DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5,8,10-14,17 and 19-21 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 13, 17, 19 are currently amended. Claim 21 is new.
Claim Objections
The examiner notes that these informalities arise because the applicant has presented the limitations of previous claims 9 and 18, including the intervening claims, in a different order than in the previous claim set.
In claim 1, consider --guide grooves that are positioned on [[the]] a second gear and in which ends of the outer cleaner are positioned in accordance with movement of the second gear, wherein the transmission unit includes: a first gear configured to rotate integrally with the driving unit; and [[a]] the second gear; the second gear having a first end that is in contact with the first gear--.
In claim 13, consider --guide grooves that are positioned on [[the]] a second gear and in which ends of the outer cleaner are positioned in accordance with movement of the second gear, wherein the transmission unit includes: a first gear configured to rotate integrally with the driving unit; and [[a]] the second gear; the second gear having a first end that is in contact with the first gear--.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“sensor unit” in claims 1, 13, 21 corresponding to sensor unit 10;
“transmission unit” in claims 1, 12, 13, 21 corresponding to transmission unit 300;
“driving unit” in claim 13, corresponding to driving unit 400;
“control unit” in claims 1, 5, 13, 21 corresponding to control unit 500;
“nozzle unit” in claims 4, 5, and 20, corresponding to nozzle unit 710;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The term “driving unit” in claims 1, 6, and 10, despite reciting a nonce term “unit’ do not invoke a section 112(f) interpretation as there is a lack of functionality associated with the term, and because the term is not recited as an explicitly part of the sensor cleaning system, but rather as what the system is configured to interface with.
While “spring member” in claim 3 contains a nonce term “member” associated with functionality “configured to apply tension in a direction in which the outer cleaner faces the cover lens”, the examiner finds “spring” to provide sufficient structure, such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked.
The term “transmission unit” in claims 6 and 15 is defined with sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seedall (US 20150246660 A1) in view of Frederick (US 20200086833 A1) Nogami (JP 2001199492 A) and Jo (US 20190361227 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 14 (Seedall)
With respect to claim 21, Seedall discloses A sensor cleaning system (abstract, a camera is a type of sensor) comprising:
a sensor unit configured to monitor an external environment of a vehicle (60, fig. 15; [0069]; camera is 112(f) equivalent in that it monitors external environment as described in the abstract);
a cover lens configured to cover a measurement region of the sensor unit (optical assembly 12, fig. 15; [0069, 0007]);
an outer cleaner configured to selectively come in contact with the cover lens (20, fig. 16; [0069-0070], see fig. 15 for where the cleaner is not in direct contact);
a transmission unit configured to transmit a driving force of a driving unit to the outer cleaner (transmission unit as gears 50, fig. 12, and collar 30 and cam follower 38, figs. 11-12, with driving unit/motor 32, [0066-0067], the arrangement is 112(f) equivalent in that the gears move the wipers under the force of motor 32, see also fig. 13 for the transmission unit gear arrangement); an upper housing configured to cover at least a portion of an upper surface of the cover lens (Seedall, ann. fig. 14, above, the upper housing partially covers an upper surface of the cover lens, for example the position in fig. 16, the examiner notes that lenses have two sides and permit light to pass through, and “upper surface” in this case can be an inner surface); a lower housing configured to cover at least a portion of a lower surface of the cover lens and the outer cleaner (Seedall, ann. fig. 14, above, partially covers the lens [outer/lower surface] and cleaner from a top perspective relative to figure, when retracted as in fig. 16; and also as in fig. 15).
however does not explicitly disclose a control unit configured to adjust a position of the outer cleaner such that the outer cleaner selectively comes in contact with the cover lens by the driving force of the driving unit, and to move the cover lens up and down, and a spring member disposed on the lower housing and configured to apply tension in a direction in which the outer cleaner comes in contact with the cover lens and to apply tension in a direction in which outer cleaner supports move away from a center axis of a second gear. Seedall however discloses that a position of the outer cleaner such that the outer cleaner selectively comes in contact with the cover lens by the driving force of the driving unit ([0064,0066-0067] describes how the wiper is driven to move by a motor; see figs. 15-16 for the selective contact, additionally the wiper moves to it comes into selective contact at different positions of the lens) and that the cover lens moves up/down (position of figs. 15-16 show how the lens 12 moves up/down [which is a relative orientation], this is caused by a motor 112 through a lead screw 114, fig. 13 as described in [0068]).
Frederick, in the same field of endeavor, as related to sensor cleaning, teaches control unit (controller 102, in [0023-0024], 112(f) equivalent to processor that controls/executes instructions, the control unit configured to move the sensor/control motors; the sensor moves in/out as in figs. 2-3, [0030]). Frederick teaches that this arrangement retracts the obstruction/debris and control/move the sensor to clean debris, to further autonomous driving ([0023]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Seedall with the control unit of Frederick, for the purpose of furthering autonomous driving by ensuring that the sensor is free of obstructions and debris.
PNG
media_image2.png
438
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 4 (Nogami)
Nogami, in the same field of endeavor, related to sensor cleaning, teaches a second gear (second gear 63, fig. 4, [0026], [0026] provides that the second gear analogously drives [through the motor and first gear] wipers 87 at an end of rod at 65, fig. 4 with another free end at 69, fig. 3, wipers described in [0028]; the second gear is underneath the wiper under the lens and has a central axis driven by motor 61). Nogami teaches that this arrangement flexibility in wiper placement “which more effectively prevents light from a high-brightness object from directly entering the imaging lens and prevents the necessary image portion from being covered” ([0010]) and provides for a simpler drive control ([0009])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Seedall with the second gear arrangement of Nogami, to provide more flexibility in wiper placement, preventing high brightness objects from causing issues while also preventing obscuring of images, while simplifying drive control.
PNG
media_image3.png
658
706
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 6 (Jo)
Jo, in the same field of endeavor, related to sensor cleaning, teaches of providing a spring member disposed on the lower housing (a damper described in [0039-0041], and shown in fig. 6, examiner notes that the damper is between 520 and 530, fig. 6 and is mislabeled as 536, fig. 6 [0028], the damper installed on a analogous lower [the lower housing in Seedall is an outer housing] housing as shown in fig. 1) and configured to apply tension in a direction in which the outer cleaner faces the cover lens (applies tension to cleaner to press against lens/cover 200, fig .1; [0040,0061]), and to apply tension in a direction in which outer cleaner supports move away from a center axis of a second gear (the spring damper, as shown and explained in ann. fig. 6, applies force in both directions to act on the guide parts, as to operate, it is understood that the spring applies compression force in both directions to guide parts that can move relative to each other, furthermore, it is understood that the coil spring applies tension at both ends; and this would apply to the second gear as taught using Nogami above since the gear is under the lens). Jo teaches that this arrangement improves the cleaning performance ([0065]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Seedall with the spring member of Jo, for the purpose of improving cleaning performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims 2-5,8,10-12,14,17 and 19-20 are allowed except for a minor informality, noted in the claim objection above, regarding the term “second gear” as the applicant introduced the limitations in a different order than in the previous claim set (second gear was previously introduced in claim 6 and 15, while the current claim set introduces the limitations of previous claims 7 and 16 first [previous claims 7 was dependent on claim 6, and previous claim 16 was dependent on claim 15]).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or render obvious the particular arrangement of wherein the guide grooves each include: two rotation grooves arranged with different distances from a rotation axis of the second gear; and two adjustment grooves connecting both ends of the two rotation grooves to adjust a distance between a wiper and the cover lens, wherein the ends of the outer cleaner reciprocate along the two rotation grooves and the two adjustment grooves, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims. Lee (US 20220063516 A1) provides for an outer lens moved along a groove, however does not provide for a wiper or two distinct grooves at different distances from a rotation axis of the second gear. Watanabe (JP 2015125367 A) provides for an outer cover with a wiper mounted thereon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the new claim 21, the applicant argues (response pages 8-10) that the prior art does not provide for a spring that applies tension in both directions (towards a second gear [which is not actually defined optionally in the claim or to otherwise]). The applicant argues that Seedall, Frederick, and Stein do not have a spring, however the examiner did not apply Seedall, Frederick or Stein with respect to that limitation. As for Nogami, the examiner notes that the examiner did not rely upon Nogami for the teachings related to the spring, and that the claim does not require a position of the outer cleaner to be adjusted based on a second gear, only a second gear with a central axis. To address the second gear, Nogami does provide one to meet the required limitations (a central axis of a second gear [which is placed under a camera lens]), for more flexibility in wiper placement. To the point of a possible argument that the spring of Jo does not apply tension in both directions, the examiner notes that the spring of Jo does apply tension in both directions as explained in ann. fig. 6, and therefore the spring would apply tension in a direction away from the camera lens [and away from the second gear under the lens], as well as towards the camera lens [and towards the second gear].
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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights