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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending on the application, of which claim 9 is amended, claims 1-8 & 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration, and claim 10 is cancelled.
In light of the amendments to the claims the previous rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 01/13/2026 directed towards the Rice and Hattori references (see pp.6-11 of remarks) are moot, as those references are no longer utilized.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026, directed towards the Karasik reference, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although applicant has amended the claim to indicate that air duct and spray nozzle are angularly offset in a direction along a circumference of the camera aperture, it is believed that Rachow shows such a feature (see [0023] indicating the air and fluid spraying elements are provided on the same plane and the figures showcases a circularly shaped aperture for which a camera is to be received). Applicant’s argument specifically indicates that the angle between the first and second axis is approximately 10 degrees. However, such a statement regarding the angle only takes into account immediately adjacent air ducts and spray nozzles.
The meaning of the term adjacent, in utilizing the broadest reasonable interpretation, is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean nearby (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent, definition B). The claim does not require the air duct to be immediately adjacent. Thus, at least some set of air ducts (ref 18) and a spray nozzle (ref 14) are situated to read on the claims.
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) 9 & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasik (US20180079392A1) in view of Rachow (US20200061643A1)
As to claims 9 & 11, Karasik discloses a camera nozzle assembly (Figs.8-11), comprising: a bracket mount (Figs.8-11 ref 200’’) for housing a camera therein, the bracket mount including a camera aperture (see Figs.9-11, portion where ref 10 exits ref 200’’) for a camera lens; a nozzle assembly (Figs.9-11 ref 100’’) joined to the bracket mount, wherein the nozzle assembly encircles the camera aperture and includes a fluid spray nozzle (ref 820). Karasik does not disclose the nozzle assembly having both an air duct and a fluid spray nozzle, wherein the air duct directs compressed air along a first transverse axis, and wherein the fluid spray nozzle directs a cleaning liquid along a second transverse axis, the second transverse axis being different from the first transverse axis, such that the air duct and the fluid spray nozzle are angularly offset from each other. However, a nozzle assembly with such features is known in the art, as seen by Rachow.
Rachow discloses an art related sensor cleaning nozzle (abstract), wherein the nozzle is provided with an air duct and a fluid spray nozzle (see Figs.1, 3-4 & 6 refs 14, 18, 30, 46 & 48; wherein the air duct is defined by refs 18, 30, 46, & 48 and the fluid spray nozzle is define by ref 14, see [0026] indicating that refs 18 & 48 are provided with air and [0001] indicating that the fluid spray can be a liquid), the air duct directs compressed air along a first transverse axis (see ref 18) and the fluid spray nozzle directs cleaning liquid along a second transverse axis (ref 14) different form the first transverse axis, such that the air duct and the spray nozzle are angularly offset by an angle between 20 and 90 degrees (see Figs.1, 3-4, & 6) along a circumference of the camera aperture. The first and second transverse axis are oriented toward a center of a camera lens [0009 & 0024]. The nozzle of Rachow allows for two different fluids to be utilized allowing for loosening of debris, washing with liquid, and drying of the sensor [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Karasik to utilize the two fluid nozzle construction of Rachow, in place of the single fluid nozzle, order to allow for loosening of debris, washing with liquid, and drying of the sensor (Rachow [0022]). The meaning of the term adjacent is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean nearby, the claim does not require the air duct to be immediately adjacent to the fluid spray nozzle. Thus, at least some set of air ducts (ref 18) and a spray nozzles (ref 14) are situated to read on the claimed angular configuration.
As to claim 12, Modified Karasik teaches the assembly of claim 9, wherein the nozzle assembly includes an upper nozzle body (Rachow ref 24) and a lower nozzle body (Rachow one or both of refs 22 and/or 26; it is noted that the phrase configurations of upper and lower are dependent upon the installation location of the camera within a vehicle, such that if the camera were installed with a degree of tilt upwards or downwards such bodies can read on upper or lower, further the limitation of upper and lower do not recite specific positional configurations with respect to any structural elements), wherein the upper nozzle body and the lower nozzle body cooperate to define the air duct (see Rachow Figs.2-3, also [0028], indicating that ref22 and ref 24 cooperate to form boundaries of the air duct or see Figs.3 & 5 showcasing that ref 24 and ref 26 cooperate to form the air duct), and wherein the upper nozzle body includes the spray nozzle (see Rachow Fig.3 ref 24)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasik (US20180079392A1) in view of Rachow (US20200061643A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Picot (US20220055045A1), Robertson (US20220066031A1), and Saito (JP2016078688A).
As to claim 13, Modified Karasik teaches the camera nozzle assembly of claim 12, wherein Rachow indicates that an attachment process [0028] is provided in order to prevent undesired leakage of the fluids. Modified Karasik does not disclose that the upper nozzle body is ultrasonically welded to the lower nozzle body, however ultrasonic welding for the connection of two nozzle parts is a well-known feature in the art, as seen by
Picot discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize ultrasonic welding to fix two nozzle parts (see Figs.4-5) to minimize the risk of leaking [0045].
