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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostergren (US Pat No 10,486,654 B2) in view of Barton (US Pub No 2011/0079661 A1). All citations to Ostergren unless specified otherwise.
Re claim 1, Ostergren shows a fluid nozzle assembly (Figs. 2, 3, 11 & 12) for cleaning a LIDAR sensor comprising:
a nozzle manifold (400) including a plurality of pedestals (108, 110, 112) defining a respective one of a plurality of press-fit openings (118/130) on an exposed upper surface thereof, the plurality of press-fit openings (col. 5, lines 36-39 & lines 52-55) being serially arranged in a longitudinal array (140), and each of the plurality of pedestals including an arcuate ridge (see annotated figure) and a radial notch (see annotated figure) adjacent the respective press-fit opening; and
a plurality of spray nozzles (124, 132, 126) received within the plurality of press-fit openings of the nozzle manifold, wherein each of the plurality of spray nozzles includes a spray orifice (128/133) for discharging a cleaning fluid toward the LIDAR sensor in a desired spray pattern, and wherein the arcuate ridge (see annotated figure) and radial notch (see annotated figure) of the pedestal prevents misalignment of each spray nozzle inserted into its respective press-fit opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
601
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ostergren does not teach keyed press-fit openings.
However, Barton shows a keyed press-fit opening (Fig. 8 – 108 into 110; paragraphs 0038 & 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the press-fit openings in Ostergren be keyed as taught by Barton to rotationally orient the nozzles (Barton – paragraph 0038).
Re claim 2, Ostergren as modified by Barton shows at least one of the plurality of spray nozzles includes a round spray orifice (128) for producing a solid stream of cleaning fluid.
Re claim 3, Ostergren as modified by Barton shows at least one of the plurality of spray nozzles includes an elongated spray orifice (133) for producing a flat fan spray pattern (col. 6, lines 9-16).
Re claim 4, Ostergren as modified by Barton shows the nozzle manifold includes a lower body (400) joined to an upper body (402).
Re claim 5, Ostergren as modified by Barton shows the lower body includes a fluid inlet (422) and an internal check valve (408).
Re claim 6, Ostergren as modified by Barton shows the upper body includes the plurality of pedestals (108, 110, 112).
Re claim 12, Ostergren as modified by Barton shows each of the plurality of spray nozzles (124, 132, 126) is keyed (Barton – Fig. 8, 108 into 110) to a respective one of the plurality of press-fit openings (118/130).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostergren (US Pat No 10,486,654 B2) in view of Barton (US Pub No 2011/0079661 A1) and further in view of Litvinov et al. (US Pub No 2012/0126031 A1).
Re claim 8, Ostergren as modified by Barton discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the upper body is ultrasonically welded to the lower body along an upper periphery of the lower body.
However, Litvinov et al. disclose an upper body (134) that is ultrasonically welded (paragraph 0099) to a lower body (144).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ultrasonically weld together the upper and lower body, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Claim 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostergren (US Pat No 10,486,654 B2) in view of Barton (US Pub No 2011/0079661 A1) and further in view of Baumgarten et al. (US Pat No 5,074,471).
Re claim 9, Ostergren as modified by Barton discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach each of the plurality of spray nozzles includes an upper portion, a lower portion, and a disc-shaped flange there between.
However, Baumgarten et al. show a plurality of spray nozzles (Fig. 7) including an upper portion (21), a lower portion (13), and a disc-shaped flange (61/62) therebetween.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the nozzles in Ostergren as modified by Barton include the elastic lips and associated attachment structure taught by Baumgarten et al. to provide a normally closed spray mouth which prevents the washing liquid from freezing (Baumgarten – abstract).
Re claim 10, Ostergren as modified by Barton and Baumgarten et al. show the disc-shaped flange defines an arcuate notch (Baumgarten - 62).
Re claim 11, Ostergren as modified by Barton and Baumgarten et al. show the disc-shaped flange includes a radial post (Baumgarten - 61) extending downwardly therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that Ostergren teaches away from keying the ball jet 124 into a single orientation, Ostergren does not in fact state that rotation of the ball jet is a requirement, merely that the ball jet may be rotated, emphasis added. Further, and contrary to this, Ostergren specifically stipulates the desire to “prevent, minimize, or reduce inadvertent rotation” (col. 5, lines 36-39) and thus provides reasoning to further rotationally orient the ball jet as is taught by Barton.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights