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 1-16 & 18-23 are pending on the application, of which claims 9, 14, 16, 18, & 23 are amended, and claim 17 is cancelled.
In view of the amendments to the claims, all previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
The previous rejection to claims 1-13 & 22-23 are maintained, as applicant’s remarks are not considered persuasive. The amendment to claim 14 merely incorporates the subject matter of previously rejected claim 17, and is still believed to apply.
The amendments to the specification are accepted as they are not believed to incorporate new matter and merely correct typographical errors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1A-1B
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant has identified the motivation provided by examiner on pages 3-4 of the arguments (i.e., allowing for replacement of the nozzle and preventing slipping).
Applicant argues that because primary reference Aso does not make any mention of necessity for such features that they would not be considered obvious. Examiner respectfully disagrees, a skilled artisan understands that eventually a nozzle will require replacement whether from wear, desired spray characteristics, or failure of some sort. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide structural configurations in order to facilitate the replacement of a nozzle. If applicant’s position is that Aso not stating that the possibility for replacement of the nozzle indicates that Aso has provided an infallible nozzle incapable of failure or requiring replacement then such a position should be clearly stated on the record.
Applicant states that there is no inherent problem with the line slipping due to its short length and being constrained by “fixed” components. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Aso makes no statement of the line being so secured that it is incapable of movement in any direction, or the line being formed of inflexible material which is welded to the components to which it is connected. Rather, Aso make no explicit mention of any securing of the line. A skilled artisan also understands from the Bosnic reference that the securing of hoses/pipes for vehicle cleaning systems is a well-known feature in the art. Clamps and/or other securing elements are very well-known in the art for securing lines to components which they will be connected, as well as ensuring securing of the line along the run of its length. A skilled artisan in the field would find it both obvious and routine to provide pipe clamps in order to securely fasten a liquid line. Bosnic even shows that such clamps can be provided in close proximity to a component to which the hose will be connected (see Fig.2). If applicant’s position is that the liquid line of the Aso reference is physically incapable of ever slipping (including from any motion of the vehicle or force exerted on the line), then such a position should be clearly stated on the record.
The mere fact that the Aso reference does not disparage itself does not is not indicative that a skilled artisan would find no possibility of improvement via modification.
1C
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the line holder being part of the holder body) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim does not require the line holder being formed by the holder body or the retaining device. Rather the claim merely requires the holder body having a retaining device, thus components disposed with the housing would read on such a limitation as the housing would have the component.
1D
Applicant argues that the cap and hose clamp do not teach the retaining device. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of the cap with the nozzle and the hose clamp reads on a retaining device as they provide the claimed function or retaining a nozzle and a line.
With respect to applicant’s arguments to claim 17, the rejection does not indicate or disclose that the quick air-release valve is taught by Cosby. Rather, such an element is shown to be known in the art, as seen by Kline and Fiebrandt.
17A
Applicant argues that Cosby is directed towards routing “wash fluid (i.e., liquid)”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cosby makes no mention of the wash fluid being specifically liquid. Rather, Cosby states “fluid” and a skilled artisan understands that compressed air is a fluid.
17B
Applicant argues that the retaining device has a line holder and nozzle holder and Cosby does not have a nozzle holder or line holder. This is not found persuasive because Cosby is not utilized for teaching or suggesting a line and nozzle holder. Rather, Bosnic and Park are utilized for such a teaching. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
17C
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the retaining device being part of the holder body) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim does not require the retaining device being formed by the holder body or the. Rather the claim merely requires the holder body having a retaining device. Since the valve is provided within the housing (see Aso), the valve holder would be provided within the housing. Accordingly, components disposed with the housing would read on such a limitation as the housing would have the component.
17D
Applicant argues that the anchor element of Cosby has nothing to do with optics. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Cosby clearly indicates the valve is utilized for vehicle sensor washing, such as cameras (see title). Thus, the anchor element is used for a valve utilized in optical element cleaning and thereby related.
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: “holding feature” in claims 12 & 19 and “positioning feature” in claim 18.
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, 6-7, 13, & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (JP2019077383A) in view of Park (US20200047719A1) and Bosnic (DE102017204432A1).
As to claims 1 & 3, Aso discloses a module housing for a mirror replacement system (e.g., see Figs.4-5B), the module housing comprising: a holder body (Fig.4 ref 20) defining at least one holder opening (Fig.4 ref 34 portion where refs 14 & 15 enter, see also Figs.5A-5B) and at least one viewing opening (Fig.4 ref 25) of a camera mount for fastening a camera; said at least one viewing opening enabling a view for the camera from the module housing [0012]; wherein the cleaning arrangement has a cleaning nozzle (ref 36) and a fluid line (any of refs 14, 15, 38, 39) for a cleaning fluid with at least one line body; and, said nozzle being arranged such that the cleaning fluid can be applied from the cleaning nozzle to said at least one viewing opening (see Fig.5C). Aso does not disclose the holder body further having a retaining device for a cleaning arrangement having a line holder and a nozzle holder. However, the use of a nozzle holder in a sensor cleaning device for a mirror assembly is known in the art, as seen by Park. Further, the use of line holders for holding a fluid line is also known in the art, as seen by Bosnic.
Park discloses an art related sensor cleaning system provided on a side view mirror assembly (see Fig.2), wherein it is known to provide a nozzle (ref 260) for cleaning the sensor to be disposed on a removable cap (ref 230) in order to allow the nozzle to be replaced when required [0064]. As the cap holds the nozzle, it reads on a nozzle holder.
Bosnic discloses an art related spraying system for a vehicle [0003], wherein a pipe clamp (i.e., line holder) is utilized to prevent a pipe from slipping [0003 & 0005-0006]. The line holder utilizes a hollow receptacle (ref 18) which acts as a guide for the holder and a line retaining element (refs 16, 19, 28 & 32) that act as a retainer [0019] and clips together to retain the pipe (see Figs.1-2), thereby reading on a line clip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aso to provide the holder body with a removable cap as a nozzle holder in order to allow for replacement of the nozzle when required (Park [0064]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide the holder body with a line holder, as part of a retaining device in order to prevent the pipe from slipping (Bosnic [0003 & 0005-0006]). Accordingly, the combination of the nozzle and line holder provided in the holder body read on a retaining device. Similarly, the nozzle holder would be arranged such that the cleaning fluid can be applied from the cleaning nozzle to said at least one viewing opening (see Aso Fig.5C).
As to claim 2, Modified Aso teaches the module housing of claim 1, wherein the cleaning nozzle is attached to the fluid line with a plug-in connection (Aso [0017]).
As to claim 4, Modified Aso teaches the module housing of claim 3, wherein at least one of: said line retainer is a line clip or a line retaining strap; and, said line guide is formed as a hollow channel (see Bosnic Figs.1-2) in said holder body (since the pipe to be held is in the holder body, so too would the line holder and hollow channel).
As to claim 6, Modified Aso teaches the module housing of claim 1, wherein the fluid line has a compressed-air fluid line for compressed air (Aso [0015, 0043-0044]).
As to claim 7, Modified Aso teaches the module housing of claim 1, wherein the fluid line has a liquid fluid line for a liquid (Aso [0040-0041]).
As to claim 13, Modified Aso teaches the module housing of claim 3, wherein said line retainer is a single line retainer having a single line clip.
As to claim 22, Modified Aso teaches a vehicle (Aso Figs.1-2) comprising: the module housing of claim 1; a compressed-air supply system for supplying compressed air (Aso refs 15, 35, & 39-40); and, said module housing being arranged and configured such that the camera is arranged with a lens surface for an optical capture of an outside area of the mirror replacement system (Aso [0012]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (JP2019077383A) in view of Park (US20200047719A1) and Bosnic (DE102017204432A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar (US20190202259A1) and/or Rainer (DE202004008388U1).
