DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the application, of which claim 1 is amended and claim 19 is newly added.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot as the rejections are not maintained in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 19 is not persuasive because claim 19 merely presents as a broader version of previous claim 15, prior to the current amendments to the claim. It is believed that the rejection to previous claim 15 is still valid as newly added claim 19 does not include the limitations for which the previous rejection was withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “item of equipment” in claim 1-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US20200346255A1) in view of Trevett (US20160137167A1) and Abbott (US20210111689A1).
As to claim 19, Robertson discloses a device comprising: an optical surface (ref 34); a unit for cleaning the optical surface (refs 38) including at least one transducer [0037]; the optical surface having at least one region of optical interest not superimposed with the at least one transducer [0037]; and an item of equipment (see Figs.2-4 & 6 ref 36) configured to detect radiation through the at least one region of optical interest [0029, 0032, & 0040]. Robertson does not detail the structure of the transducer having a piezoelectric layer and electrodes of opposite polarity in contact with the piezoelectric layer or generating a Rayleigh wave. However, the use of transducers having a piezoelectric layer and electrodes of opposite polarity are known in the art as seen by Trevett. Robertson does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the piezoelectric layer with respect to the wavelength. However, providing a piezoelectric layer thickness based on the wavelength supplied is known, as seen by Abbott.
Trevett discloses an art related vehicle element cleaning system (abstract), wherein surface waves from a transducers (e.g. Fig.1 refs 1-8) are utilized for cleaning a transparent element via the use of Rayleigh waves [0038, 0042, 0058-0059, & 0061]. Trevett further indicates that such transducers are formed via a piezoelectric layer (e.g., Figs.9A-9B ref 90, see also [0033]) with electrodes of opposite polarity contacting the piezoelectric layer (e.g., Fig.9B refs 92 & 96). The use of Rayleigh waves allows for removal of droplets from the transparent optical surface [0054].
Abbott discloses an acoustic surface wave device (abstract), wherein it is known that a thickness of a piezoelectric layer is in a range from 0.1λ to 1λ to provide a high quality factor while avoiding frequency variation [0109]. Abbott and Robertson are related in the field of acoustic wave generating devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Robertson to utilize a transducer with a piezoelectric element and electrodes of opposite polarity to produce Rayleigh waves to remove droplets (Trevett [0054]) from the sensor window. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known transducer structure when one is not explicitly disclosed, with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide the piezoelectric layer with a thickness between 0.1-1 λ, including equal to or less than 0.5 λ, in order to achieve a high quality factor without significant frequency variation (Abbott [0109]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is that recited in the previous action, while the closest prior art to the amendment limitation is Hozumi (US20070247543A1), applicant cited art Saitou (JPH09323621A) and previously cited Trevett as follows:
Trevett indicates the presence of interdigital electrodes with fingers (i.e., electrode combs with a plurality of fingers [0056]) where the spacing of the fingers is based on matching the wavelength of the wave to be exited. Through such a disclosure, a skilled artisan would glean that the spacing of the electrodes will be dependent upon the wave to be excited and their distance can be configured as needed. However, Trevett also indicates that the electrode spacing is double that of the Lamb wave [0058] for a 3mm thick glass, which is significantly greater than a fourth of a fundamental wavelength of the surface wave or Lamb wave.
Saitou indicates that a distance from one electrode ridge to another should be half a wavelength as one wavelength provides for best efficiency (pages 3-5).
Hozumi (US20070247543A1) showcases a comb type electrode with fingers (Figs.8-10), and indicates that dust to be removed is a wavelength propagation or greater [0080]. Hozumi also states that thickness of a piezoelectric member should be double the wavelength or more to prevent detachment [0092], while indicating that a distance between subsequent fingers is one wavelength of the surface wave [0099].
Thus, although tuning of finger distance is a known concept in the art, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest tuning to a fourth of the fundamental wavelength. Rather, the prior art of record appears to suggest that the distance is beneficially maintained at or above a fundamental wavelength of the surface wave. Thus, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the invention of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependents are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights