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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ostergren (US Pat No 10,486,654 B2).
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 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
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.
Re claim 2, Ostergren 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 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 shows the nozzle manifold includes a lower body (400) joined to an upper body (402).
Re claim 5, Ostergren shows the lower body includes a fluid inlet (422) and an internal check valve (408).
Re claim 6, Ostergren shows the upper body includes a plurality of pedestals (108, 110, 112) each defining a respective one of the plurality of press-fit openings (118/130).
Re claim 7, Ostergren shows each of the plurality of pedestals includes an arcuate ridge (see annotated figures) and a radial notch (see annotated figures) adjacent the press-fit opening.
Re claim 12, Ostergren shows each of the plurality of spray nozzles (124, 132, 126) is keyed to a respective one of the plurality of press-fit openings (118/130).
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumgarten et al. (US Pat No 5,074,471).
Re claim 1, Baumgarten et al. show a fluid nozzle assembly (Figs. 1 & 7) for cleaning a LIDAR sensor comprising:
a nozzle manifold (10) including a plurality of press-fit openings (12) on an exposed upper surface thereof, the plurality of press-fit openings (12) being serially arranged in a longitudinal array; and
a plurality of spray nozzles (13/20) received within the plurality of press-fit openings of the nozzle manifold, wherein each of the plurality of spray nozzles includes a spray orifice (24) for discharging a cleaning fluid toward the LIDAR sensor in a desired spray pattern.
Re claim 3, Baumgarten et al. show at least one of the plurality of spray nozzles includes an elongated spray orifice for producing a flat fan spray pattern (col. 2, line 55).
Re claim 4, Baumgarten et al. show the nozzle manifold includes a lower body (11, section including 17a/17b) joined to an upper body (section including 12).
Re claim 9, Baumgarten et al. show each of the plurality of spray nozzles (Fig. 7) includes an upper portion (21), a lower portion (13), and a disc-shaped flange (61/62) therebetween.
Re claim 10, Baumgarten et al. show the disc-shaped flange defines an arcuate notch (62).
Re claim 11, Baumgarten et al. show the disc-shaped flange includes a radial post (61) extending downwardly therefrom.
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.
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 Litvinov et al. (US Pub No 2012/0126031 A1).
Re claim 8, Ostergren 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarten et al. (US Pat No 5,074,471) in view of Litvinov et al. (US Pub No 2012/0126031 A1).
Re claim 8, Baumgarten et al. disclose 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument directed toward Ostergren, in no way does claim 1 define the “exposed upper surface” in such a way that Ostergren cannot be said to read on the limitation. Any exposed surface can be considered an “upper” surface by virtue of the fact that said surface is exposed. As claim 1 provides no further structural details related to the “exposed upper surface” there appears to be no reason that one having ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the surface with which openings 118 and 130 are demonstrated on to be an exposed upper surface as claimed.
Similarly, applicant’s argument directed to the Baumgarten reference also refers to the limitation requiring an “exposed upper surface” to which, again, claim 1 provides no further structural details related to or relating the “exposed upper surface” to any other feature and as such, any surface one deems to be facing upward or as just a surface related to the interior surfaces of the manifold shown in Baumgarten that can be considered exposed and ‘upward’ from that interior surface would be an exposed upper surface. To which, the surfaces surrounding housing 11 are all exposed upper surfaces as claimed.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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