DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 8 and 13 recite “exterior surface” relating to the vehicle body, but Applicant’s specification does not contain any mention of an “exterior surface” and only ever mentions “a vehicle surface” (see 0001, 0019, and 0032 of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, examiner considers the limitation of “exterior surface” to be new matter.
Claim 14 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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, 3-4, 6-19, and 21-23 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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 21-23 recite limitations which are active method steps. For example, “the shutter performs a first stroke” as recited in claim 1. Since “performs” is an active method step, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates an apparatus with a shutter which is capable of performing a first stroke or whether infringement occurs when the shutter actually performs the first stroke. See MPEP 2173.05(p)-II. Examiner notes that claims 1, 3, 9, and 21-23 all contain similar claim limitations and for the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, the following are a list of active method step limitations and the interpretation which examiner will be using:
“the shutter performs a first stroke” as recited in claim 1 will be --the shutter is configured to perform a first stroke--
“the shutter performs a second stroke” as recited in claim 1 will be --the shutter is configured to perform a second stroke--
“an edge of the shutter traverses” as recited in claim 3 will be --an edge of the shutter is configured to traverse--
“the solvent nozzle is activated” as recited in claim 9 will be --the solvent nozzle is configured to activate--
“the air nozzle is activated” as recited in claim 9 will be --the air nozzle is configured to activate--
“the calibration mark is acquired” as recited in claim 21 will be --the calibration mark is configured to be acquired--
“and is compared” as recited in claim 21 will be --and is configured to be compared--
“the calibration mark is acquired” as recited in claim 22 will be --the calibration mark is configured to be acquired--
“and is compared” as recited in claim 22 will be --and is configured to be compared--
“the process of cleaning the sensor repeats” as recited in claim 23 --will be the sensor cleaning cycle is configured to repeat--
Claims 8 recites “a exterior surface of the vehicle body”. The term “exterior surface” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “exterior surface” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to examiner what constitutes a surface as being exterior. Exterior to what? What then defines an interior surface? Is it every surface internal from the exterior surface? Is the exterior surface only the outermost surface? For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “a exterior surface of the vehicle body” to be --a surface of the vehicle body--.
Claims 13 recites “an exterior surface of a vehicle body”. The term “exterior surface” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “exterior surface” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to examiner what constitutes a surface as being exterior. Exterior to what? What then defines an interior surface? Is it every surface internal from the exterior surface? Is the exterior surface only the outermost surface? For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “an exterior surface of a vehicle body” to be --a surface of a vehicle body--.
Claims 4, 6-7, 11-12, and 14-19 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10, 12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasebnick et al. (DE10232227A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 01/06/2026 and hereinafter referred to as Lasebnick, in view of Ina et al. (US20160339875), hereinafter Ina.
Regarding claim 1, Lasebnick discloses a sensor cleaning system, comprising:
a sensor (Fig. 1 element 2) mounted to a vehicle body (0008, where the attachment point on the “vehicle” corresponds to vehicle body) and having a field of view (0012, where “field of view of the camera” corresponds to a field of view);
a shutter (Fig. 1 elements 7 and 8) movably coupled to the vehicle body (0012) having a first position outside of a field of view of the sensor (Fig. 1, where element 2 corresponds to a sensor and 0012 where the "non-use position" corresponds to a first position) and a second position blocking the field of view of the sensor (the position shown in Fig. 1 corresponds to a second position, 0011);
a solvent nozzle (Fig. 1 one of element 9, 0003 and 0010, where the embodiment which has multiple nozzles, here considered two nozzles for ease, is used and is considered a solvent nozzle when the nozzle sprays "a cleaning liquid") disposed on a side of the shutter facing the sensor (Fig. 1);
an air nozzle (Fig. 1 the other of element 9) disposed on the side of the shutter facing the sensor (Fig. 1);
wherein the shutter is configured to perform a first stroke in which the shutter moves from the second position to the first position while continuing to block at least a portion of the field of view (0015 and 0012, where “the movement stroke” going from the cleaning position (i.e. second position) to the non-cleaning position (i.e. first position) corresponds to a first stroke, where at least a portion of the field of view will be obstructed during the first stroke);
the solvent nozzle configured to dispense solvent during the first stroke (0010 and 0018, where "a cleaning liquid" corresponds to a solvent and the solvent nozzle is capable of dispensing solvent during the first stroke); and
wherein the shutter is configured to perform a second stroke in which the shutter moves from the first position to the second position (0015, where “the movement stroke” going from the non-cleaning position (i.e. first position) to the cleaning position (i.e. second position)corresponds to a second stroke);
the air nozzle configured to spray air onto the sensor during the second stroke (0010 and 0018, where "compressed air" corresponds to air and the air nozzle is capable of spraying air onto the sensor during the second stroke).
Lasebnick fails to disclose a controller configured to control the movement of the shutter and the operation of the solvent nozzle and the air nozzle.
Ina is also concerned with a sensor cleaning system and teaches a controller (Fig. 1A element 81) configured to control the movement of the shutter (0080-0084, where the “the ejection ports 8 of the nozzle member 9 is moved to the cleaning position (refer to FIG. 11) from the non-cleaning position (refer to FIG. 10)” as a result from the controller controlling the solvent nozzle and the air nozzle) and the operation of the solvent nozzle and the air nozzle (0077 and 0089-0090). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Lasebnick discloses the invention except that the structure which controls movement of the shutter and operation of the solvent nozzle and the air nozzle is unspecified (other than “necessary electronics” discussed in 0009) instead of the structure being a controller. Ina shows that a controller is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures allow for the movement of the shutter and operation of the solvent nozzle and the air nozzle). Therefore, because these control structure types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a controller for an unspecified control structure. In arguendo, if the movement of the shutter and operation of the solvent nozzle and the air nozzle in Lasebnick are considered to be manual activities, pursuant MPEP 2144.04-III it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to automate the manual activities of Lasebnick using the controller taught by Ina because “providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art”.
Regarding claim 3, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses an edge of the shutter traverses the field of view of the sensor when the shutter moves between the first and the second positions (Lasebnick, see annotated Fig. 1 below, 0011-0012), and wherein the solvent and air nozzles are placed proximate to the edge of the shutter (Lasebnick, see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the solvent and air nozzles are placed proximate (i.e. near) to the edge of the shutter as both the solvent nozzle and air nozzle are located on element 8 and element 8 is also proximate (i.e. near) the edge of the shutter).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the shutter in the second position is spaced from the sensor by a predetermined distance to provide a debris drainage gap configured to allow fluid and debris runoff away from the sensor (Lasebnick, see annotated Fig. 1 above, 0011, where the debris drainage gap is capable of allowing fluid and debris runoff away from the sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Lasebnick discloses a sensor cleaning system, comprising:
a sensor (Fig. 1 element 2) having a field of view (0012, where “field of view of the camera” corresponds to a field of view);
a shutter (Fig. 1 elements 7 and 8) having a first position outside of the field of view of the sensor (Fig. 1, where element 2 corresponds to a sensor and 0012 where the "non-use position" corresponds to a first position) and a second position blocking the field of view of the sensor (the position shown in Fig. 1 corresponds to a second position, 0011);
a solvent nozzle (Fig. 1 one of element 9, 0003 and 0010, where the embodiment which has multiple nozzles, here considered two nozzles for ease, is used and is considered a solvent nozzle when the nozzle sprays "a cleaning liquid") disposed proximate to the edge of the shutter (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the solvent nozzle is located proximate (i.e. near) the edge of the shutter) and on a side of the shutter facing the sensor (Fig. 1) and configured to spray solvent onto the sensor (0010, where "a cleaning liquid" corresponds to a solvent);
an air nozzle (Fig. 1 the other of element 9) disposed proximate to the edge of the shutter (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the air nozzle is located proximate (i.e. near) the edge of the shutter) and on the side of the shutter facing the sensor (Fig. 1) and configured to spray air onto the sensor (0010, where "compressed air" corresponds to air),
wherein the shutter is configured to move back and forth between the first and second positions (0011-0012), wherein an edge of the shutter moves across the field of view of the sensor when the shutter moves from the first position to the second position (see annotated Fig. above, 0011-0012), and wherein
the solvent nozzle is configured to activate when the shutter moves from the second position to the first position (the solvent nozzle is capable of activating when the shutter moves from the second position to the first position) and the air nozzle is configured to activate when the shutter moves from the first position to the second position (the air nozzle is capable of activating when the shutter moves from the first position to the second position).