As to claim 5, Modified Aso teaches the module housing of claim 1, wherein a line connection is formed as a clamping bushing (see Bosnic [0006 & 0018] disclosing the presence of rubber friction extensions believed to read on a clamping bushing as the rubber element would act as a bushing and the friction provides a clamping function) for the fluid line in said holder body. However, assuming arguendo that such features do not read on a clamping bushing, the following alternative rejection is provided. Modified Aso does not explicitly disclose the presence of a clamping bushing, however such a feature would be obvious in view of Kumar and/or Rainer.
Kumar discloses plumbing line hangers for a vehicle (abstract), wherein a line retainer (see Figs.3-6) utilizes a bushing (Fig.3 ref 32, Fig.5 ref 232, or Fig.6 ref 334) for holding the plumbing line in place in order to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness from the vehicle [0018, 0024, & 0028]. Kumar and Aso are related in the field of providing fluid lines on vehicles, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look towards manners of supporting fluid lines when constructing a cleaning system utilizing fluid lines.
Rainer discloses a connecting arrangement for fixing a hose (title) in a channel (ref10) located on a holder (ref 4), wherein a line retaining device is utilized to secure a line from twisting and axial movement [0002, 0004, & 0039-0041]. The fixing device utilizes a bushing in order to clamp and hold the pipe in place [0023-0026, 0030, 0032, 0034 & 0038-0040], thus the line holder also reads on having a line connection with a clamping bushing. Rainer and Aso are related in the field of providing fluid lines on vehicles, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look towards manners of supporting fluid lines when constructing a cleaning system utilizing fluid lines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aso to provide a bushing type connection retaining connection in addition to the line retainer in order to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness from the vehicle (Kumar [0018, 0024 & 0028]). Alternatively, a skilled artisan would it obvious to utilize the line retainer of Rainer in place of that of Bosnic with a reasonable expectation of success, with the desire of providing a simple and cost-effective means of retaining a pipe.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (JP2019077383A) in view of Park (US20200047719A1) and Bosnic (DE102017204432A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caillot (US20140209189A1) and FORD GLOBAL TECH LLC (DE202016106809U1, hereafter Ford).
As to claims 8-11, Modified Aso teaches the module housing of claim 1, wherein valves (Aso refs 37 & 42, i.e., fluid actuators) are provided in the holder body and thus retained by the holder body. Modified Aso does not explicitly disclose the presence of the holder body retaining device having an actuator holder with a retaining connection. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Caillot and Ford.
Caillot discloses an art related washing system for a motor vehicle (abstract), wherein a valve (ref 7) may be provided on a support (ref 9). Further, Caillot showcases that the support acts as a housing (Figs.3-5B ref 24) for holding the valve via the use of a retaining connection defining a guide (Fig.4 space defined by refs 25-27) and retaining clips (i.e., synonymous with fastening clips) in order to support and secure the valve [0060 & 0071].
Ford discloses a valve mounting system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein valve holder (see Figs.5-6) is provided for connection with a frame (ref 15). The valve holder is provided with a guide portion (e.g., Fig.6 circular receptacle portion of ref 42; better seen by Fig.3 ref 23) and fastening clips (e.g., ref 31 surrounding said circular receptacle; better seen by Fig.3 refs 21/22), thereby reading on a retaining connection, in order to secure the valve in position [0021]. Ford and Aso are related in the field of vehicle implements, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look towards manners of supporting valves when constructing a cleaning system utilizing fluid lines in a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aso to utilize a valve holder (i.e., an actuator holder) having a guide portion and fastening clips in order to support and secure the valve in position (Caillot [0060 & 0071] & Ford [0021]). It is reasonable to a skilled artisan to provide support features for supporting a valve in an assembly. Since the actuator holder and the line holder are mounted to the holder body, the portion of the holder body having the line holder and the actuator holder can be defined as a line guide.
