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 Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 12/15/2022 is acknowledged.
Applicant has cancelled the non-elected claims.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the air blower duct" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation will be understood as the air duct, as it is believed that is what applicant intended.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the camera fluid sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation will be understood as the camera fluid nozzle, as it is believed that that applicant meant the air duct is positioned opposite the air blower duct about the camera. This interpretation is supported by the specification (see Figs.1-5).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, & 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton (US20200393550A1).
As to claims 1 & 4, Hamilton discloses a bracket assembly for a sensor cleaning system (see Figs.2-7), the bracket assembly comprising: a housing (ref 34, see also [0022]) for attachment to a lidar sensor (refs 44 or 56) and a camera sensor (ref 40), the housing structure including an internal air passage (see Fig.3 flow path extending from ref 48 and including refs 84 & 92) and external fluid lines (Fig.7 ref 114, at least one other fluid line is implicitly present but not shown as the housing does not contain a reservoir and the liquid to nozzles needs to come from somewhere); a plurality of nozzles having outlet orifices (Fig.7 refs 110 & 112) directed towards the lidar sensor and supported by the housing structure and disposed about a periphery of the lidar sensor in fluid communication with the external fluid lines; a camera fluid nozzle supported by the housing structure and including an outlet orifice (Fig.7 ref 116) that is oriented to direct fluid toward a lens of the camera sensor (see Fig.7), the camera fluid nozzle being in fluid communication with the external fluid lines (see Fig.7, also implicit fluid line connection to a reservoir); and an air duct in fluid communication with the internal air passage for directing airflow to the lens of the camera sensor (see Figs.3 & 5 portion that extends from ref 80 to refs 52 & 54, see also [0022]).
As to claim 3, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the housing structure include a camera housing for the camera sensor (see Fig.4 & 7 ref 86, or ref 36 & [0022]).
As to claim 6, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the housing structure includes a plurality of air deflector fins in the internal air passage (i.e., fan blades of blower ref 84 read on such a limitation, see [0032]).
As to claim 10, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the housing structure includes a cooling port (ref 38 including refs 80 and 82 which define walls of the port) for directing air flow towards the camera sensor.
As to claim 11, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 10, wherein the housing structure includes an upper wall portion (ref 72) and a camera housing (see Fig.4 & 7 ref 86, or ref 36 & [0022]), the cooling port being an integral projection of the upper wall portion (see Fig.3 refs 80 & 82 which define a portion of the port and extend from the ceiling in order to isolate [0032] the chamber).
As to claim 12, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 10, wherein the cooling port is angled towards a rear portion of the camera housing (see Fig.3 refs 80 & 82).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US20200393550A1) in view of Holleczek (DE102018210057A1).
As to claim 2, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the housing structure includes a downward extending skirt that is spaced apart from the lidar sensor to define a radial gap therebetween (see Fig.4). However, assuming arguendo that the term radial gap connotes a circular gap, and Hamilton shows such a gap having flat sides, the following alternative rejection is provided. A skilled artisan understands that the shape of the gap would not affect the operation of the assembly, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would find the use of any shape to be an obvious design choice absent evidence that such a shape is significant (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, the use of circular housings portions utilized for cylindrical lidar sensors are known in the art as seen by Holleczek.
Holleczek discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a lidar sensor may be cylindrical in nature, and thus a downwardly extending skirt which provides a gap between the lidar sensor and the skirt is radial (e.g., circular) in nature (see Fig.2). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the shape of the skirt and the gap defined between the sensor and the skirt is dependent upon the sensor shape. Further, a skilled artisan also recognizes that a cylindrical lidar sensor is a known alternative to a rectangular lidar sensor. Thus, a skilled artisan would find a skirt having the claimed radial gap to be obvious when the implementation of a cylindrical lidar sensor is provided as a known alternative to a rectangular lidar sensor.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US20200393550A1) in view of Vitanov (US20210179032A1).
As to claim 5, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose the air duct opposite the liquid nozzle about the camera sensor. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Vitanov.
Vitanov discloses an art related sensor cleaning assembly (abstract), wherein it is shown that an air nozzle and a liquid nozzle may be provided opposite one another (Fig.6A) in order to allow for cleaning of the air nozzle by the liquid nozzle [0011, 0035, & 0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hamilton to provide the air outlet and the liquid outlet opposite one another in order to allow for cleaning of the air outlet via the liquid outlet (Vitanov [0011, 0035, & 0076]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US20200393550A1) in view of Vaishnav (US20190184942A1).
As to claim 7, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose an inline check valve in the internal air passage. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Vaishnav.
Vaishnav discloses an art related sensor cleaning assembly (abstract), wherein it is known the utilize an inline check valve in order to prevent backflow of air in the air supply line and allow for improved response time for airflow [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hamilton to provide an inline check valve in the internal air passage in order to improve response time and prevent backflow (Vaishnav [0036]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US20200393550A1) in view of Rice (US20180015908A1).
As to claim 8, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose first and second integrated check valves. However, the use of first and second integrated check valves is known in the art, as seen by Rice.
Rice discloses an art related sensor cleaning assembly (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize first and second check valves for liquid and air flow [0039-0040]. Rice further indicates that the check valves can be integrated into a housing structure [0041]. A check valve is well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art for preventing backflow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hamilton to provide the housing with integrated check valves in order to prevent backflow. Such a modification would provide the check valve proximate the fluid nozzles as they are located in the housing.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US20200393550A1) in view of Sakai (US20200180567A1).
As to claim 9, Hamilton teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein it is shown that various different liquid distribution configurations are possible (Figs.2 & 7-8), including an embodiment where the nozzles are supported along first and second fluid channels that extend around the lidar sensor (see Fig.6). Thus, Hamilton suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that any liquid distribution configuration can be utilized so long as spraying of the sensors is accomplished. Further, the usage of multiple fluid lines for cleaning different sensor portions is known in the art, as seen by Sakai.
Sakai discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is shown that multiple fluid channels can be utilized for providing fluid to different nozzles for the cleaning of different sensor portions (see Figs.20-21). Sakai showcases that such a configuration is an alternative to where all nozzles are provided on a single channel (Figs.18-19). By providing different channels for the respective nozzles actuation of the nozzles can be controlled to clean the desired area (see Figs.20-21). It is further seen from Sakai that branching from a single tube, where nozzles are provided on the branched portions, can be utilized for the cleaning of multiple elements (Fig.15). Thus, Sakai suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that branching of a fluid path should occur for the cleaning of multiple sensors, with the possibility of allowing for provisions in order to control the flow of fluid to each branch in order to control fluid to be supplied for cleaning the desired element or region of the element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hamilton to provide branched flow paths from the flow path leading to the camera nozzle to allow for cleaning of the lidar sensor, as such is a known liquid distribution configuration known for success in the cleaning of multiple elements (see Sakai Figs.15 & 20-21). Such a modification would provide allow branching of the flow path to separate branches for cleaning of the individual lidar sensors (i.e., providing a combination of the embodiments of Figs.6 & Fig.7 such that the branch flow path is provided 8 after the central portion of tube ref 114 for the camera nozzle to tubes refs 106 & 10 rather than a central tube ref 114). Such a modification would merely represent a known liquid distribution arrangement with known success in the art, and it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to utilize one known liquid distribution arrangement in place of another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kanitz (US20220132004A1) showcases a bracket with lidar and camera (Figs.4-10).
Krishnan US20190278078A1 showcases an upper wall portion of housing defines a wall portion of the cooling port (Fig.5).
Tobiassen US20210063093A1 showcases an integral protrusion forming a part of the cooling port (Figs.14-15 ref 1406).
Robertson (US20220066031A1), Kubota (US20230031726A1), Adams (US20240272280A1), Kubota (US20220390568A1), Avram (US20230089733A1), Badanov (US20220306049A1), Baldovino (US20200094782A1), Dubey (US20200094783A1), and Sykula (US20200398795A1) all showcase various different sensor cleaning assemblies which comprises a camera and lidar (see all figures).
Krishnan (US20210061237A1) showcases dual fluid channel extending around lidar (Figs.4-6).
Surineedi (US20220041139A1) showcases multi fluid channel extending around lidar (Figs.5-7).
Alkharabsheh (US20210031732A1) showcases a filter in an air flow path (Fig.4).
Patil (US20210025983A1) discloses air baffle for adjusting the flow direction of air (see Figs.2-3).
Krishnan (US11156485B1) discloses utilizing baffles in an air flow path for dehumidifying air (Fig.3 refs 136/138).
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 at (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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711