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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on January 6, 2026 is acknowledged. It is noted that Applicant’s election included one or more conditions whereby a potential, alternative election of Species A could be made (see page 6 of the aforementioned reply). While Applicant’s alternative election of Species A was stated as being traversed, the first (apparently) “preferred” election of Species “B” was not expressly stated as being traversed. Thus, the election of Species B is being treated as an election without traverse.
As set forth in the aforementioned election, Applicant believes that claims 1-4 and 7-19 are readable on the elected species. It should be noted that some of the elected claims can be interpreted whereby the claim(s) seem to be exclusively directed to a particular species, but can also more broadly be interpreted so as to read on more than one or all of the species identified in the Restriction Requirement mailed November 6, 2025. Thus, for the purposes of examining the elected claims on the merits, the Examiner may take such broad interpretations, which, when necessary, will be explained in the corresponding prior art claim rejections. In the event that any subsequently-filed amendments to any of those claims definitively alters the corresponding claim scope such that the claim(s) no longer read on elected Species B, this Office reserves the right to withdraw such claim(s) based on the “Election by Original Presentation” rules as set forth in 37 CFR 1.142 (b) and MPEP § 821.03. Thus, claims 5 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 6, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on May 12, 2023 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Drawings
Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 2C, as per the paragraphs (albeit, incorrectly) labeled “[0005]” and “[0012]” on page 6 of the specification, should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The numbers which preface each of the separately-labeled paragraphs in the specification are confusing, as they are not presented in proper numerical order. More specifically, page 1 of the specification begins with paragraph “[0001]” and “[0002]”, but the paragraphs are subsequently labeled “[0001]” (again), “[0002]” (again), then “[0003]”, then “[0003]” (again), then “[0004]” through “[0011]” up to page 6, then “[0004]” (again), then “[0005]” (again), then “[0012]” through “[0069]” up to page 29. Also, the Abstract is labeled “[0001]” which is also confusing and unnecessary.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the syntax of the entire claim renders the claim unclear.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation regarding the “width of the protrusion” being “substantially similar to a width of the outlet” is unclear. The term “substantially similar” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In essence, the public cannot clearly be put on notice as to what does or does not infringe on the aforementioned claim 14 limitation(s).
Regarding claim 16, the recitation, “The nozzle of 1 wherein” is unclear. Is this claim intended to depend from “claim 1”?
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gopalan et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0029566.
As to claim 1, Gopalan (see Figs. 2-5D) shows a nozzle, comprising: a hollow cylindrical housing (100) including an inlet (at 102) that feeds a cavity (104) and an outlet (117, 118) projecting a shear spray pattern at an angle relative to an inlet flow axis (110); wherein the cavity includes a shoulder (such as at 104B and/or 104D) positioned next to an arcuate slot (as defined within 114SC), with the outlet formed in a sidewall (114SW) defining a portion of the arcuate slot; and wherein the outlet is positioned above the shoulder. As to the preamble recitation of a “one-piece, shear spray nozzle for a sensor cleaning system”, such can only be afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Regardless, the nozzle shown by Gopalan, as applied above, is a one-piece shear spray nozzle, and is expressly disclosed for use in a sensor cleaning system (the nozzle is expressly stated for use in cleaning surfaces, such as a vehicle-mounted camera lens, which is a type of sensor).
As to claim 2, Gopalan shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the housing has a major diameter less than or equal to 5.00 mm (see paragraphs [0009]-[0010]), and the outlet has a width that is between 5% and 25% of the major diameter (as shown in at least Figs. 2-5D, this “width” limitation is clearly met; and it should be noted that paragraph [0040] of Gopalan expressly states that at least the width of the outlet can be adjusted in order to control a desired spray fan angle).
As to claim 4, Gopalan shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the shoulder includes a first flat planar surface that is formed at an angle relative to the inlet flow axis (see Figs. 3 and 5A).