As to claim 12, Modified Aso teaches the module housing of claim 8, wherein said retaining device has a holding feature configured to be brought into engagement with a positioning feature of an actuator housing (see Caillot [0060] stating complementary clip shape to adapter, i.e., housing, shape of valve; see also Ford Figs.2-3 & 5-6 showcasing snap arm that engage positioning feature, the cylindrical portion between the electrical connector and the enlarged cylindrical portion, of the valve housing). Further, the claim does not require an actuator housing with positioning features, the claim merely requires the presence of a holding feature which can be brought into engagement with such an actuator housing.
Claim(s) 14-16, 18-21, & 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (JP2019077383A) in view of Park (US20200047719A1) Bosnic (DE102017204432A1), Bhimani (GB2570156A), Shin (KR20180108024A), Kline (US20220144217A1), Fiebrandt (WO2019086158A1), and Cosby (US20210001811A1).
As to claim 14, Aso discloses a mirror replacement system (see Figs.4-5C the camera mirror system replaces a conventional mirror system) for attachment to a vehicle(see Figs.1-2), the mirror replacement system comprising: a module housing (e.g., see Figs.4-5B); a cleaning arrangement including a cleaning nozzle (ref 36) and a fluid line (any of refs 14, 15, 38, 39) with a line body; said module housing including a holder body (Fig.4 ref 20) defining at least one holder opening (Fig.4 ref 34 portion where refs 14 & 15 enter, see also Figs.5A-5B) and at least one viewing opening (Fig.4 ref 25) of a camera mount for fastening a camera; said at least one viewing opening enabling a view for the camera from said module housing [0012]; said nozzle being arranged such that the cleaning fluid can be applied from the cleaning nozzle to said at least one viewing opening (see Fig.5C); the cleaning arrangement has a quick a valve configured to receive compressed air and to supply a compressed-air cleaning pulse to said cleaning nozzle (Aso [0043-0044]). Aso does not disclose the holder body further having a retaining device for a cleaning arrangement having a line holder and a nozzle holder. However, the use of a nozzle holder in a sensor cleaning device for a mirror assembly is known in the art, as seen by Park. Further, the use of line holders for holding a fluid line is also known in the art, as seen by Bosnic.
Park discloses an art related sensor cleaning system provided on a side view mirror assembly (see Fig.2), wherein it is known to provide a nozzle (ref 260) for cleaning the sensor to be disposed on a removable cap (ref 230) in order to allow the nozzle to be replaced when required [0064]. As the cap holds the nozzle, it reads on a nozzle holder. Park also indicates that the camera on the mirror system allows for displaying of external situation of the vehicle [0004].
Bosnic discloses an art related spraying system for a vehicle [0003], wherein a pipe clamp (i.e., line holder) is utilized to prevent a pipe from slipping [0003 & 0005-0006]. The line holder utilizes a hollow receptacle (ref 18) which acts as a guide for the holder and a line retaining element (refs 16, 19, 28 & 32) that act as a retainer [0019] and clips together to retain the pipe (see Figs.1-2), thereby reading on a line clip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aso to provide the holder body with a removable cap as a nozzle holder in order to allow for replacement of the nozzle when required (Park [0064]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide the holder body with a line holder, as part of a retaining device in order to prevent the pipe from slipping (Bosnic [0003 & 0005-0006]). Accordingly, the combination of the nozzle and line holder provided in the holder body read on a retaining device and thus cleaning arrangement is held in the retaining device. Similarly, the nozzle holder would be arranged such that the cleaning fluid can be applied from the cleaning nozzle to said at least one viewing opening (see Aso Fig.5C). However, assuming arguendo that the phrase mirror replacement system is meant to denote a system without a mirror, the following alternative rejection is provided. Modified Aso does not teach a system without a mirror, however it is known in the art to provide such camera systems in place of a mirror as seen by Bhimani and Shin.
Bhimani discloses an art related camera cleaning system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is known to provide a camera system in place of a mirror to improve aerodynamics and fuel efficiency (Page 1, lines 23-30, Page 2 lines 6-7, & Page 11 lines 19-25).
