DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/28/2025 has been entered.
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 1-4 & 7-18 are pending on the application, of which none are amended, claim 18 is newly added and claims 5-6 are cancelled.
The previous rejection the previously presented claims is maintained as applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to point 3A, the cited embodiment of Rice does not clearly state that it performs drying of the sensor (see [0018-0019 & 0116-0117]). However, Rice does showcase a different embodiment in which air/gas cleaning of sensors is performed. Further, Rice indicates that gas cleaning and liquid cleaning can be utilized together [0074]. Contrary to applicant’s assertion, Rice does not indicate any drying of the sensor after cleaning. Rice does not state anywhere in its disclosure any drying of the sensor. Thus, the combination of Buss with Rice does provide a benefit of allowing for drying of a sensor, and further provides the benefit of, within a single cycle, providing a longer drying time in order to ensure drying of the sensor (Buss [0037]).
Applicant’s second argument in 3A is that Rice allows for a drying process of any duration. This argument is not persuasive as Rice does not disclose any drying nor does Rice make mention of any duration of drying. It is unclear as to what citation of Rice applicant is referring to, with regards to referencing Fig.2 and related texts, for support for such a determination regarding the disclosure of Rice indicating such drying and drying duration. Secondly, the Buss provides a larger volume of air for drying within a single cycle (e.g., a single back and forth pass of a separation member) than a liquid volume so as to supply a longer duration of drying air (see Buss Figs.2a-2d). Further, as applicant points out in point 3B, the duration of an air exhaust cycle is not “any duration” but rather due to the stroke length of the piston and the air chamber volume (see pp.3 of applicant’s remarks. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments directed towards no rationale for combining Rice and Buss is unpersuasive.
With respect to point 3B, applicant argues that such a modification would impose limits on the amount of air used for cleaning in Rice. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive as the amount of air discharged from the chamber is dependent on the size of the chamber and the stroke length and Buss provides the feature of increasing the volume of the air chamber such that it is sufficient to provide drying of the sensor. Thus, the argument regarding a hypothetical scenario of requiring more air is not persuasive as the volume of the air chamber would be adjusted to obviate such a need.
With respect to point 3C, applicant argues that the modification would provide complexity and difficulty with respect to the generated air flow due to the decay in pressure and air flow rate as a function of the partitioning member. However, such a feature would not deter one of ordinary skill in the art from performing the modification in order to allow for a drying of the sensor to be possible. Rather, the skilled artisan understands such physics regarding the pressure differential as a function of the partitioning member and would provide the modification with such physics in mind. Thus, a skilled artisan would perform the modification such that the drying is possible, including adjusting the inlet pressure, the stroke length of the piston/partitioning member, and the like. Further, an increase of complexity in it of itself is not a determining factor as to whether a skilled artisan would find a modification not obvious. Rather, many innovations and modifications require at least some modicum of increasing complexity, but so long as such increased complexity provides a reasonable and desirable benefit, a skilled artisan would pursue such an endeavor.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “charge pressure setter” in claims 12 & 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-4, 11, & 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US20180290631A1) in view of Buss (US20170168291A1), Yamamoto (JP2001115953A), and Koyama (US20210001678A1).
As to claims 1, 4, 11, & 16, Rice discloses a vehicle (Fig.1 ref 10) having a cleaning device (abstract) for providing at least one of a liquid cleaning pulse for at least one cleaning nozzle (see Figs.4-5), the device comprising: a pressure cylinder (Fig.5 ref 500) defining a cylinder volume and having a movable separator (Fig.5 ref 506) that divides the cylinder volume in fluid tight fashion (inherent, as if the partition allowed leakage of fluid into the divided compartments the system would not work as desired) into a first air chamber (Fig.5 ref 502) configured to receive an air quantity and a second liquid chamber (Fig.5 ref 504) configured to receive a liquid quantity of cleaning liquid; said separator being movable axially along a cylinder axis [0140] and bearing sealingly against a cylinder internal wall of said pressure cylinder; said first air chamber having at least one air chamber port (Fig.5 see portion from ref 520 which allows air into ref 500 thereby indicating the presence of a port) configured to admit compressed air with a charge pressure for filling the first air chamber; wherein when said first air chamber is filled with the air quantity the charge pressure acts on an air action surface (i.e., side of ref 506 exposed to the air chamber), facing towards the air chamber, of said separator to generate a displacement force (i.e., compression of ref 504 to produce pressurized fluid); wherein said displacement force acts on a liquid action surface (i.e., portion of 506 exposed to ref 504), facing toward said liquid chamber, of said separator to generate a liquid pressure of the cleaning liquid that is received in the liquid chamber; said pressure cylinder is configured as a pressure booster (i.e., boosts the pressure of the incoming liquid to generate pressurized liquid); a switching valve (Rice Fig.5 ref 520) is provided to produce a pneumatic connection between a module compressed air port (Rice Fig.5 ref 514) and the at least one air chamber port. Rice does not teach providing a compressed air cleaning pulse for the recited embodiment; however, Rice does indicate that providing a cleaning air pulse is provided in another embodiment (see Fig.2). Further, Rice also discloses that the systems may utilize both cleaning liquid and gas [0074]. Thus, a skilled artisan would find the provision of providing a compressed air cleaning pulse to be obvious and envisaged by Rice. However, assuming arguendo that such a feature is not explicitly stated or shown, it is known in the art, as seen by Buss. Rice also does not teach the liquid action surface being smaller than the air action surface, however such a feature is known in the art as seen by Yamamoto. Similarly, the limitations of claims 4 & 11 are also known in the art as seen by Yamamoto.
