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 8/4/2025, with respect to the previous objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has submitted replacement drawings to obviate the issue. The previous objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/4/2025, with respect to the previous objections and 112 rejections of the claims (see FP #3-5, 8-12 of nonfinal action dated 5/2/2025) 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 The previous objections and 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.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 8/4/2025 regarding the previous 103 rejection of claims 1 & 11 under modified Sykula have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues modified Sykula does not teach the amended limitations pertaining to the first and second flow rates.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant may technically be correct regarding explicit teachings by Sykula, Examiner maintains this would still be obvious under modified Sykula. Examiner considers having an adjustable flow rate as the obvious act of making adjustable (see MPEP 2144.04, “Making Adjustable”). Additionally/alternatively, Examiner considers it well-known to adjust cleaning flow rates based on variables and refers to Hester, who teaches determining cleaning flow rate based on factors such as weather conditions, type of debris, etc. (see Hester’s [0032]) (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
Special Definitions
Examiner notes the following special definition(s):
fluid curtain: multiple streams of fluid that merge with one another and pass over nearly the entirety of sensing surface 74 in order to dislodge and remove any accumulation of detritus (see Applicant’s [0032]. refer to claims 1 & 11).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/4/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20 objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner believes the intended dependency for claims 19-20 should be claim 11 instead of claim 10, as the vehicle is being claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 is/are 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 the limitation "the vehicle" in line 10 (second-to-last line). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduces “A vehicle mounted sensor system” but does not appear to introduce “a vehicle” per se.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sykula et al. (US 20200298804, “Sykula”) in view of Hester et al. (US 20210094048, “Hester”).
Sykula teaches a cleaning apparatus for a sensor comprising the following of claim 1 except where underlined:
For Claim 1:
A vehicle mounted sensor system comprising:
a sensor member including a first end, a second end, and a sensing surface, the sensing surface being arranged between the first end and the second end (see Figures 1-5, sensor apparatus 32, sensor window 34, sensor 42, sensor housing 54). Examiner refers to the top and bottom of sensor housing 54 as the first and second ends, and the sensor window 34/sidewall as the sensing surface; and
a fluid curtain generator arranged at one of the first end and the second end of the sensor member, the fluid curtain generator being operable to generate and direct multiple streams of fluid at the sensor member, the multiple streams of fluid forming a fluid curtain across the sensing surface (see Figures 1-5, annular member 36, base 52). The fluid curtain feature may be challenged regarding any sort of merging/overlap of the streams (see below);
wherein the fluid curtain generator is configured to deliver the multiple streams of fluid across the sensing surfaces at a first flow rate any time the vehicle is operating, and at a second flow rate greater than the first flow rate for removal of detritus.
In the instance a “fluid curtain” is challenged, Examiner considers adopting overlapping spray coverage as well-known in the vehicle cleaning arts and refers to Hester , who teaches overlapping spray coverage is the result of a desire to increase number of nozzles/spray output and achieve greater overall cleaning coverage (see Hester’s [0006]) (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
Regarding the first and second flow rates, Examiners considers having an adjustable flow rate as the obvious act of making adjustable (see MPEP 2144.04, “Making Adjustable”). Additionally/alternatively, Examiner considers it well-known to adjust cleaning flow rates based on variables and refers to Hester, who teaches determining cleaning flow rate based on factors such as weather conditions, type of debris, etc. (see Hester’s [0032]) (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
Modified Sykula also teaches the following:
For Claim 2:
The vehicle mounted sensor system according to claim 1, wherein the fluid curtain generator includes a body member including an edge defining a sensor member receiving zone, the edge including a plurality of fluid outlets through which pass the multiple streams of fluid (see Sykula’s Figures 1-5, annular member 36, first nozzles 38 second nozzles 40).
For Claim 3:
The vehicle mounted sensor system according to claim 2, wherein the body member includes at least one fluid inlet and at least one fluid passage connecting the at least one fluid inlet to the plurality of fluid outlets (see Sykula’s Figures 1-5, liquid supply lines 72, first cavity 76, second cavity 78. refer to conduit prior to branching into liquid supply lines 72). Examiner requires clarification to the fluid passage, but notes first cavity 76 and second cavity 78.
For Claim 4:
The vehicle mounted sensor system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one fluid inlet includes a first inlet member and a second inlet member, and the at least one fluid passage includes a first passage portion extending from the first inlet member to the plurality of fluid outlets and a second passage portion extending from the second inlet member to the plurality of fluid outlets (see Sykula’s Figures 1-5, liquid supply lines 72, first cavity 76, second cavity 78. refer to conduit prior to branching into liquid supply lines 72). The conduit prior to branching into liquid supply lines 72 can be interpreted as a fluid inlet, with liquid supply lines 72 as the first and second inlet members. Examiner requires clarification to the fluid passage.