Shin discloses an art related camera cleaning system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein a camera module can replace a side mirror in order to allow a user to observe the road without turning their head and eliminate a dead zone [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aso to remove the mirror element from the holder body in order to reshape the housing to improve aerodynamics and fuel efficiency (Bhimani Page 1, lines 23-30, Page 2 lines 6-7, & Page 11 lines 19-25) and also allow a user to observe the road without turning their head and eliminate a dead zone (Shin [0005]). Modified Aso does not disclose a quick air-release valve, however such a valve is known in the art, as seen by Kline and Fiebrandt. Modified Aso also does not disclose the valve held in a retaining device however the use of retaining, however retaining and securing a valve is known in the art, as seen by Cosby.
Kline discloses an art related cleaning system for a sensor of a vehicle (abstract), wherein quick exhaust valves (synonymous to quick release valves) allow for reduced air mass in order to remove droplets and provide effective droplet clearing performance [0034 & 0040].
Fiebrandt discloses an art related cleaning system for sensors of a vehicle (abstract & [0003]), wherein a quick vent valve (synonymous to a quick release valve) is advantageous for providing high cleaning performance [0026].
Cosby discloses an art related vehicle sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein a valve and a valve retaining device are provided (see Figs.1 &4). The valve has a housing (Figs.1 & 4 combination of refs 104 & 110) and a retaining device (Figs.8-10 ref 115) in order to secure the valve when size constraints are present [0003 & 0034-0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aso to provide a quick release air valve in order to remove droplets and provide effective droplet clearing performance and provide high cleaning performance (Kline [0034 & 0040] & Fiebrandt [0026]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide the holder body with the valve retaining structure of Cosby (i.e., anchor installed in holder body and reading on retaining device, while valve housing is provided with associated components to interface with the anchor) in order to provide a manner for secure the valve when size constraints are present (Cosby [0003 & 0034-0035]).
As to claim 15, Modified Aso teaches the mirror replacement system of claim 14, wherein said cleaning nozzle is a compressed air cleaning nozzle, a liquid cleaning nozzle, or a combination nozzle (Aso [0040-0044]).
As to claim 16, Modified Aso teaches the mirror replacement system of claim 14 further comprising the camera being held in said camera mount of said holder body (see Aso Fig.4 & 5C); and, said camera having a lens surface (Aso ref 5a) arranged in said viewing opening of said camera mount (see Aso Figs.4-5C).
As to claims 18-20, Modified Aso teaches the system of claim 14, wherein Cosby indicates that the valve has a housing (Figs.1 & 4 combination of refs 104 & 110) provided with a portion having a positioning feature (see Fig.5 ref 119 & Figs.6-7 refs 114 & 114A; see [0033] indicating that the cited portion is part of the valve housing) and the retaining device (Figs.8-10 ref 115) is provided with a receiving portion (see Fig.8 portion of ref 140 which receives portion of ref 119, and Figs.6-7 & 10 along with [0036-0037] indicating that portion of ref 114 is received between refs 136 & 138). Accordingly, the cited features of the housing read on a plug as they are inserted/received by portions of the anchor (e.g., the retaining portion). Thus the modification would provide with the limitations of a valve housing with a positioning feature in order to fix an actuator position of the valve housing relative to the module housing, wherein positioning feature is a positioning plug configured to be brought into contact engagement with a holding feature in the form of a receiving plug connection of said holder body. Assuming arguendo that the cited anchor portions of Cosby are plug components and the cited bracket portions of Cosby are plug receiving elements, a skilled artisan would recognize that such a feature merely is a reversal of the connecting parts which not affect the connection ability of the valve housing to the anchor. Thus, a skilled artisan would find that providing the valve housing with such arm and extension portions to mate with an anchor having a slot and detent to merely be a reversal of the connection configuration of the components without affecting the connection ability (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 21, Modified Aso teaches the mirror replacement system of claim 14 further comprising a fluid supply module (Aso refs 37 & 40) configured to supply at least one of a compressed-air cleaning pulse, a stream of compressed air, a liquid cleaning pulse, and a stream of liquid (Aso [0022-0023, 0041, 0044, & 0046].