Buss discloses an art related camera cleaning device for a vehicle (abstract), wherein piston-cylinder arrangement (Figs.2a-2d) provides fluid to a nozzle (Fig.1 ref 27) for cleaning a sensor (Fig.1 ref 1). It is seen by Buss, that air flow exhausted from the piston-cylinder arrangement (see refs 26/32) is routed to a nozzle [0047]. Allowing for air to be supplied to a nozzle and directed towards a sensor provides for drying the sensor after cleaning [0026 & 0037]. Buss elongates a drying process for a single cycle by virtue of a larger volume for air than liquid (see Figs.2a-2d & [0037]).
Yamamoto discloses an art related cleaning device utilizing a piston-cylinder arrangement (see abstract & Fig.1), wherein the piston-cylinder arrangement is a double acting piston cylinder arrangement with multiple plungers (see Figs.1-8) for supplying liquid to a nozzle (Fig.1 ref 7) and includes: a separator with a first air action surface and a second air action surface (Fig.1 either side of ref 11) arranged opposite to one another inside a direction of a cylinder axis (i.e., length direction consistent with ref 53a/53b); the separator has a first liquid action (Fig.1 ref 12b) surface arranged opposite said first air action surface in the direction of the cylinder axis; a second liquid action surface (Fig.1 ref 12a) arranged opposite the second air action surface in the direction of the cylinder axis; the first air action surfaces faces toward a first air chamber and a second air action surface faces towards a second air chamber (see Fig.1 refs 14a/14b); and the first liquid action surface faces a first liquid chamber and the second liquid action surfaces faces a second liquid chamber (Fig.1 refs 15a/15b). The first and second air action surfaces define an air plunger while the liquid action surfaces defines first and second liquid plungers. The air plunger and liquid plungers are connected via a plunger shank (Fig.1 ref 13a/13b). The action surface of the liquid chambers is smaller than the air action surface of the air chambers (see Fig.1). The piston-cylinder arrangement utilizing a double acting arrangement allows for downsizing of a cleaning device and the need for only a single air pressure source [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rice to provide the air exhaust (Rice Fig.5 line from ref 522) to a nozzle for cleaning and drying the sensor to be cleaned (Buss [0026 & 0037]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to modify the piston-cylinder arrangement of Rice, in order to use the double acting arrangement of Yamamoto in order to allow for the downsizing of the device and only one air source being required (Yamamoto [0013]). A skilled artisan recognizes that such a modification would also include a larger volume for air to ensure that the drying process last longer in order to effectively dry the sensor (Buss [0037]). Such a modification would provide a valve (Rice Fig.5 ref 522) separate from the switching valve to produce a pneumatic connection between the air chamber port and the compressed air nozzle. Accordingly, the only difference remaining between Modified Rice and the invention of claims 1 and 16 is that Modified Rice does not showcase a single valve being switchable to two positions for said connections. However, such a feature merely amounts to a three-way valve, and such three way valves are known for the purposes of switching between supplying and exhausting air, as seen by Koyama.
Koyama discloses an art related camera leaning device for a vehicle (see title and abstract), wherein it is known that a three port two position solenoid valve can be utilized to switch between supplying and exhausting air [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rice to utilize a three port two position valve in order to supply and exhaust air, as is known in the art (Koyama [0037]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of valve for supply and exhausting air in place of another, with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would merely amount to a mundane modification that a skilled artisan would perform to reduce the number of valves required by a system.
As to claim 2, Modified Rice teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising a restoring spring (e.g., Rice Fig.5 ref 510) and said separator being held in said pressure cylinder via said restoring spring for generating a restoring force that acts counter to the displacement force (Rice [0142]).
As to claim 3, Modified Rice teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising a restoring spring (e.g., Rice Fig.5 ref 510) and said separator being held in said pressure cylinder via said restoring spring for generating a restoring force that acts counter to the displacement force (Rice [0142]) when separator is moved while the air chamber is being filled (i.e., when the air chamber is being filled it will compress the spring at least partially, and the spring will provide a force counter said compression).
As to claim 15 Modified Rice teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising at least one cleaning nozzle (best seen by Buss Fig.1 ref 27, see also Rice Fig.4 & [0028]) arranged and configured to apply at least one of the liquid cleaning pulse and the compressed air cleaning pulse to the at least one sensor surface.
As to claim 17, Modified Rice teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a passenger motor vehicle (see Rice [0057] stating a car, truck, or bus which are known passenger vehicles).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US20180290631A1) in view of Buss (US20170168291A1), Yamamoto (JP2001115953A), and Koyama (US20210001678A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bute (US20230100226A1), Trager (US20160193986A1), and Hanisch (US20220397081A1).
As to claim 7, Modified Rice teaches the device of claim 1, but does not disclose the presence of a bypass valve. However, such a feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Bute, Trager, and Hanisch.
Bute discloses an art related sensor cleaning device for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is known that there are instances where only air cleaning is desired [0072]
Trager discloses an art related vehicle surface cleaning system (abstract), wherein a bypass valve is utilized to route fluid to a nozzle while bypassing an unneeded element in order to increase efficiency [0024].
Hanisch discloses an art related vehicle system (abstract) for use with a cleaning device [0008], wherein it is known that bypass valves have open and closed states for allowing or preventing the flow of fluid [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rice to provide a bypass valve arrangement in the air line from the module compressed air port in order to connect the compressed air port and the compressed air line to the nozzle when in a bypass position (i.e., ventilation position) and connect the air line from the module to the air chamber port when not in the bypass position (i.e., admission position). Such a modification would allow for air cleaning where there is a desire for only air cleaning and the pressurizing of fluid is not required, thereby increasing efficiency of the cleaning device (Bute [0072], Trager [0024], and Hanisch [0044]).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US20180290631A1) in view of Buss (US20170168291A1), Yamamoto (JP2001115953A), and Koyama (US20210001678A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondo (US20200254493A1).
As to claim 8, Modified Rice teaches the device of claim 1, but does not disclose a dead volume. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Kondo.
Kondo discloses an art related cleaning device for a vehicle sensor (abstract, [0002], & Fig.1), wherein it is known that a piston-cylinder arrangement has a stopper surface (Fig.2 ref 25) with a protruding portion (Fig.2 ref 21a) near a port (Fig.2 ref 23a) of the cylinder in order to prevent contact between the piston and the cylinder thereby preventing noise [0195 & 0209]. Kondo further showcases other possible variations for ensuring that a piston end and the cylinder housing do not contact one another (Figs.11-15). In all instances, the area between the piston and housing which the piston does not pass through defines a dead volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rice to include a stopper thereby preventing contact between the piston end and the housing and preventing noise (Kondo [0195 & 0209]). Since the outlet and inlet port of the cylinder are provided in the same end (see Rice Fig.5), the port would be located in the dead space created by the stopper.
As to claims 9-10, Modified Rice teaches the device of claim 8, but does not disclose the axial extent of the dead volume. However, a skilled artisan would recognize that the length of the dead space being less than 2 millimeters would be a mere change in the dimensions of the piston-cylinder arrangement, and a piston-cylinder arrangement with such dimensions would not perform differently than the device of Modified Rice. Further, a skilled artisan recognizes that the by providing the dead space of the piston-cylinder arrangement as small as possible, a longer piston stroke can be obtained and more usable work is thus rendered possible. Thus, a skilled artisan would find the sizing of the dead space to less than 2 millimeters to be obvious in order to maintain the greatest piston stroke (see also MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US20180290631A1) in view of Buss (US20170168291A1), Yamamoto (JP2001115953A), and Koyama (US20210001678A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dingli (US20220036872A1) and Savage (US4248383A).
As to claims 12-14, Modified Rice teaches the device of claim 1, wherein there is an air connection line (see Rice Fig.5 line from ref 514 to ref 520). Modified Rice does not disclose the presence of a pressure setter. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Dingli and Savage.
Dingli discloses an art related sensor cleaning assembly for a vehicle (abstract), wherein a pressure regulator (Fig.2 ref 236) is provided on an air line (Fig.2 ref 246). A skilled artisan understands that a pressure regulator allows for control of air pressure.
Savage discloses an art related vehicle washing system (abstract), wherein a pressure regulating valve (ref 36) is provided on a compressed air line (ref 28) which allows for connection to another component. The regulator enables the setting of the pressure of air flowing therethrough (Col.2 lines 19-24 & 50-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rice to incorporate a pressure regulating valve on the air line leading to the piston-cylinder to control the air pressure (Savage Col.2 lines 19-24 & 50-57 & Dingli Fig.2). A skilled artisan recognizes that a pressure regulator valve is a pressure control valve that allows for setting a pressure of the air.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US20180290631A1) in view of Buss (US20170168291A1), Yamamoto (JP2001115953A), Koyama (US20210001678A1), Bute (US20230100226A1), and Franco (US20040045587A1).
As to claim 18, Rice discloses a vehicle (Fig.1 ref 10) having a cleaning device (abstract) for providing at least one of a liquid cleaning pulse for at least one cleaning nozzle (see Figs.4-5), the device comprising: a pressure cylinder (Fig.5 ref 500) defining a cylinder volume and having a movable separator (Fig.5 ref 506) that divides the cylinder volume in fluid tight fashion (inherent, as if the partition allowed leakage of fluid into the divided compartments the system would not work as desired) into a first air chamber (Fig.5 ref 502) configured to receive an air quantity and a second liquid chamber (Fig.5 ref 504) configured to receive a liquid quantity of cleaning liquid; said separator being movable axially along a cylinder axis [0140] and bearing sealingly against a cylinder internal wall of said pressure cylinder; said first air chamber having at least one air chamber port (Fig.5 see portion from ref 520 which allows air into ref 500 thereby indicating the presence of a port) configured to admit compressed air with a charge pressure for filling the first air chamber; wherein when said first air chamber is filled with the air quantity the charge pressure acts on an air action surface (i.e., side of ref 506 exposed to the air chamber), facing towards the air chamber, of said separator to generate a displacement force (i.e., compression of ref 504 to produce pressurized fluid); wherein said displacement force acts on a liquid action surface (i.e., portion of 506 exposed to ref 504), facing toward said liquid chamber, of said separator to generate a liquid pressure of the cleaning liquid that is received in the liquid chamber; said pressure cylinder is configured as a pressure booster (i.e., boosts the pressure of the incoming liquid to generate pressurized liquid); a switching valve (Rice Fig.5 ref 520) is provided to produce a pneumatic connection between a module compressed air port (Rice Fig.5 ref 514) and the at least one air chamber port.
Rice does not teach providing a compressed air cleaning pulse for the recited embodiment; however, Rice does indicate that providing a cleaning air pulse is provided in another embodiment (see Fig.2). Further, Rice also discloses that the systems may utilize both cleaning liquid and gas [0074]. Thus, a skilled artisan would find the provision of providing a compressed air cleaning pulse to be obvious and envisaged by Rice. However, assuming arguendo that such a feature is not explicitly stated or shown, it is known in the art, as seen by Buss. Rice also does not teach the liquid action surface being smaller than the air action surface, however such a feature is known in the art as seen by Yamamoto. Similarly, the limitations of claims 4 & 11 are also known in the art as seen by Yamamoto. Rice does not disclose the presence of a bypass arrangement with a check valve. However, such a feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Bute and Franco.
Buss discloses an art related camera cleaning device for a vehicle (abstract), wherein piston-cylinder arrangement (Figs.2a-2d) provides fluid to a nozzle (Fig.1 ref 27) for cleaning a sensor (Fig.1 ref 1). It is seen by Buss, that air flow exhausted from the piston-cylinder arrangement (see refs 26/32) is routed to a nozzle [0047]. Allowing for air to be supplied to a nozzle and directed towards a sensor provides for drying the sensor after cleaning [0026 & 0037]. Buss elongates a drying process for a single cycle by virtue of a larger volume for air than liquid (see Figs.2a-2d & [0037]).
Yamamoto discloses an art related cleaning device utilizing a piston-cylinder arrangement (see abstract & Fig.1), wherein the piston-cylinder arrangement is a double acting piston cylinder arrangement with multiple plungers (see Figs.1-8) for supplying liquid to a nozzle (Fig.1 ref 7) and includes: a separator with a first air action surface and a second air action surface (Fig.1 either side of ref 11) arranged opposite to one another inside a direction of a cylinder axis (i.e., length direction consistent with ref 53a/53b); the separator has a first liquid action (Fig.1 ref 12b) surface arranged opposite said first air action surface in the direction of the cylinder axis; a second liquid action surface (Fig.1 ref 12a) arranged opposite the second air action surface in the direction of the cylinder axis; the first air action surfaces faces toward a first air chamber and a second air action surface faces towards a second air chamber (see Fig.1 refs 14a/14b); and the first liquid action surface faces a first liquid chamber and the second liquid action surfaces faces a second liquid chamber (Fig.1 refs 15a/15b). The first and second air action surfaces define an air plunger while the liquid action surfaces defines first and second liquid plungers. The air plunger and liquid plungers are connected via a plunger shank (Fig.1 ref 13a/13b). The action surface of the liquid chambers is smaller than the air action surface of the air chambers (see Fig.1). The piston-cylinder arrangement utilizing a double acting arrangement allows for downsizing of a cleaning device and the need for only a single air pressure source [0013].
Bute discloses an art related sensor cleaning device for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is known that there are instances where only air cleaning is desired [0072]
Franco discloses an art related vehicle cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein a bypass line with a check valve can be utilized to allow fluid to a nozzle and bypass a heater when heated fluid is not required [0081 & 0096]. The check valve is provided with opened and closed states such that the bypass line is open when another valve directed fluid to the nozzle is closed [0081 & 0096]. Thus, Franco suggests that a bypass line with a check valve can be utilized to deliver a cleaning fluid to a nozzle, when only the fluid itself is desired without any operations being performed on the fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rice to provide the air exhaust (Rice Fig.5 line from ref 522) to a nozzle for cleaning and drying the sensor to be cleaned (Buss [0026 & 0037]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to modify the piston-cylinder arrangement of Rice, in order to use the double acting arrangement of Yamamoto in order to allow for the downsizing of the device and only one air source being required (Yamamoto [0013]). A skilled artisan recognizes that such a modification would also include a larger volume for air to ensure that the drying process last longer in order to effectively dry the sensor (Buss [0037]). Such a modification would provide a valve (Rice Fig.5 ref 522) separate from the switching valve to produce a pneumatic connection between the air chamber port and the compressed air nozzle. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide a bypass line with a check valve arrangement from the module compressed air port in order to connect the compressed air port and the compressed air line to the nozzle. Such a modification would allow for air cleaning where there is a desire for only air cleaning and the pressurizing of fluid is not required (Bute [0072] & Franco [0081 & 0096]), thereby increasing efficiency of the cleaning device by not passing the air and pressurizing liquid when not needed. As the check valve allows flow to the nozzle when open and prevents back flow when closed, there is an understanding that the opening direction would be generally in a flow direction from the switching valve to the nozzle and the closing of the valve would be in a flow direction generally to the switching valve from the nozzle to prevent backflow. However, assuming arguendo that the flow direction and closing of the valve indicate specific positions of the valves relative to one another, and Modified Rice does not disclose such specific position, a skilled artisan would recognize that such positions merely indicate a rearrangement of parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to locate the valves in any position relative to each other, including a position with the claimed opening and closing of the check valve relative to flow direction of the switching valve, so long as the valves are capable of controlling the flow of fluid as desired (see MPEP 2144.04). A skilled artisan would anticipate no unexpected results in merely rearranging the flow lines and valve positions so long as the fluid is capable of being controlled in the desired manner by the valves.
Accordingly, the only difference remaining between Modified Rice and the invention of claim 18 is that Modified Rice does not showcase a single valve being switchable to two positions for said connections. However, such a feature merely amounts to a three-way valve, and such three way valves are known for the purposes of switching between supplying and exhausting air, as seen by Koyama.
Koyama discloses an art related camera leaning device for a vehicle (see title and abstract), wherein it is known that a three port two position solenoid valve can be utilized to switch between supplying and exhausting air [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rice to utilize a three port two position valve in order to supply and exhaust air, as is known in the art (Koyama [0037]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of valve for supply and exhausting air in place of another, with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would merely amount to a mundane modification that a skilled artisan would perform to reduce the number of valves required by a system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arkashevski (US20080203188A1) discloses a bypass line with a check valve to open should a blockage be present in the desired flow line [0044 & 0114], thereby ensuring operation of the cleaning device.
Arkasjevski (US20060102744A1) discloses a bypass path with a check valve is utilized to ensure flow of fluid when a motivating component fails [0127, 0160, & 0182].
Shin (KR20100062700A) showcases that air exhausted from a piston cylinder arrangement is utilized for air cleaning of an automobile component (see last figure).
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 on (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