DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2024/0317184 by Dolle in view of U.S. 2020/0180567 by Sakai in view of U.S. 2020/0180566 by Saito.
With regard to claim 1, Dolle teaches an apparatus for controlling a discharge pressure of the cleaning liquid, wherein the apparatus comprises a pump configured to suck the cleaning liquid through an inlet and discharge the sucked cleaning liquid through an outlet, wherein the apparatus comprises a distribution block (item 6 in Figure 1; reads on distributor) downstream of the pump and upstream of a nozzle (item 2 in Figure 1), and wherein the nozzle is used to spray the cleaning liquid onto a sensor of a motor vehicle in order to clean said sensor (Abstract; Par. 0011, 0015, 0036-0057). Dolle teaches that a technique for using the apparatus comprises activating the pump (via an electric motor that powers the pump) and delaying the distribution block from opening such that the operation of the pump causes pressure to build between the pump and distribution block (Par. 0036-0057). Dolle teaches that, once the pressure upstream of the distribution block reaches a threshold pressure, a selected number of valves of the distribution block are opened, wherein the valves allow the pressurized cleaning liquid to flow to the nozzle such that the nozzle ejects the cleaning liquid at a selected, required discharge pressure of a plurality of predetermined discharge pressures that correspond to different possible combinations of openable valves of the distribution block (Par. 0047-0057).
Dolle teaches that the apparatus comprises a control unit for controlling the distribution block (Par. 0057 and 0058), but Dolle does not teach that the control unit operates the pump in accordance with detection of contamination of the sensor.
Sakai teaches that when using a cleaning-liquid-spraying nozzle to clean a sensor on a motor vehicle, the cleaning apparatus can advantageously operate in an autonomous manner, wherein the cleaning apparatus is controlled by a computer controller of the motor vehicle operating in an “advanced driving assistance mode”, wherein the computer controller communicates with a dirt sensor (item 2130 in Figures 16, 17A, and 17B) that identifies the degree and location(s) of dirt on the surface of the sensor such that the nozzle can then be tilted to the dirt’s location(s) and controlled to eject cleaning liquid for a selected amount of time and at a selected pressure sufficient for removing dirt of the identified degree (Par. 0128, 0132, 0141, 0143, 0147, 0224-0229, and 0241-0244).
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 apparatus of Dolle such that the control unit is a computer controller configured to control the sensor-cleaning apparatus in an automated manner, wherein the computer controller communicates with a dirt sensor that identifies the degree and location(s) of dirt on the surface of the sensor such that the nozzle can then be tilted to the dirt’s location(s) and controlled to eject cleaning liquid for a selected amount of time and at a selected pressure sufficient for removing dirt of the identified degree. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Sakai, who teaches that such a computer controller for receiving data from a dirt sensor and accordingly setting spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation advantageously allows a sensor of a motor vehicle to be cleaned in an automated manner. In this combination of Dolle in view of Sakai, the degree of dirt sensed by the dirt sensor corresponds to applicant’s degree of contamination of the sensor, and the spray time corresponds to applicant’s water amount information of the sensor requiring washing because the selected spray time is information that affects the amount of water used remove the sensed degree of dirt.
The combination of Dolle in view of Sakai, as developed thus far, does not recite that the controller receives contamination information from an advanced driver assistance system.
Sakai teaches that when a motor vehicle is semi-autonomous, the operations of the vehicle can be controlled by a controller operating in a “advanced driving assistance mode” (Par. 0141 and 0241-0244). Sakai teaches that a driving controller of a motor vehicle can be configured to receive the dirt degree and location data from the dirt sensor (item 2130 in Figures 16, 17A, and 17B) and that that received data can then be used in the control of a sensor-cleaning apparatus (Par. 0141 and 0241-0244).
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 apparatus of Dolle in view of Sakai such that the motor vehicle is a semi-autonomous vehicle controlled by an overall controller operating in a “advanced driving assistance mode”, wherein this overall controller receives the dirt degree and location data from a dirt sensor such that the overall controller can then calculate a spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation for dealing with the sensed dirt degree and location, and wherein that calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation is then provided to the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus for executing the cleaning routine. The motivation for having the motor vehicle be a semi-autonomous vehicle would be to allow the vehicle to travel in an “advanced driving assistance mode” with limited human input, and the motivation for having the overall controller of the autonomous vehicle be the controller that receives the data from the dirt sensor, that calculates the cleaning parameters, and that directs the cleaning apparatus controller to execute cleaning of the sensor using said parameters was provided by Sakai, who teaches that a driving controller of a motor vehicle can be configured to receive the dirt degree and location data from the dirt sensor and that that received data can then be used in the control of a sensor-cleaning apparatus. In this combination of Dolle in view of Sakai, the overall vehicle controller operating in the “advanced driving assistance mode” corresponds to applicant’s advanced driver assistance system.