For Claim 5:
The vehicle mounted sensor system according to claim 3, further comprising a valve connected to the fluid inlet (see Sykula’s Figures 1-5, valves 74).
For Claim 6:
The vehicle mounted sensor system according to claim 5, further comprising a controller operatively connected to the valve, the controller selectively opening the valve to generate the fluid curtain across the sensing surface (see Sykula’s [0025]). Sykula teaches an autonomous vehicle which uses a vehicle computer to operate the vehicle systems thereof. Additionally, Examiner considers the use of a controller as an obvious automation activity of a vehicle cleaning system, and further refers to Hester as teaching such automation via a processor (see Hester’s [0028]-[0031]) (see MPEP 2144.04, “Automating a Manual Activity”).
For Claim 7:
The vehicle mounted sensor system according to claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of fluid outlets has a rectangular cross-section (see MPEP 2144.04, “Change in Shape”). Examiner considers the shape of the nozzle outlets/spray to be an obvious change in shape.
For Claim 8:
The vehicle mounted sensor system according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of fluid outlets is shaped to direct the multiple streams of fluid at a 25° angle across the sensing surface (see Sykula’s [0022]-[0023]). Examiner notes that while Sykula does not explicitly teach the angle, Sykula identifies angles as a result-effective variable for the cleaning coverage of the spray, particularly along the height of the sensor window 34 (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
For Claim 9:
The vehicle mounted sensor system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor member defines a LiDAR sensor (see Sykula’s [0030]).
For Claim 10:
The vehicle mounted sensor system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor member defines a cylindrical member, the sensing surface having an arcuate profile defining a portion of the cylindrical member (refer to claim 1 rejection. see Sykula’s Figures 1-5, refer to sidewall of sensor window 34).
Examiner considers claims 11-20 to be rejected under similar basis as claims 1-10 respectively:
For Claim 11:
A vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body including an outer surface (see Sykula’s Figures 1-5, vehicle 30, roof 48);
a sensor member mounted to the outer surface of the vehicle body, the sensor member including a first end, a second end, and a sensing surface, the sensing surface being arranged between the first end and the second end (refer to claim 1 rejection. see Sykula’s [0027]); and
a fluid curtain generator arranged at one of the first end and the second end of the sensor member, the fluid curtain generator being operable to generate and direct multiple streams of fluid at the sensor member, the multiple streams of fluid forming a fluid curtain across the sensing surface (refer to claim 1 rejection);
wherein the fluid curtain generator is configured to deliver the multiple streams of fluid across the sensing surfaces at a first flow rate any time the vehicle is operating, and at a second flow rate greater than the first flow rate for removal of detritus (refer to claim 1 rejection).
For Claim 12:
The vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the fluid curtain generator includes a body member including an edge defining a sensor member receiving zone, the edge including a plurality of fluid outlets through which pass the multiple streams of fluid (refer to claim 2 rejection).
For Claim 13:
The vehicle according to claim 12, wherein the body member includes at least one fluid inlet and at least one fluid passage connecting the at least one fluid inlet to the plurality of fluid outlets (refer to claim 3 rejection).
For Claim 14:
The vehicle according to claim 13, wherein the at least one fluid inlet includes a first inlet member and a second inlet member, and the at least one fluid passage includes a first passage portion extending from the first inlet member to the plurality of fluid outlets and a second passage portion extending from the second inlet member to the plurality of fluid outlets (refer to claim 4 rejection).
For Claim 15:
The vehicle according to claim 13, further comprising a valve connected to the fluid inlet (refer to claim 5 rejection).
For Claim 16:
The vehicle according to claim 15, further comprising a controller operatively connected to the valve, the controller selectively opening the valve to generate the fluid curtain across the sensing surface (refer to claim 6 rejection).
For Claim 17:
The vehicle according to claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of fluid outlets has a rectangular cross-section (refer to claim 7 rejection).
For Claim 18:
The vehicle according to claim 12, wherein the plurality of fluid outlets is shaped to direct the multiple streams of fluid at a 25° angle across the sensing surface (refer to claim 8 rejection).
For Claim 19:
The vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the sensor member defines a LiDAR sensor (refer to claim 9 rejection).
For Claim 20:
The vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the sensor member defines a cylindrical member, the sensing surface having an arcuate profile defining a portion of the cylindrical member (refer to claim 10 rejection).
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