Lasebnick fails to disclose a controller configured to coordinate the motion of the shutter with activation of the solvent nozzle and the air nozzle selectively.
Ina is also concerned with a sensor cleaning system and teaches a controller (Fig. 1A element 81) configured to coordinate the motion of the shutter with activation of the solvent nozzle and the air nozzle selectively (0086 and 0090). It 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 to modify the sensor cleaning system of Lasebnick, as modified, to include a controller configured to coordinate the motion of the shutter with activation of the solvent nozzle and the air nozzle selectively, as taught by Ina, because Ina teaches that this “allows the display DSP to show a captured image having limited deformation caused by the cleaning liquid” (0090).
Regarding claim 10, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the solvent and the air are never dispensed simultaneously (Lasebnick, 0018, where the operations being performed separately means that the solvent and the air are never dispensed simultaneously).
Regarding claim 12, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the shutter in the second position is spaced from the sensor to provide a debris drainage gap therebetween (Lasebnick, see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses a vehicle (Lasebnick, 0008) comprising:
a vehicle body (Lasebnick, 0008, where the attachment point on the “vehicle” corresponds to vehicle body);
a sensor mounted to the vehicle body;
and the sensor cleaning system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is a vehicle camera used for driver assistance (Lasebnick, 0008, where “monitor a space which is not easily visible by the vehicle driver” corresponds to the vehicle camera being able to be used for driver assistance).
Regarding claim 19, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the solvent nozzle is configured to spray solvent on the sensor while the shutter moves from the second position to the first position (Lasebnick, the solvent nozzle is capable of spraying solvent on the sensor while the shutter moves from the second position to the first position), and wherein the air nozzle is configured to spray air on the sensor while the shutter moves from the first position to the second position (Lasebnick, the air nozzle is capable of spraying air on the sensor while the shutter moves from the first position to the second position).
Claims 4, 11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasebnick et al. (DE10232227A1), attached as a PDF in office action filed 01/06/2026 and hereinafter referred to as Lasebnick, in view of Ina et al. (US20160339875), hereinafter Ina, and in further view of Werneth et al. (US11988782).
Regarding claim 4, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the shutter comprises a calibration mark disposed on the side of the shutter facing the sensor, and wherein the calibration mark is configured to be imaged by the sensor while the shutter is in the second position.
Werneth is also concerned with a sensor cleaning system and teaches the shutter (Fig. 2 element 20) comprises a calibration mark (Fig. 2 element 30) disposed on the side of the shutter facing the sensor (Fig. 2, where elements 41 and 42 correspond to a sensor), and wherein the calibration mark is configured to be imaged by the sensor while the shutter is in the second position (6:64-7:8, where the position where the shutter is at least partly blocking the field of view of the sensor corresponds to a second position). It 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 to modify the sensor cleaning system of Lasebnick, as modified, to have the shutter comprise a calibration mark as claimed, as taught by Werneth, because Werneth teaches that the calibration mark allows for “a deterioration in the optical characteristics of a window of the lidar sensor device, which is possibly permanent and not capable of being eliminated by a cleaning operation, may be reliably detected, so that a prompt, appropriate response is possible” (1:42-46).
Regarding claim 11, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, but fails to disclose the shutter comprises a calibration mark configured for sensor calibration while the sensor is optically blocked disposed on the side of the shutter facing the sensor.