Roberson discloses an art related sensor cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein a portion of a liquid nozzle (ref 112) can be fixed to another portion of said nozzle (see Fig.5 refs 108 & 124) via ultrasonic welding [0039].
Saito discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein a two part nozzle (e.g., see Fig.4) may have its parts fixed to one another via ultrasonic welding and the inclusion of a seal [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Karasik to ultrasonically weld the two nozzle parts in addition to the presence of a gasket in order to minimize the risk of leaking (Picot [0045], Saito [0035], and Roberson [0039]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known means connecting two parts of a nozzle in place of, or in addition to, another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasik (US20180079392A1) in view of Rachow (US20200061643A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Numakunai (US20180194328A1).
As to claim 14, Modified Karasik teaches the assembly of claim 12, wherein Karasik does a portion of circular nozzle assembly is provided with engaging members (Figs.12A-12B ref 830) in order to mount to the bracket. Modified Karasik does not showcase the engaging members mounting via apertures in the bracket; however, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Numakunai
Numakunai discloses an art related camera cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that nozzle cleaning device (ref 10) can be attached to a camera body (ref 20, see Figs.1-2) via a snap fit. Although Numakunai shows apertures on the nozzle device rather than the camera body, Numakunai also discloses that an opposite configuration is possible [0043], such that the camera body has apertures to receive projections to fix the nozzle device to the camera [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the bracket of Karasik to provide apertures (snap fitting receiving tabs) on the bracket in order to cooperate with the snap engagement members of the nozzle assembly and secure the nozzle to the bracket (Numakunai [0042]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known receiving member for a snap engagement to secure a nozzle device to the bracket, when one the receiving member is not explicitly shown.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasik (US20180079392A1) in view of Rachow (US20200061643A1), Kubota (US20230031726A1), Ekola (US20180134258A1), Nielsen (US20180272996A1), and Hahn (US20210086727A1). The following alternative rejection is provided assuming arguendo that applicant intends the phrase “adjacent” to refer to immediately adjacent
As to claims 9 & 11, Karasik discloses a camera nozzle assembly (Figs.8-11), comprising: a bracket mount (Figs.8-11 ref 200’’) for housing a camera therein, the bracket mount including a camera aperture (see Figs.9-11, portion where ref 10 exits ref 200’’) for a camera lens; a nozzle assembly (Figs.9-11 ref 100’’) joined to the bracket mount, wherein the nozzle assembly encircles the camera aperture and includes a fluid spray nozzle (ref 820). Karasik does not disclose the nozzle assembly having both an air duct and a fluid spray nozzle, wherein the air duct directs compressed air along a first transverse axis, and wherein the fluid spray nozzle directs a cleaning liquid along a second transverse axis, the second transverse axis being different from the first transverse axis, such that the air duct and the fluid spray nozzle are angularly offset from each other. However, a nozzle assembly with such features is known in the art, as seen by Rachow.
Rachow discloses an art related sensor cleaning nozzle (abstract), wherein the nozzle is provided with an air duct and a fluid spray nozzle (see Figs.1, 3-4 & 6 refs 14, 18, 30, 46 & 48; wherein the air duct is defined by refs 18, 30, 46, & 48 and the fluid spray nozzle is define by ref 14, see [0026] indicating that refs 18 & 48 are provided with air and [0001] indicating that the fluid spray can be a liquid), the air duct directs compressed air along a first transverse axis (see ref 18) and the fluid spray nozzle directs cleaning liquid along a second transverse axis (ref 14) different form the first transverse axis, such that the air duct and the spray nozzle are angularly offset by an angle between 20 and 90 degrees (see Figs.1, 3-4, & 6) along a circumference of the camera aperture. The first and second transverse axis are oriented toward a center of a camera lens [0009 & 0024]. The nozzle of Rachow allows for two different fluids to be utilized allowing for loosening of debris, washing with liquid, and drying of the sensor [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Karasik to utilize the two fluid nozzle construction of Rachow, in place of the single fluid nozzle, order to allow for loosening of debris, washing with liquid, and drying of the sensor (Rachow [0022]). The meaning of the term adjacent is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean nearby, the claim does not require the air duct to be immediately adjacent to the fluid spray nozzle. Thus, at least some set of air ducts (ref 18) and a spray nozzles (ref 14) are situated to read on the claimed angular configuration. However, assuming arguendo that the intent of the term adjacent is to specifically indicate an immediately adjacent air duct and fluid spray nozzle, the following alternative rejection is provided. Modified Karasik does not disclose the angle being between 20 and 90 degrees. However, a skilled artisan recognizes that the angle between the immediately adjacent air duct and the fluid nozzle in the arc-shaped nozzle element is dependent upon the number of nozzles provided within the arc. Rachow also indicates that a skilled artisan would recognize various changes and modifications can be made [0020 & 0033] and does not explicitly state the number of nozzles is limited to that shown in the figures. Further it is known in the art to adjust the number of nozzles, including utilizing two air ducts and two fluid spray nozzles spaced within a semicircular portion for the cleaning of a circular sensor surface, as seen by Kubota, Ekola, Nielsen, and Hahn.
Kubota discloses an art related sensor cleaning unit, wherein it is known adjust number of air and liquid nozzles as desired [0086].
Ekola discloses an art related senor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that the number of nozzles utilized is dependent upon the spray pattern [0018].
Nielsen discloses an art related vehicle surface cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to select the number of nozzles utilized in order to provide optimal coverage, efficiency, and power consumption [0070].
Hahn discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is shown that a known quantity of air nozzles and liquid nozzles for cleaning of a circular sensor is two of each (see refs 5, 5’, 23, & 23’). Hahn showcases that the spacing between an air nozzle and a liquid spray nozzle is between 20 and 90 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify Karasik to provide a total of two air ducts and two fluid spray nozzles for cleaning of the circularly shaped sensor surface, as such is a known configuration in the art for success. Such a modification would merely amount to adjustment of the number of nozzles, for the purposes of optimizing coverage, efficiency, and power consumption, as is known in the art (Kubota [0086], Ekola [0018], Nielsen [0070]).
As to claim 12, Modified Karasik teaches the assembly of claim 9, wherein the nozzle assembly includes an upper nozzle body (Rachow ref 24) and a lower nozzle body (Rachow one or both of refs 22 and/or 26; it is noted that the phrase configurations of upper and lower are dependent upon the installation location of the camera within a vehicle, such that if the camera were installed with a degree of tilt upwards or downwards such bodies can read on upper or lower, further the limitation of upper and lower do not recite specific positional configurations with respect to any structural elements), wherein the upper nozzle body and the lower nozzle body cooperate to define the air duct (see Rachow Figs.2-3, also [0028], indicating that ref22 and ref 24 cooperate to form boundaries of the air duct or see Figs.3 & 5 showcasing that ref 24 and ref 26 cooperate to form the air duct), and wherein the upper nozzle body includes the spray nozzle (see Rachow Fig.3 ref 24)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasik (US20180079392A1) in view of Rachow (US20200061643A1), Kubota (US20230031726A1), Ekola (US20180134258A1), Nielsen (US20180272996A1), and Hahn (US20210086727A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Picot (US20220055045A1), Robertson (US20220066031A1), and Saito (JP2016078688A).
As to claim 13, Modified Karasik teaches the camera nozzle assembly of claim 12, wherein Rachow indicates that an attachment process [0028] is provided in order to prevent undesired leakage of the fluids. Modified Karasik does not disclose that the upper nozzle body is ultrasonically welded to the lower nozzle body, however ultrasonic welding for the connection of two nozzle parts is a well-known feature in the art, as seen by
Picot discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize ultrasonic welding to fix two nozzle parts (see Figs.4-5) to minimize the risk of leaking [0045].
Roberson discloses an art related sensor cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein a portion of a liquid nozzle (ref 112) can be fixed to another portion of said nozzle (see Fig.5 refs 108 & 124) via ultrasonic welding [0039].
Saito discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein a two part nozzle (e.g., see Fig.4) may have its parts fixed to one another via ultrasonic welding and the inclusion of a seal [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Karasik to ultrasonically weld the two nozzle parts in addition to the presence of a gasket in order to minimize the risk of leaking (Picot [0045], Saito [0035], and Roberson [0039]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known means connecting two parts of a nozzle in place of, or in addition to, another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasik (US20180079392A1) in view of Rachow (US20200061643A1), Kubota (US20230031726A1), Ekola (US20180134258A1), Nielsen (US20180272996A1), and Hahn (US20210086727A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Numakunai (US20180194328A1).
As to claim 14, Modified Karasik teaches the assembly of claim 12, wherein Karasik does a portion of circular nozzle assembly is provided with engaging members (Figs.12A-12B ref 830) in order to mount to the bracket. Modified Karasik does not showcase the engaging members mounting via apertures in the bracket; however, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Numakunai
Numakunai discloses an art related camera cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that nozzle cleaning device (ref 10) can be attached to a camera body (ref 20, see Figs.1-2) via a snap fit. Although Numakunai shows apertures on the nozzle device rather than the camera body, Numakunai also discloses that an opposite configuration is possible [0043], such that the camera body has apertures to receive projections to fix the nozzle device to the camera [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the bracket of Karasik to provide apertures (snap fitting receiving tabs) on the bracket in order to cooperate with the snap engagement members of the nozzle assembly and secure the nozzle to the bracket (Numakunai [0042]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known receiving member for a snap engagement to secure a nozzle device to the bracket, when one the receiving member is not explicitly shown.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DeWitt (US5657929A) showcases that first and second parts can be joined together to form a nozzle having air and liquid outlets (see Figs.5-6).
Baudouin (US20240198976A1) showcases that first and second parts can be joined together to form a nozzle having air and liquid outlets (see Figs.3, 6, & 8).
Kawamura (US20190337490A1) a nozzle having both air and liquid outlets with different offset axis that target a center of a lens (Fig.12).
Faria (US20190110675A1) a two part cleaning manifold with nozzles can be formed via ultrasonic welding [0046].
Nishio (US20140097272A1) two parts of a nozzle (Fig.5-7B & 11-13) can be ultrasonically welded [0070 & 0102].
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 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
Prosecution Insights