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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the previous objections and 112 rejections of the claims (see FP #8-10 of nonfinal action dated 8/21/2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to obviate the issues. The previous objections and 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 regarding the previous 112 rejections of the claims (see FP #6-7, & 11 of nonfinal action dated 8/21/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amendment to the claims obviates the issue.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding FP #6, Examiner still considers claim 1 to contain inconsistency between what the claimed invention/preamble and the disclosure with respect to the set of sensors and the vehicle. Regarding FP #7, Examiner requires further rephrasing of claim 8. Regarding FP #11, claim 20 still recites “first outlet port”.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 regarding the previous 103 rejection under modified Deane have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues modified Deane in that modification by Horne would render Deane unsatisfactory.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner considers Horne is still mixing fluid, as the fluid is recirculated back to the tank (e.g. fluid in Horne’s tank 1 that has not been passed through the heat accumulator 2 already would be mixed with and thereby heated by returning heated fluid).
Applicant argues combining Horne with Deane would change principle operation of Deane because Horn routes all the fluid through the heat accumulator 2 and there is no mixing of heated and unheated fluid.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner still considers Horn mixes heated and unheated, and refers to the argument directly above due to the heated fluid recirculating back to the tank.
Applicant argues claim 13 in that there is no routine optimization in that Deane does not teach increased frequency.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner considers Deane already emphasizes cleaning when ambient temperature is low due to snow or ice, particularly Deane’s [0113]. Corresponding a higher frequency of cleaning (e.g. performing more cleaning) when there is already taught to be a higher desirability for cleaning would be readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of these teachings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A system”. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s disclosure (see Applicant’s Figures 1-2, system 100, vehicle 102, sensor cleaning assembly 105, sensor set 108, components 110, heat exchanger 130, propulsion components 210. [0025]-[0026], [0037]). Examiner considers this would correspond with Applicant’s system 100, but per the disclosure, this would not encompass the sensor set 108 and/or the more encompassing vehicle 102. This conflicts with how Applicant is claiming the system in claims 1, 5-6, where Applicant is attempting to assign the sensor set and the vehicle to the system (see MPEP 2173.03, "Correspondence Between Specification and Claims"). Examiner is not contending that Applicant lacks support for the vehicle and/or sensor set, but rather the issue is that the preamble and corresponding scope is not organized consistently with respect to the disclosure.
Claim 8 recites “the number of pumps of the set of pumps” and “the number of sensors of the set of sensors”. Examiner requires further clarification to these phrasings (e.g. does Applicant intend to mean “the set of pumps comprises a number of pumps”, etc.?).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first outlet port of the reservoir" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduces an outlet port of the reservoir, and a first outlet port of the manifold.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 12-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deane et al. (US 20200001832, “Deane”) in view of Horn (DE 4426164) and Schaeuble et al. (DE 102011054067, “Schaeuble”).
Deane teaches a system for cleaning vehicle components comprising the following of claim 1 except where underlined:
For Claim 1:
A system, having a set of sensors, comprising (see Figure 9, sensors 918):
a heat exchanger having an inlet port and an outlet port (see Figure 9, heater 912. [0081]);
a reservoir having an inlet port and an outlet port (see Figure 9, reservoir 902. refer to outlet to pump 904);
a conduit directly fluidly coupling the outlet port of the heat exchanger to the inlet port of the reservoir (see Figure 9, refer to outlet of heater 912);
a manifold having an inlet port and a plurality of outlet ports, the inlet port fluidly coupled to the outlet port of the reservoir, the plurality of outlet ports including a first outlet port and a plurality of second outlet ports, the first outlet port being fluidly coupled to the inlet port of the heat exchanger (see Figure 9, delivery system 906, distribution valves 908. refer to outlet to heater 912. [0081]);
the manifold including a set of pumps at the second outlet ports of the manifold, the set of pumps being positioned to distribute fluid from the second outlet ports to the set of sensors, the set of sensors being configured to detect attributes of an environment external to the system (see Figure 9, sensors 918);
a temperature sensor within the reservoir (see Figure 9, temperature sensor 925); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the temperature sensor, the controller programmed to actuate flow of cleaning fluid from the manifold to the heat exchanger responsive to an output signal from the temperature sensor (see Figure 9, controller 924. [0082]).
Deane does not teach the inlet port of the reservoir/conduit particulars, set of pumps, or temperature sensor placement.
Regarding the reservoir inlet port, conduit, and temperature sensor particulars, Examiner considers it well-known to have the heated cleaning liquid to be looped/returned to the reservoir, and to monitor the temperature using a temperature sensor placed in said reservoir, and refers to Horn (see Horn’s Figure 1, washing liquid tank 1, heat accumulator 2, liquid circuit 4, inlet line 7, circulation pump 8, temperature sensor 10. machine translation, [0014]-[0016]). Repositioning/rerouting the outlet destination of the heater 912 to reservoir 902 to form a heating circulation loop and further repositioning the location of temperature sensor 925 from delivery system 906 to reservoir 902 appears to be an obvious rearrangement of parts and/or predictable variant in view of Horn (see MPEP 2144.04, “Rearrangement of Parts”. see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”). The outcome appears to still be monitoring, heating, and circulation of the cleaning liquid to be delivered by delivery system 906.
Regarding the set of pumps, Examiner considers arranging additional pumps to the branch lines of a manifold as conventional in the art and refers to Schaeuble, who teaches the second pump(s) serve to increase the pressure again of the washing liquid (see Schaeuble’s Figure 1 & 4, bi-pumps 30b & 30c, distributor 48. machine translation, [0031], [0034]) (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”). Th
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Deane and more particularly to apply second pumps to the branch lines because application of second pumps to the distributor lines are conventional in view of Schaeuble and would predictably serve to provide supplemental pressure to the cleaning fluid.
Modified Deane teaches claim 1.
Modified Deane also teaches the following:
For Claim 3:
The system of claim 1, wherein the temperature sensor is positioned at a bottom portion of the reservoir (refer to claim 1 rejection regarding rearrangement of parts/predictable variant. see Deane’s Figure 9, temperature sensor 925. see Horn’s Figure 1, temperature sensor 910). Deane already teaches placing a temperature sensor 925 at the bottom of delivery system 906, such that rearranging its location to reservoir 902 at the bottom would be expected. Additionally, Horn teaches placing a temperature sensor at a lower/bottom portion of the reservoir (see MPEP 2144.04, “Rearrangement of Parts”).
For Claim 4:
The system of claim 1, wherein the temperature sensor is positioned within the reservoir proximate with the outlet port of the reservoir (refer to claim 3 rejection). Examiner considers shifting the position of the temperature sensor 925, now applied to the reservoir 902, to be located at the outlet portion (e.g. outlet feeding into pump 904) appears to be an obvious rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, “Rearrangement of Parts”). The outcome is still detecting temperature of the fluid within reservoir 902.
For Claim 5:
The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a vehicle, wherein the system is positioned in the vehicle, and wherein the heat exchanger comprises a fluid conduit integrated into a radiator structure of the vehicle (refer to 112 rejection). Examiner notes that Deane discloses a vehicle (see Deane’s [0081]).
For Claim 6:
The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a vehicle having a radiator structure, wherein the system is positioned in the vehicle, and wherein the heat exchanger comprises a first fluid conduit integrated into the radiator structure of the vehicle, the first fluid conduit being proximate with a second fluid conduit of the radiator structure that is positioned to carry coolant from a propulsion component of the vehicle (refer to 112 rejection). Examiner notes that Deane discloses a vehicle and vehicle engine-associated heat exchanger (see Deane’s Figure 9, heater 912. [0081]).
For Claim 8:
The system of claim 1, wherein the system is positioned in a vehicle, and wherein the number of pumps of the set of pumps at the second outlet ports of the manifold equals the number of sensors of the set of sensors (refer to claim 1 rejection). Examiner considers that applying a pump to each branch line would appear to satisfy the limitation.
For Claim 12:
The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is additionally programmed to intermittently initiate fluid flow from the reservoir to a sensor of the set of sensors based on an air temperature of an environment external to the system due to snow or ice (see Deane’s [0055], [0062], [0113], [0217]). Deane teaches performing periodic cleaning, and further teaches it is highly desirable to clean perception surfaces when ambient temperatures are low (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
For Claim 13:
The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is additionally programmed to periodically initiate fluid flow to a sensor of the set of sensors at an increased frequency based on a decreased air temperature of an environment external to the system (refer to claim 12 rejection). Deane emphasizes cleaning when ambient temperature is low due to snow or ice (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”). Examiner considers performing additional cleaning during low ambient temperatures would predictably satisfy said desire to remove snow or ice.
For Claim 15:
The system of claim 1, wherein the manifold includes a circulation pump positioned at the inlet port of the manifold (see Deane’s Figure 9, pump 904). Regarding the positioning, Examiner considers this would be an obvious rearrangement of parts and/or making integral of pump 904 with respect to delivery system 906 (see MPEP 2144.04, “Rearrangement of Parts”, “Making Integral”).
For Claim 16:
The system of claim 1, wherein the manifold includes a circulation pump positioned at the inlet port of the manifold, the circulation pump circulating the cleaning fluid through the heat exchanger and through the reservoir (refer to claim 15 rejection).
For Claim 17:
The system of claim 1, wherein the manifold includes a circulation pump positioned at the inlet port of the manifold, the circulation pump configured to circulate the cleaning fluid through the heat exchanger and through the reservoir until the temperature sensor outputs a signal indicating that the temperature of the cleaning fluid has reached or exceeded a first threshold value (refer to claim 15 rejection. see Deane’s [0082]).
For Claim 18:
The system of claim 1, wherein the manifold includes a circulation pump, positioned at the inlet port of the manifold at a first end portion of the manifold (refer to claim 15 rejection). Examiner interprets the side of delivery system 906 where pump 904 is communicated as the first end portion, but if challenged, Examiner notes that either repositioning of this conduit and/or shape of delivery system 906 to be elongated would appear to satisfy this limitation (see MPEP 2144.04, “Rearrangement of Parts”, “Change in Shape”).
For Claim 19:
The system of claim 1, wherein the manifold includes a circulation pump, positioned at the inlet port of the manifold at a first end portion of the manifold, wherein the first outlet port of the manifold is positioned at a second end portion of the manifold that is opposite the first end portion (refer to claim 15 rejection). Regarding the opposite positioning of the circulation pump/inlet port of the manifold and the first outlet port of the manifold, Examiner considers rearranging the placement of the pump 904 and its outlet/input into delivery system 906 to be opposite of the input into heater 912 to be an obvious rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, “Rearrangement of Parts”). For example, either: 1) the pump 904 and its outlet/input into delivery system 906 could be shifted to the bottom side of delivery system 906 where temperature sensor 925 is located, of 2) the inlet to heater 912 could be shifted to the side of delivery system 906 where delivery channels 928 are located.
For Claim 20:
The system of claim 1, wherein the inlet port of the reservoir is positioned at a location opposite the first outlet port of the reservoir (refer to 112 rejection).
Claim(s) 2, 7, 10-11, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deane et al. (US 20200001832, “Deane”) in view of Horn (DE 4426164) and Schaeuble et al. (DE 102011054067, “Schaeuble”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuebler et al. (US 20040170411, “Kuebler”).
Modified Deane teaches claim 1.
Modified Deane appears to teach the following:
For Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is programmed to actuate flow of the cleaning fluid through the heat exchanger responsive to the temperature sensor indicating that the temperature of the cleaning fluid is below a first threshold value (see Deane’s [0081]). Deane teaches selectively routing fluid to the heater 902 based on temperature. If the threshold(s) is argued, Examiner refers below to Kuebler
If argued regarding the use of thresholds or temperature control limits, Examiner considers conventional in the art and process control in general to use such upper and lower temperature limits for heating purposes and refers to Kuebler, who teaches to activate heating when a lower temperature limit is reached, and deactivating heating when an upper temperature limit is reached to maintain the temperature within a range (see Keubler’s Figure 11, steps 202, 202, 206, 210. [0086]) (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
For Claim 7:
The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is additionally programmed to deactivate fluid flow from the manifold to the heat exchanger responsive to the output signal from the temperature sensor indicating that the temperature of the cleaning fluid is above a second threshold value (refer to claim 2 rejection).
For Claim 10:
The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is additionally programmed to actuate cleaning fluid flow from the manifold to the heat exchanger responsive to the output signal from the temperature sensor indicating a temperature that is between a first threshold value and a second threshold value (refer to claim 2 rejection. see Deane’s [0082]). Deane discloses engaging the delivery system 906 based on the measured temperature.
For Claim 11:
The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is additionally programmed to maintain the temperature of the cleaning fluid between a first threshold and a second threshold at all times while a vehicle including the system is being operated (refer to claim 2 rejection).
For Claim 14:
The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is additionally programmed to actuate cleaning fluid flow from the manifold to the heat exchanger responsive to the output signal from the temperature sensor indicating a temperature that is between a first threshold value and a second threshold value, the first threshold value and the second threshold value being selected to exclude degradation of a hydrophobic coating of a sensor surface (refer to claim 2 rejection).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deane et al. (US 20200001832, “Deane”) in view of Horn (DE 4426164) and Schaeuble et al. (DE 102011054067, “Schaeuble”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alcaide Hernandez et al. (US 20220097655, “Alcaide Hernandez”).
Modified Deane teaches claim 1.
Modified Deane does not appear to teach the following:
For Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, wherein the manifold further comprises a check valve at each pump of the set of pumps.
Regarding associating check valves with the pumps, Alcaide teaches application of check valves can prevent backflow towards said pumps (see Alcaide’s Figure 1, pumps 130-N, check valves C-N. [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Deane and more particularly to associate check valves with the applied pumps so as to prevent backflow towards said pumps.
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 MARC LORENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7586 and fax number is (571)270-8586. The examiner can normally be reached from 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gordon Baldwin at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC LORENZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights