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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 17, the recitation of "attached to the body proximate" should read --attached to the vehicle body proximate-- to maintain terminology throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “sensor cleaning system of claim 9” should read --sensor cleaning system of claim 7--. It appears as though this is a typographical error and therefore for the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting claim 8 to be dependent on claim 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lasebnick et al. (DE10232227A1), attached as a PDF and hereinafter referred to as Lasebnick.
Regarding claim 1, Lasebnick discloses a sensor cleaning system, comprising: a shutter (Fig. 1 elements 7 and 8) 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) 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 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).
Regarding claim 2, Lasebnick discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the shutter is configured to move back and forth between the first and second positions (0011-0012), wherein the solvent nozzle is configured to spray solvent on the sensor while the shutter moves from the second position to the first position (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 (the air nozzle is capable of spraying air on the sensor while the shutter moves from the first position to the second position).
Regarding claim 3, Lasebnick discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses 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. 1 below, 0011-0012), and wherein the solvent and air nozzles are proximate to the edge of the shutter (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the solvent and air nozzles are 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 4, Lasebnick discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the shutter comprises a calibration mark disposed on the side of the shutter facing the sensor (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the calibration mark is capable of being used for calibration as it is a distinct, constant feature).
Regarding claim 6, Lasebnick discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the shutter in the second position is spaced from the sensor to provide a debris drainage gap therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Lasebnick discloses a sensor cleaning system, comprising: a shutter (Fig. 1 elements 7 and 8) 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) 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 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 and air nozzles are proximate to the edge of the shutter (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the solvent and air nozzles are 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).
Regarding claim 10, Lasebnick discloses the limitations of claim 9, 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 (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 (the air nozzle is capable of spraying air on the sensor while the shutter moves from the first position to the second position).
Regarding claim 11, Lasebnick discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the shutter comprises a calibration mark disposed on the side of the shutter facing the sensor (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the calibration mark is capable of being used for calibration as it is a distinct, constant feature).
Regarding claim 12, Lasebnick 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 (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Lasebnick discloses a sensor cleaning system, comprising: a shutter (Fig. 1 elements 7 and 8) 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) 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 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 and air nozzles are proximate to the edge of the shutter (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the solvent and air nozzles are 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), and wherein the shutter in the second position is spaced from the sensor to provide a debris drainage gap therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Lasebnick discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the shutter comprises a calibration mark disposed on the side of the shutter facing the sensor (see annotated Fig. 1 above, where the calibration mark is capable of being used for calibration as it is a distinct, constant feature).
Regarding claim 19, Lasebnick 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 (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 (the air nozzle is capable of spraying air on the sensor while the shutter moves from the first position to the second position).
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.
Claims 7-8, 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 discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is disposed on a vehicle body surface (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 (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 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 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).
Regarding claim 13, Lasebnick discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is disposed on a vehicle body surface (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 (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 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 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 discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is disposed on a vehicle body surface (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 (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 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 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).
Conclusion
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