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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 – 11.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0183406 A1) in view of Babu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,889,246 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
485
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Tanaka teaches a cleaning device (camera unit, 10; Fig. 7) for an optical element (camera, 11) configured to be fitted to a motor vehicle (V; Fig. 1), comprising a base (housing, 12) configured to be disposed on a side of a lens (lens sides 11a and b) of the optical element (11), the base (12) including an airline (air pipe, 35) where an air jet is intended to circulate between an air intake (Paragraph [0062]; Annotated Fig. 7) and an air outlet (jet hole, 14a), which are provided within the base (12), the air outlet (14a) protruding from the base (12) and forming a first air ejection nozzle (air nozzle, 14) disposed at a periphery of the lens (11a) of the optical element (11), the first air ejection nozzle configured to project the air jet onto a surface of the lens (Paragraph [0080]), a liquid line (24) coupled to the base (12 via merging pipe, 32), wherein a cleaning liquid (supplied by cleaning liquid tank, 20; Fig. 7) is configured to circulate between a liquid inlet (Annotated Fig. 7) and a liquid outlet (jet hole, 13a), the liquid outlet (13a) protruding from the base (12) and forming a second, liquid ejection nozzle (cleaning liquid nozzle, 13) disposed at the periphery of the lens (11b) of the optical element (11) that is configured to project a cleaning liquid jet onto the surface of the lens (Paragraph [0064]).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the base being a structure formed by a complete revolution cylindrical in shape for enhancing generation of air flow from a blower.
Babu, however, teaches the base (camera housing, 122) can have a variety of shapes (Col. 6, lines 9 – 39) including a structure formed by a complete revolution cylindrical in shape for enhancing generation of air flow from a blower (Figs. 4 – 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning device of Tanaka to further include the base being a structure formed by a complete revolution cylindrical in shape for enhancing generation of air flow from a blower, as taught by Babu, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 2, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (camera unit, 10; Fig. 7) wherein the air outlet (14a) of the first nozzle (14) and the liquid outlet (13a) of the second nozzle (13) are disposed with respect to one another such that a relative direction of the cleaning liquid jet forms an angle (a) of between 70 and 110 degrees with respect to the relative direction of the air jet (Annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (camera unit, 10; Fig. 7) wherein the base (12) included at least one curved portion (Annotated Fig. 7) adapted to surround a portion of the lens (11a and b).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (camera unit, 10; Fig. 7) wherein the air outlet (14a) is designed such that the air jet is an air knife (Fig. 3B), the air outlet (14a) having a slot shape (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (camera unit, 10; Fig. 7) wherein the device (10) is designed to adapt around a circular lens (11a and b; as shown in Fig. 3A), the base (12) being curved (Annotated Fig. 7) and having an axis of curvature adapted to be concentric with an axis of revolution of the lens of the optical element (Figs. 3A and 7)
Regarding Claim 6, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (camera unit, 10; Fig. 7) wherein a relative direction of the cleaning liquid jet (13a) and the relative direction of ejection of the air jet (14a) both pass through an axis of curvature of the base (12; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (camera unit, 10; Fig. 7) wherein the base (12) is configured such that only the air outlet (14a) and the liquid outlet (13a) project beyond a plane formed by the surface of the lens (11a)of the optical element (11; Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 8, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (camera unit, 10; Fig. 7) including a supply tube (35) connected to the air intake (Annotated Fig. 7) of the base (12), and to a blower (air pump, 30; Fig. 7) .
Regarding Claim 9, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the cleaning device (camera unit, 10; Fig. 7) wherein the liquid inlet (Annotated Fig. 7) of the base (12) includes a circuit connection device (ECU, 40) for circulating a cleaning liquid of the motor vehicle (Paragraphs [0057] and [0059]).
Regarding Claim 10, Tanaka, as modified, teaches an optical element (11) configured to be fitted to a motor vehicle (V), comprising a cleaning device (10) as claimed in claim l (Fig. 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0183406 A1) in view of Baldovino et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0337489 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Tanaka teaches the optical element (11) of claim 10 as discussed above.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach comprising projecting a jet of air continuously onto the surface of the lens by way of the air outlet, projecting a jet of cleaning liquid onto the surface of the Lens by way of the liquid outlet where an intensity of the jet of air decreases and interrupting the jet of cleaning liquid so that the jet of air intensifies, the jet of air being maintained until ejecting the cleaning liquid.
Baldovino, however, teaches an optical element (18) comprising a base (26) and a cleaning method comprising projecting a jet of air continuously onto the surface of the lens by way of the air outlet (Paragraph [0026]), projecting a jet of cleaning liquid onto the surface of the lens by way of the liquid outlet where an the intensity of the jet of air decreases (Paragraph [0044]) and interrupting the jet of cleaning liquid such that the jet of air intensifies, the jet of air being maintained until ejecting the cleaning liquid (Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning device of Tanaka to further include the method, as taught by Baldovino, to provide a method that improves a cleaning of the optical device, thus ensuring the accuracy of date received by the optical element and further, the vehicle.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the base being a structure formed by a complete revolution cylindrical in shape for enhancing generation of air flow from a blower.
Babu, however, teaches the base (camera housing, 122) can have a variety of shapes (Col. 6, lines 9 – 39) including a structure formed by a complete revolution cylindrical in shape for enhancing generation of air flow from a blower (Figs. 4 – 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning device of Tanaka to further include the base being a structure formed by a complete revolution cylindrical in shape for enhancing generation of air flow from a blower, as taught by Babu, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated December 18, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated December 18, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Babu.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723