As to claim 7, Gopalan shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the outlet includes a stepped region (160, 161, 162) formed outside of the cavity (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 8, Gopalan shows the nozzle of claim 7, and wherein top (160) and bottom (162) planar surfaces are: i) connected to the outlet outside of the cavity, ii) define a portion of the stepped region, and iii) are positioned at non-perpendicular angles relative to the inlet flow axis (see Figs. 2 and 3).
As to claim 9, Gopalan shows the nozzle of claim 7, and wherein a width of the stepped region is greater than a width of the outlet (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 10, Gopalan shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the arcuate slot includes a curved transition to a top wall (114TW) disposed at an opposite end of the arcuate slot in comparison to the outlet (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 11, Gopalan shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the arcuate slot has a generally triangular cross-sectional profile (see the arcuate slot cross-sectional profile, as depicted in Fig. 5C) with the outlet disposed at a corner of the triangular profile (the outlet of Gopalan appears to be “disposed at a corner of the triangular profile”, in as much as Applicant’s outlet appears to be “disposed at a corner of the triangular profile”; see Fig. 6D of the instant application) and an opposing wall configured at a distance from the corner that produces a flat shear spray pattern in fluid expelled through the outlet.
As to claim 16, Gopalan shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the shoulder is positioned at a different axial height in comparison to both the outlet and the arcuate slot (see Figs. 3 and 5A).
As to claim 18, Gopalan shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein all of a top facing (when 114TW is exclusively applied to the recited “top facing”) of the arcuate slot consists of a flat planar surface that is perpendicular to the inlet flow axis (see Fig. 3).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilcox et al., GB-2121318-A.
As to claim 1, Wilcox (see Figs. 1-3) shows a nozzle, comprising: a hollow cylindrical housing (2+1, which includes one or more portions which are cylindrical) including an inlet (at the base of 3) that feeds a cavity (within 3, and including 5) and an outlet (8) projecting a shear spray pattern at an angle relative to an inlet flow axis; wherein the cavity includes a shoulder (defined by the planar base portion of 1) positioned next to an arcuate slot (as defined within 5; see Fig. 3), with the outlet formed in a sidewall (9) defining a portion of the arcuate slot; and wherein the outlet is positioned above the shoulder. As to the preamble recitation of a “one-piece, shear spray nozzle for a sensor cleaning system”, such can only be afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Regardless, the nozzle shown by Wilcox, as applied above, is a one-piece shear spray nozzle (what is shown in Fig. 1 can reasonably be considered to be one piece), and is clearly capable of being used for cleaning a sensor.
As to claim 3, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the angle is perpendicular to the inlet flow axis (when 1 is adjusted along “spherical cup portion 4” so as to substantially align the longitudinal axis of 5 with the longitudinal axis defined by the inlet at the base of 3, the spray pattern from the outlet would be perpendicular, relative to the inlet flow axis).
As to claim 4, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the shoulder includes a first flat planar surface that is formed at an angle relative to the inlet flow axis (see Fig. 1).
As to claim 7, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the outlet includes a stepped region (11, 12) formed outside of the cavity (see Figs. 2 and 3).
As to claim 8, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 7, and wherein top (12) and bottom (11) planar surfaces are: i) connected to the outlet outside of the cavity, ii) define a portion of the stepped region, and iii) are positioned at non-perpendicular angles relative to the inlet flow axis (as, for example, in the position shown in Fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 7, and wherein a width of the stepped region is greater than a width of the outlet (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 11, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the arcuate slot has a generally triangular cross-sectional profile with the outlet disposed at a corner of the triangular profile and an opposing wall configured at a distance from the corner that produces a flat shear spray pattern in fluid expelled through the outlet (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 12, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the arcuate slot includes a protrusion (18) that divides the arcuate slot into two separate chambers (5a, 5b; see Fig. 2).
As to claim 13, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 12, and wherein the two separate chambers have identical dimensions (see Figs. 2 and 3).
As to claim 14, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 12, and wherein the width of the protrusion is substantially similar to a width of the outlet (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 15, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 12, and wherein the protrusion is radially spaced apart from the outlet at a distance that produces a flat shear spray pattern in fluid expelled through the outlet (see Figs. 2 and 3).
As to claim 16, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the shoulder is positioned at a different axial height in comparison to both the outlet and the arcuate slot (see Fig. 1).
As to claim 17, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the shoulder consists of flat planar surfaces (multiple flat planar surfaces can be arbitrarily chosen at the base region of 1, so as to meet plural “surfaces”) that are all perpendicular to the inlet flow axis (when 1 is adjusted along “spherical cup portion 4” so as to substantially align the longitudinal axis of 5 with the longitudinal axis defined by the inlet at the base of 3, the flat planar surfaces of Wilcox will all be perpendicular to the inlet flow axis).
As to claim 18, Wilcox shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein all of a top facing of the arcuate slot consists of a flat planar surface (7) that is perpendicular to the inlet flow axis (when 1 is adjusted along “spherical cup portion 4” so as to substantially align the longitudinal axis of 5 with the longitudinal axis defined by the inlet at the base of 3, the flat planar surface 7 of Wilcox will be perpendicular to the inlet flow axis).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hruby et al., USPN 3,341,133.
As to claim 1, Hruby (see Figs. 1 and 2; or Fig. 4) shows a nozzle, comprising: a hollow cylindrical housing (12; or 41) including an inlet (at the lower end of 12; or 41) that feeds a cavity (13; or 42) and an outlet (22; or 44) projecting a shear spray pattern at an angle relative to an inlet flow axis; wherein the cavity includes a shoulder (defined by the bottom portion of 20) positioned next to an arcuate slot (as defined within the upper portion of 13; or 42), with the outlet formed in a sidewall defining a portion of the arcuate slot (see again, Figs. 1 and 2; or Fig. 4); and wherein the outlet is positioned above the shoulder. As to the preamble recitation of a “one-piece, shear spray nozzle for a sensor cleaning system”, such can only be afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Regardless, the nozzle shown by Hruby, as applied above, is a one-piece shear spray nozzle (what is shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 4 can reasonably be considered to be one piece), and is clearly capable of being used for cleaning a sensor.
As to claim 3, Hruby shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the angle is perpendicular to the inlet flow axis (the spray pattern angle from the nozzle shown in Figs. 1 and 2, or from the nozzle shown in Fig. 4, would be at least generally perpendicular to the inlet flow axis).
As to claim 4, Hruby shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the shoulder includes a first flat planar surface that is formed at an angle relative to the inlet flow axis (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Hruby shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the outlet includes a stepped region (27, 32 and 33 in Figs. 1 and 2; or 48 in Fig. 4) formed outside of the cavity.
As to claim 9, Hruby shows the nozzle of claim 7, and wherein a width of the stepped region is greater than a width of the outlet (see Fig. 1).
As to claim 11, Hruby shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the arcuate slot has a generally triangular cross-sectional profile with the outlet disposed at a corner of the triangular profile and an opposing wall configured at a distance from the corner that produces a flat shear spray pattern in fluid expelled through the outlet (see Figs. 1 and 2; or Fig. 4).
As to claim 16, Hruby shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the shoulder is positioned at a different axial height in comparison to both the outlet and the arcuate slot (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 17, Hruby shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein the shoulder consists of flat planar surfaces (multiple flat planar surfaces can be arbitrarily chosen at the base region of 20, so as to meet plural “surfaces”) that are all perpendicular to the inlet flow axis (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 18, Hruby shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein all of a top facing of the arcuate slot consists of a flat planar surface (15; or 43) that is perpendicular to the inlet flow axis.
As to claim 19, Hruby shows the nozzle of claim 1, and wherein a top facing (at 15; or at 43) of the arcuate slot is positioned axially above a top edge (30; or 46) of the outlet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent to Frempter, US Patent Application Publications to Zhao, Zhao et al. and LaBarbera et al., and Foreign Patent Publication to Ju et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights