein portions of the enclosure are composed of thermoplastic materials, such as polyamide, in order to withstand extreme temperature swings and weather various environmental conditions including rain, snow, corrosion, oxidation, etc. (pp. [0047] and [0049]). Please note in the instant application, pp. [0043], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawlowski (US Patent No. 9,380,190).
Regarding claim 6, Pawlowski discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 1. The embodiment of figs. 1-3 does not explicitly disclose an injection nozzle mounted on the environmental sensor to inject a cleaning fluid onto the film element.
However, the embodiment of figs. 10-11 teaches the sensor cleaning device comprising an environmental sensor (item 188; fig. 10), a film element (item 190; fig. 10), an injection nozzle (item 206; figs. 10-11) mounted on the environmental sensor (nozzle 206 is mounted on environmental sensor 188 via intermediate components, i.e. sensor housing 182; similar to applicant’s disclosure) to inject a cleaning fluid (col. 5, ll. 11-14) onto the film element (col 5, ll. 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor cleaning device, as disclosed in the embodiment of figs. 1-3 in Pawlowski, to include an injection nozzle disposed on the environmental sensor, as taught in the embodiment of figs. 10-11 of Pawlowski, in order to aid the contact elements in removing accumulated dirt on the film element (col. 5, ll. 25-27 and 33-35).
Regarding claim 7, Pawlowski as modified discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 6, further comprising:
a storage (defined as separate reservoir, not explicitly shown; col. 5, ll. 13-14) in which the cleaning fluid is stored (col. 5, ll. 11-14; fluid is supplied to injection nozzle 206 from storage); and
a supply line (item 204; figs. 10-11) configured to place the storage in fluid communication with the injection nozzle (col. 5, ll. 8-11 and 17-21; fluid is supplied from storage, i.e. reservoir, and connected to nozzle 206 by traveling through supply line 204).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawlowski (US Patent No. 9,380,190) in view of Wakatsuki (US 2016/0244028).
Regarding claim 8, Pawlowski as modified discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose a collector provided in the environmental sensor to collect the cleaning fluid injected onto the film element.
However, Wakatsuki (US 2016/0244028) teaches an analogous sensor cleaning device (fig. 2) used for autonomous vehicles (fig. 1), wherein the device comprises an environmental sensor (item 10; fig. 2) and a film element (item 24; fig. 2) disposed around the environmental sensor, an injection nozzle (item 38; fig. 2) to inject a cleaning fluid onto the film element (pp. [0035]; fig. 2), and a collector (item 28; figs. 2-3) provided in the environmental sensor (figs. 2-3; collector 28 provided on the bottom of the environmental sensor, similar to applicant’s disclosure) to collect the cleaning fluid injected onto the film element (pp. [0036]; figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor cleaning device, as disclosed in Pawlowski, to include a collector at a bottom of the environmental sensor, as taught in Wakatsuki, in order to circulate the cleaning fluid to be used repeatedly thereby, reducing the amount of cleaning fluid consumed (pp. [0045] in Wakatsuki).
Regarding claim 9, Pawlowski as modified discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the cleaning fluid in the collector is configured to be directed back to the injection nozzle (Wakatsuki; pp. [0045]; fluid received in the collector is capable of being pumped up to the injection nozzle and applied to the film element to be cleaned).
Regarding claim 10, Pawlowski as modified discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the cleaning fluid in the collector is directed to the injection nozzle by a recovery line (Wakatsuki; item 48; pp. [0039]; fig. 4) in fluid communication with the injection nozzle (Wakatsuki; pp. [0039]; cleaning fluid is directed from collector 28 through recovery line 48 into injection nozzle 38), and wherein the recovery line is provided with a filter element (Wakatsuki; item 42; fig. 4) for filtering the cleaning fluid (Wakatsuki; pp [0037]; fig. 4).
Claims 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Crespo (US Patent No. 10,549,726) in view of Ekola (US 2018/0134258).
Regarding claim 14, Garcia Crespo discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a nozzle assembly configured to direct a driving air flow to the film element so that the driving air flow is introduced into the environmental sensor and is injected onto the film element while driving of a vehicle on which the environmental sensor is mounted.
However, Ekola (US 2018/0134258) teaches a sensor cleaning device (fig. 1; pp. [0001]) comprising an environmental sensor (item 14; pp. [0016]; fig. 1) for autonomous vehicles, a film element (item 16; fig. 1) surrounding the environmental sensor (pp. [0016]; fig. 1), and a nozzle assembly (includes items 36, 50, 52, 56; pp. [0017-0018]; figs. 2 and 4) configured to direct a driving air flow (pp. [0018]; nozzle assembly capable of supplying pressurized air, i.e. driving air flow, from air supply 26 towards nozzles 54 and onto surface of film element) to the film element so that the driving air flow is introduced into the environmental sensor (nozzle assembly is disposed in housing 18 of sensor and thereby, introduces the pressurized air flow into the housing of the sensor 14; similar to applicant’s disclosure, pp. [0053] of instant disclosure) and is injected onto the film element while driving of a vehicle on which the environmental sensor is mounted (pp. [0019] and [0024]; pressurized air flow is directed along pathway, i.e. items 28, onto film element 16 to clean the outer surface of film element while vehicle is moving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor cleaning device, as disclosed in Garcia Crespo, to include a nozzle assembly within an upper housing of the sensor, as taught in Ekola, in order to create an air curtain on the surface of the sensor and assist in removing dust, dirt, rain, mud, salt and other contaminants on the outer surface to adequately maintain the lens clean (pp. [0004-0007] in Ekola).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Garcia Crespo as modified discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 14, wherein the driving air flow is configured to be directed to the nozzle assembly through an intake portion (Ekola; defined as items 44, 58; fig. 2) provided in the environmental sensor (Ekola; intake portion disposed in upper portion of sensor housing 18; similar to applicant’s disclosure, pp. [0053] in instant disclosure), and wherein the nozzle assembly is disposed inside the environmental sensor (Ekola; nozzle assembly is disposed in upper portion of sensor housing 18; similar to applicant’s disclosure) and is in fluid communication with the intake portion (Ekola; driving air flow passes through intake portion 58, 44 and leads into nozzle 36; pp. [0018] and [0024]; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Garcia Crespo as modified discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the environmental sensor includes a discharge portion (Ekola; item 54; figs. 2-3) for discharging the driving air flow introduced into the environmental sensor (Ekola; pp. [0018-0019]; discharge portion 54 discharges the pressurized air, i.e. driving air flow, that was introduced into the upper housing of the sensor onto the outer surface of the film element 16 for cleaning purposes).
Regarding claim 17, Garcia Crespo as modified discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the intake portion is configured to have a cross-sectional area that decreases toward the nozzle assembly (Ekola; cross-sectional area of item 58 is greater than cross-sectional of tubing, i.e. item 44, which extends only from a portion of item 58; thereby, the cross-sectional area decreases when moving towards nozzle assembly, i.e. in a flow-direction from item 58 towards item 44).
Regarding claim 19, Garcia Crespo as modified discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 14, wherein the nozzle assembly includes a plurality of radial channels (Ekola; pp. [0018]; each channel defined as items 52, 56 extending from item 36; fig. 2) for directing the driving air in a plurality of directions (Ekola; defined as the four directions extending from item 36; pp. [0018]; fig. 2); and
a nozzle (Ekola; item 54; figs. 2-3) configured to inject the driving air flow from the one or more of the plurality of radial channels onto the film element (Ekola; pp. [0018-0019]; nozzle 54 sprays the pressurized air flow, i.e. driving air flow, from one of the plurality of radial channels onto the film element 16 via pathway, i.e. item 28; figs. 1-2).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Crespo (US Patent No. 10,549,726) in view of Ekola (US 2018/0134258) and further in view of Krishnan (US 11,156,485).
Regarding claim 18, Garcia Crespo as modified discloses the sensor cleaning device as claimed in claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the nozzle assembly includes a filter for filtering the driving air flow.
However, Krishnan (US Patent 11,156,485) teaches a sensor cleaning device comprising an environmental sensor (item 108a; fig. 2), a film element (item 110a; figs. 2-3) to surround the environmental sensor, and a nozzle assembly (includes items 112, 114, 116, 140, 144; figs. 2-3) configured to direct a driving air flow to the film element (col. 6, ll. 50-60), and wherein the nozzle assembly includes a filter (item 158; fig. 3) for filtering the driving air flow (col. 6, ll. 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle assembly, as disclosed in Garcia Crespo as modified by Ekola, to further include a filter, as taught in Krishnan, in order to filter foreign objects thereby, enabling these foreign objects to be suppressed from adhering to the outer peripheral faces of the film element again.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723