Werneth is also concerned with a sensor cleaning system and teaches the shutter (Fig. 2 element 20) comprises a calibration mark (Fig. 2 element 30) configured for sensor calibration while the sensor is optically blocked disposed on the side of the shutter facing the sensor (Fig. 2, 6:64-7:8, where elements 41 and 42 correspond to a sensor and where the position of the calibration mark shown in Fig. 2 is at least partly optically blocking the field of view of the sensor). It 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 to modify the sensor cleaning system of Lasebnick, as modified, to have the shutter comprise a calibration mark as claimed, as taught by Werneth, because Werneth teaches that the calibration mark allows for “a deterioration in the optical characteristics of a window of the lidar sensor device, which is possibly permanent and not capable of being eliminated by a cleaning operation, may be reliably detected, so that a prompt, appropriate response is possible” (1:42-46).
Regarding claim 21, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further discloses a first image of the calibration mark is configured to be acquired when the shutter is in the second position (Werneth, 6:64-7:8, where the “measured light intensity” corresponds to a first image) and configured to be compared to a stored calibration mark image to determine if the sensor is clean or dirty (2:47-65, where “setpoint intensity” corresponds to a stored calibration mark image).
Regarding claim 22, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 21, as described above, and further discloses a second image of the calibration mark (Werneth, claim 5, where “the primary light reflected back” which is collected after the “immediately preceding, cleaning operation” corresponds to a second image) is configured to be acquired when the shutter is in the second position after a sensor cleaning cycle (Werneth, claim 5, where “cleaning operation” corresponds to a sensor cleaning cycle) and configured to be compared to the stored calibration mark image to determine if the sensor is clean or dirty (Werneth, claim 5).
Regarding claim 23, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 22, as described above, and further discloses the sensor cleaning cycle is configured to repeat if the calibration mark image differs from the stored calibration mark image (Werneth, claim 5).
Claims 7, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasebnick et al. (DE10232227A1), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Lasebnick, in view of Jonas (US9156066).
Regarding claim 7, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is disposed on a vehicle body surface (Lasebnick, 0008, where "a camera system which is provided on a vehicle" corresponds to the sensor being disposed on a vehicle body surface) and the shutter is attached to the body proximate the sensor (Lasebnick, Fig. 1, 0010, where the shutter is attached to the vehicle body proximate (i.e. near) the sensor through element 5).
Lasebnick, as modified, fails to disclose that the shutter is rotatably attached to the vehicle body.
Jonas is also concerned with a sensor cleaning system and teaches the shutter (Fig. 1A element 140) is rotatably attached to the body (Fig. 1A, where element 105 corresponds to a vehicle body and 2:63-3:1, where "pivotably attached" corresponds to rotatably attached). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Lasebnick discloses the invention except that the connection between the shutter and the vehicle body is slidable connection instead of a rotatable connection. Jonas shows that a rotatable connection is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both connection types allow for a movable connection between a shutter and a vehicle body). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a rotatable connection for a slidable connection.
Regarding claim 13, Lasebnick discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is disposed on a surface of a vehicle body (0008, where "a camera system which is provided on a vehicle" corresponds to the sensor being disposed on a surface of a vehicle body) and the shutter is attached to the vehicle body proximate the sensor (Fig. 1, 0010, where the shutter is attached to the vehicle body proximate (i.e. near) the sensor through element 5).
Lasebnick fails to disclose that the shutter is rotatably attached to the vehicle body.
Jonas is also concerned with a sensor cleaning system and teaches the shutter (Fig. 1A element 140) is rotatably attached to the vehicle body (Fig. 1A, where element 105 corresponds to a vehicle body and 2:63-3:1, where "pivotably attached" corresponds to rotatably attached). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Lasebnick discloses the invention except that the connection between the shutter and the vehicle body is slidable connection instead of a rotatable connection. Jonas shows that a rotatable connection is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both connection types allow for a movable connection between a shutter and a vehicle body). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a rotatable connection for a slidable connection.
Regarding claim 14, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the shutter is recessed into the vehicle body in the first position (Lasebnick, Fig. 1, 0012, where when element 5 is installed to be at least flush with an outer surface of the vehicle body or installed on an inner surface of the vehicle body, the shutter will be recessed into the vehicle body in the first position).
Regarding claim 17, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is disposed on a vehicle body surface (Lasebnick, 0008, where "a camera system which is provided on a vehicle" corresponds to the sensor being disposed on a vehicle body surface) and the shutter is attached to the vehicle body proximate the sensor (Lasebnick, Fig. 1, 0010, where the shutter is attached to the vehicle body proximate (i.e. near) the sensor through element 5).
Lasebnick, as modified, fails to disclose that the shutter is rotatably attached to the vehicle body.
Jonas is also concerned with a sensor cleaning system and teaches the shutter (Fig. 1A element 140) is rotatably attached to the vehicle body (Fig. 1A, where element 105 corresponds to a vehicle body and 2:63-3:1, where "pivotably attached" corresponds to rotatably attached). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the invention except that the connection between the shutter and the vehicle body is slidable connection instead of a rotatable connection. Jonas shows that a rotatable connection is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both connection types allow for a movable connection between a shutter and a vehicle body). Therefore, because these two connection types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a rotatable connection for a slidable connection.
Regarding claim 18, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses the shutter is recessed into the vehicle body in the first position (Lasebnick, Fig. 1, 0012, where when element 5 is installed to be at least flush with an outer surface of the vehicle body or installed on an inner surface of the vehicle body, the shutter will be recessed into the vehicle body in the first position).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasebnick et al. (DE10232227A1), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Lasebnick, in view of Jonas (US9156066), and in further view of McAndrew (US20170259789).
Regarding claim 8, Lasebnick, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the shutter is recessed into the vehicle body in the first position (Lasebnick, Fig. 1, 0012, where when element 5 is installed to be at least flush with an outer surface of the vehicle body or installed on an inner surface of the vehicle body, the shutter will be recessed into the vehicle body in the first position).
Lasebnick, as modified, fails to disclose that the shutter is flush with a surface of the vehicle body in the first position.
McAndrew is also concerned with a sensor cleaning system and teaches the shutter is flush with a surface of the vehicle body in the first position (0042, where “nozzle carrier” corresponds to a shutter and “retracted position” corresponds to a first position). It 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 to modify the sensor cleaning system of Lasebnick, as modified, to make the shutter be flush with a surface of the vehicle body in the first position, as taught by McAndrew, because McAndrew teaches that “the outer appearance of such arrangement is particularly appealing and the nozzle carrier in the retracted position does not impede the viewing angle of the sensor unit”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in regards to claim 1 filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Lasebnick fails to disclose “the shutter performs a first stroke in which the shutter moves from the second position to the first position while continuing to block at least a portion of the field of view; the solvent nozzle configured to dispense solvent during the first stroke; and wherein the shutter performs a second stroke in which the shutter moves from the first position to the second position; the air nozzle configured to spray air onto the sensor during the second stroke” because “Lasebnick does not have a defined first stroke moving between two positions nor a defined second stroke”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Lasebnick does disclose the above claimed limitations. See rejection of claim 1 above.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Instead of spraying towards the middle of the sensor, the solvent and air are sprayed during the course of the movement of the shutter even when they're partially covering the field of view (As opposed to completely)”) 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).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Examiner's argument that a nozzle is 'capable' of spraying air or solvent whenever is mere inference and not actual fact. In a patent application, a 'capability' is black letter improper as a 102 rejection, because a 102 rejection requires that each claim limitation must be expressly or inherently disclosed.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the claim language of “configured to dispense” and “configured to spray” means that to reject these limitations, examiner needs only find a structure which is configured to (i.e. capable of) dispensing and spraying as claimed and examiner finds that Lasebnick does disclose structure which is capable of dispensing and spraying as claimed (see specifically 0018 of Lasebnick where the liquid and air being configured to dispense separately means that the structure of Lasebnick meets the claimed limitations as it is capable of performing the functional limitations). Examiner finds that Applicant has not argued why the structure of Lasebnick is incapable of dispensing and spraying as claimed and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4 and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a different combination of prior art as the combination of prior art challenged by Applicant in the Arguments/Remarks.
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