As to claim 23, Aso discloses a vehicle (Figs.1-2 ref 1) comprising: a mirror replacement system (see Figs.4-5C the camera mirror system replaces a conventional mirror system) for attachment to the vehicle (see Figs.1-2); said mirror replacement system including a module housing (e.g., see Figs.4-5B); a cleaning arrangement including a cleaning nozzle (ref 36) and a fluid line (any of refs 14, 15, 38, 39) with a line body; said module housing including a holder body (Fig.4 ref 20) defining at least one holder opening (Fig.4 ref 34 portion where refs 14 & 15 enter, see also Figs.5A-5B) and at least one viewing opening (Fig.4 ref 25) of a camera mount for fastening a camera; said at least one viewing opening enabling a view for the camera from said module housing [0012]; said nozzle being arranged such that the cleaning fluid can be applied from the cleaning nozzle to said at least one viewing opening (see Fig.5C); a compressed-air supply system for supplying compressed air (Aso refs 15, 35, & 39-40); said module housing and replacement system being arranged and configured such that the camera is arranged with a lens surface for an optical capture of an outside area of the mirror replacement system (Aso [0012]). Aso does not disclose the holder body further having a retaining device for a cleaning arrangement having a line holder and a nozzle holder. However, the use of a nozzle holder in a sensor cleaning device for a mirror assembly is known in the art, as seen by Park. Further, the use of line holders for holding a fluid line is also known in the art, as seen by Bosnic.
Park discloses an art related sensor cleaning system provided on a side view mirror assembly (see Fig.2), wherein it is known to provide a nozzle (ref 260) for cleaning the sensor to be disposed on a removable cap (ref 230) in order to allow the nozzle to be replaced when required [0064]. As the cap holds the nozzle, it reads on a nozzle holder. Park also indicates that the camera on the mirror system allows for displaying of external situation of the vehicle [0004].
Bosnic discloses an art related spraying system for a vehicle [0003], wherein a pipe clamp (i.e., line holder) is utilized to prevent a pipe from slipping [0003 & 0005-0006]. The line holder utilizes a hollow receptacle (ref 18) which acts as a guide for the holder and a line retaining element (refs 16, 19, 28 & 32) that act as a retainer [0019] and clips together to retain the pipe (see Figs.1-2), thereby reading on a line clip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aso to provide the holder body with a removable cap as a nozzle holder in order to allow for replacement of the nozzle when required (Park [0064]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide the holder body with a line holder, as part of a retaining device in order to prevent the pipe from slipping (Bosnic [0003 & 0005-0006]). Accordingly, the combination of the nozzle and line holder provided in the holder body read on a retaining device and thus cleaning arrangement is held in the retaining device. Similarly, the nozzle holder would be arranged such that the cleaning fluid can be applied from the cleaning nozzle to said at least one viewing opening (see Aso Fig.5C). However, assuming arguendo that the phrase mirror replacement system is meant to denote a system without a mirror, the following alternative rejection is provided. Modified Aso does not teach a system without a mirror, however it is known in the art to provide such camera systems in place of a mirror as seen by Bhimani and Shin.
Bhimani discloses an art related camera cleaning system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is known to provide a camera system in place of a mirror to improve aerodynamics and fuel efficiency (Page 1, lines 23-30, Page 2 lines 6-7, & Page 11 lines 19-25).
Shin discloses an art related camera cleaning system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein a camera module can replace a side mirror in order to allow a user to observe the road without turning their head and eliminate a dead zone [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Aso to remove the mirror element from the holder body in order to reshape the housing to improve aerodynamics and fuel efficiency (Bhimani Page 1, lines 23-30, Page 2 lines 6-7, & Page 11 lines 19-25) and also allow a user to observe the road without turning their head and eliminate a dead zone (Shin [0005]).
Conclusion
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