The developed combination of Dolle in view of Sakai does not recite that the controller of the cleaning apparatus determines a position of the to-be-cleaned sensor.
Sakai teaches that “cleaning strength” can be different when cleaning a front-side LiDAR sensor on a vehicle than when cleaning a rear-side LiDAR sensor on a vehicle (Par. 0241).
Saito teaches that since contaminants are more likely to accumulate on a sensor positioned at the front side of a vehicle than on a sensor positioned at the rear side of a vehicle, cleaning liquid should be ejected with a higher pressure when cleaning a front-side sensor than when cleaning a rear-side sensor (Par. 0002).
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 apparatus of Dolle in view of Sakai such that the semi-autonomous vehicle is a vehicle with a front-side LiDAR sensor and a rear-side LiDAR sensor, wherein each of these LiDAR sensors has its own corresponding distribution block (item 6 in Figure 1 of Dolle) upstream of a nozzle for cleaning that LiDAR sensor, wherein each of these LiDAR sensors has its own corresponding dirt sensor that can inform the vehicle’s overall controller of dirt degree and dirt-location data such that the overall controller can then calculate the spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation for dealing with the sensed dirt degree and location, wherein that calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation is then provided to the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus for executing the cleaning routine, wherein the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus also determines (once provided with the calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation) if the dirty LiDAR sensor is front-side LiDAR sensor or a rear-side LiDAR sensor, and wherein the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus is configured to have the cleaning liquid ejected with a predetermined additional amount of pressure when the to-be-cleaned LiDAR sensor is front-side LiDAR sensor instead of a rear-side LiDAR sensor. The motivation for having the semi-autonomous vehicle comprise a front-side LiDAR sensor and a rear-side LiDAR sensor was provided by Sakai, who teaches that a vehicle can comprise both a front-side LiDAR sensor and a rear-side LiDAR sensor and by the fact that, in the art of semi-autonomous vehicles, it is well known to have LiDAR sensors arranged at the front and rear of a vehicle such that the vehicle’s control system can be informed of the vehicle’s surroundings. The motivation for having each LiDAR sensor arranged with its own cleaning distribution block, cleaning nozzle, and dirt sensor is to allow each LiDAR sensor (not just one of them) to benefit from the automated cleaning. Motivation for cleaning a front LiDAR sensor with a predetermined additional amount of pressure greater than the amount of pressure that would be used to clean a similarly-dirty rear LiDAR sensor was provided by Saito, who teaches that since contaminants are more likely to accumulate on a sensor positioned at the front side of a vehicle than on a sensor positioned at the rear side of a vehicle, cleaning liquid should be ejected with a higher pressure when cleaning a front-side sensor than when cleaning a rear-side sensor. Motivation for having the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus be the controller that makes the determination (once provided with the calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation) of whether the dirty LiDAR sensor is front-side LiDAR sensor or a rear-side LiDAR sensor and that is configured to have the cleaning liquid ejected with a predetermined additional amount of pressure (when the to-be-cleaned LiDAR sensor is front-side LiDAR sensor instead of a rear-side LiDAR sensor) was provided by the fact this controller is a computer controller and is thus capable of being programmed to performs those steps of the control routine. In the combination Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito, the predetermined additional amount of pressure (added to the cleaning liquid pressure when the to-be-cleaned sensor is a front-side LiDAR sensor) corresponds to applicant’s predetermined weight to the selected required discharge pressure because the predetermined additional amount of pressure is a numerical value added to the calculated pressure for cleaning a LiDAR sensor that has been sensed to be dirty.
As discussed, in the combination of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito, the overall controller operating in a “advanced driving assistance mode” calculates a spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation for dealing with the sensed dirt degree and location, and wherein that calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation is then provided to the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus for executing the cleaning routine.
This developed combination of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito does not recite that a determined degree of contamination is sorted to one of a plurality of set labels. However, in the art of using a controller to control a cleaning apparatus, it is well known that an observed level of dirtiness can be classified into one of a set of labels (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice) – such as “heavily dirty”, “intermediately dirty”, etc. 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 overall vehicle controller such that when it receives dirt observation data from the dirt sensor, it labels the observed degree of dirt as belonging to one of a plurality of set labels such as “heavily dirty”, “intermediately dirty”, etc. In the art of using a controller to control a cleaning apparatus, it is well known that an observed level of dirtiness can be classified into one of a set of labels – such as “heavily dirty”, “intermediately dirty”, etc, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to allow the overall controller to “know” what type of dirt is present when “deciding” what cleaning parameters to order used for cleaning. The examiner here put the words “know” and “deciding” in quotation marks because such words are metaphorically useful for discussing the controller’s programming.
As discussed, in the combination of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito, the overall controller operating in a “advanced driving assistance mode” calculates a spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation for dealing with the sensed dirt degree and location, and wherein that calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation is then provided to the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus for executing the cleaning routine.
The combination of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito, as developed thus far, does not recite that the controller of the cleaning apparatus determines an ambient temperature of the vehicle and selectively adds a predetermined weight to the spray pressure parameter provided by the overall controller of the autonomous vehicle.
Dolle teaches that the pressure drop of a cleaning nozzle can be affected by the surrounding temperature and that it is desirable to therefore adjust the cleaning apparatus to account for any undesired pressure drop due to certain surrounding temperatures (Par. 0055).
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 apparatus of Dolle in view of Sakai such that, once the overall controller of the autonomous vehicle sends cleaning parameters for sensor cleaning to the cleaning apparatus controller, the cleaning apparatus controller then determines (via a temperature sensor, which is a well-known technology) the ambient temperature and, if the determined ambient temperature is a temperature which will negatively impact the pressure drop of the nozzle, add a predetermined weight to the pressurization of the cleaning liquid to correct for that impact on the pressure drop. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Dolle, who teaches that the pressure drop of a cleaning nozzle can be affected by the surrounding temperature and that it is desirable to therefore adjust the cleaning apparatus to account for any undesired pressure drop due to certain surrounding temperatures.
With regard to claim 2, in the developed combination of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito, the cleaning apparatus computer controller only opens the selected number of valves of the distribution block (for cleaning a sensor determined to be dirty) once the pump-powering motor has operated within a delay time to raise the pressure (that is the pressure between the pump and the distribution block) to the threshold pressure.
With regard to claim 3, in the developed combination of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito, the cleaning apparatus computer only opens the selected number of valves of the distribution block (for cleaning a sensor determined to be dirty) once the pump-powering motor has operated for a delay time to raise the pressure (that is the pressure between the pump and the distribution block) to the threshold pressure, and thus the computer controller can be considered to control a delay time.
The combination of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito does not recite that the pump-powering motor has a constant output. However, in the art of operating a pump, it is well-known that a pump-powering motor can successfully operate a pump while having a constant motor output (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice). 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 apparatus of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito such that, during the delay time while the pump pressurizes the cleaning liquid, the motor powering the pump has a constant motor output. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of operating a pump, it is well-known that a pump-powering motor can successfully operate a pump while having a constant motor output.
With regard to claim 4, in the combination of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito, the overall controller operating in a “advanced driving assistance mode” calculates a spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation for dealing with the sensed dirt degree and location, and wherein that calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation is then provided to the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus for executing the cleaning routine. The calculated spray time corresponds to applicant’s water amount information of the sensor requiring washing because the selected spray time is information that affects the amount of water used remove the sensed degree of dirt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “Dolle is silent as to ‘determine[ing] a position of the sensor with the information as to contamination of the sensor transferred to the controller, [and] perform[ing] control to selectively add a predetermined weight to the selected required discharge pressure, based on the determined position’”. Applicant then argues that “Sakai fails to cure the deficiencies of Dolle”. However, the examiner does not rely on Dolle or Sakai alone to teach “determine[ing] a position of the sensor with the information as to contamination of the sensor transferred to the controller, [and] perform[ing] control to selectively add a predetermined weight to the selected required discharge pressure, based on the determined position”. The following chunk of the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 shows that the examiner relies on teachings of the Sakai and Saito references to modify Dolle to address this “position of the sensor” concept.
The developed combination of Dolle in view of Sakai does not recite that the controller of the cleaning apparatus determines a position of the to-be-cleaned sensor.
Sakai teaches that “cleaning strength” can be different when cleaning a front-side LiDAR sensor on a vehicle than when cleaning a rear-side LiDAR sensor on a vehicle (Par. 0241).
Saito teaches that since contaminants are more likely to accumulate on a sensor positioned at the front side of a vehicle than on a sensor positioned at the rear side of a vehicle, cleaning liquid should be ejected with a higher pressure when cleaning a front-side sensor than when cleaning a rear-side sensor (Par. 0002).
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 apparatus of Dolle in view of Sakai such that the semi-autonomous vehicle is a vehicle with a front-side LiDAR sensor and a rear-side LiDAR sensor, wherein each of these LiDAR sensors has its own corresponding distribution block (item 6 in Figure 1 of Dolle) upstream of a nozzle for cleaning that LiDAR sensor, wherein each of these LiDAR sensors has its own corresponding dirt sensor that can inform the vehicle’s overall controller of dirt degree and dirt-location data such that the overall controller can then calculate the spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation for dealing with the sensed dirt degree and location, wherein that calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation is then provided to the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus for executing the cleaning routine, wherein the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus also determines (once provided with the calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation) if the dirty LiDAR sensor is front-side LiDAR sensor or a rear-side LiDAR sensor, and wherein the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus is configured to have the cleaning liquid ejected with a predetermined additional amount of pressure when the to-be-cleaned LiDAR sensor is front-side LiDAR sensor instead of a rear-side LiDAR sensor. The motivation for having the semi-autonomous vehicle comprise a front-side LiDAR sensor and a rear-side LiDAR sensor was provided by Sakai, who teaches that a vehicle can comprise both a front-side LiDAR sensor and a rear-side LiDAR sensor and by the fact that, in the art of semi-autonomous vehicles, it is well known to have LiDAR sensors arranged at the front and rear of a vehicle such that the vehicle’s control system can be informed of the vehicle’s surroundings. The motivation for having each LiDAR sensor arranged with its own cleaning distribution block, cleaning nozzle, and dirt sensor is to allow each LiDAR sensor (not just one of them) to benefit from the automated cleaning. Motivation for cleaning a front LiDAR sensor with a predetermined additional amount of pressure greater than the amount of pressure that would be used to clean a similarly-dirty rear LiDAR sensor was provided by Saito, who teaches that since contaminants are more likely to accumulate on a sensor positioned at the front side of a vehicle than on a sensor positioned at the rear side of a vehicle, cleaning liquid should be ejected with a higher pressure when cleaning a front-side sensor than when cleaning a rear-side sensor. Motivation for having the computer controller of the cleaning apparatus be the controller that makes the determination (once provided with the calculated spray time, spray pressure, and nozzle orientation) of whether the dirty LiDAR sensor is front-side LiDAR sensor or a rear-side LiDAR sensor and that is configured to have the cleaning liquid ejected with a predetermined additional amount of pressure (when the to-be-cleaned LiDAR sensor is front-side LiDAR sensor instead of a rear-side LiDAR sensor) was provided by the fact this controller is a computer controller and is thus capable of being programmed to performs those steps of the control routine. In the combination Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito, the predetermined additional amount of pressure (added to the cleaning liquid pressure when the to-be-cleaned sensor is a front-side LiDAR sensor) corresponds to applicant’s predetermined weight to the selected required discharge pressure because the predetermined additional amount of pressure is a numerical value added to the calculated pressure for cleaning a LiDAR sensor that has been sensed to be dirty.
On page 8 of applicant’s arguments, applicant addresses the examiner’s rejection by arguing that “because Sakai includes a dirt sensor configured to detect a degree of dirt attached to the cleaning surface, it would not have been obvious to modify Dolle in view of Sakai as described”. Applicant continues this line of argument with the following:
Particularly, because Sakai includes a dirt sensor for detecting a dirt degree, a degree of dirt on a front-side and a rear-side LIDAR sensor can readily be determined. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not provide additional pressure for a front-side LIDAR based on a prediction that the front-side LIDAR is dirtier than a rear-side LIDAR as doing so would result in additional complexity with no apparent benefit.
This line of argument is not persuasive. The Sakaki reference itself teaches that “cleaning strength” can be different when cleaning a front-side LiDAR sensor on a vehicle than when cleaning a rear-side LiDAR sensor on a vehicle (Par. 0241). Saito teaches that since contaminants are more likely to accumulate on a sensor positioned at the front side of a vehicle than on a sensor positioned at the rear side of a vehicle, cleaning liquid should be ejected with a higher pressure when cleaning a front-side sensor than when cleaning a rear-side sensor (Par. 0002). Simply because a front-facing LIDAR is determined (by a first dirt sensor) to have the same amount of dirt as a rear-facing LIDAR (a second dirt sensor being used to determine the amount of dirt on this rear-facing LIDAR) doesn’t mean that the same cleaning spray pressure would be sufficient to clean both LIDARs. For example, it is a common fact of everyday life that vehicles (such as cars) are often driven quickly in the forward direction and driven slower when moving in the reverse direction. It makes sense that contaminants (such as insect debris) that have managed to accumulate on a rear-facing LIDAR surface are more lightly attached than contaminants (such as insect debris) that have accumulated on a front-facing LIDAR surface. A vehicle moving forward at 60 miles-per-hour impacts an insect at greater force than a vehicle reversing at 10 miles-per-hour. Saito’s observation that contaminants tend to collect/accumulate more on forward-facing sensing surfaces is no doubt partly due to the higher velocities of forward vehicle motion. Again, the Sakaki reference itself teaches that “cleaning strength” can be different when cleaning a front-side LiDAR sensor on a vehicle than when cleaning a rear-side LiDAR sensor on a vehicle (Par. 0241). In the examiner’s combination of Dolle in view of Sakai in view of Saito, the predetermined additional amount of pressure used to clean a forward-facing sensor (as compared to a similarly-dirty rear-facing sensor) ensures that the forward-facing sensor is successfully cleaned.
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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
August 11, 2026
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights