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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 6 and 11 – 15 are pending. Claims 7 – 10 and 16 – 20 are cancelled.
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 1 and 11 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 1 and 11 recites the limitation “a vertical disc-shaped transparent cover”. The limitation, however, fails to find support in the specification. Applicant is advised to show support for the limitation or to delete the limitation as it constitutes new matter.
Claims 2 – 6 and 12 – 15 are further rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 11.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 6 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0038611 A1) in view of Schmidt (WO 2020/216547 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Meister teaches a debris management system (deflectors, 200) for vehicle sensors, the system comprising: a sensor (cameras 110a and 110b) disposed on a first flat side of a vertical disc-shaped transparent cover (transparent circular disc, 220; Paragraph [0072]), the sensor having a field of view through the transparent cover (Paragraph [0072]), wherein the transparent cover (220) is configured to rotate over the field of view of the sensor (Fig. 2); a solvent nozzle (fluid dispenser, 500) disposed on a second flat side (Fig. 5) of the transparent cover (220), wherein the solvent nozzle (500) is configured to spray solvent at a surface of the second flat side and into the field of view (Paragraph [0095]); and a wiper disposed in contact with the surface of the second flat side (Paragraph [0105]).
Meister does not explicitly teach the wiper located to maintain contact with the surface while the transparent cover rotates over the field of view of the sensor.
Schmidt, however, teaches the wiper (wiper, 7) located to maintain contact with the surface (Fig. 3) while the transparent cover (cover, 1) rotates over the field of view (window viewing area, 4) of the sensor (sensor, 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Meister to further explicitly include the wiper located to maintain contact with the surface while the transparent cover rotates over the field of view of the sensor, as taught by Schmidt, to provide a device where the wiper is out of view and prevents the wiper from being picked up by the camera.
Regarding Claim 2, Meister, as modified, teaches the debris management system of claim 1 as discussed above.
Meister further teaches a wiper blade (Paragraph [0105]) aligned perpendicular to a direction of motion of the transparent cover (220, Fig. 2 – wiper would be attached perpendicular to a direction of motion of the transparent cover) but fails to explicitly teach the wiper comprises a linear stationary wiper that is disposed proximate to an edge of the field of view along the radius of the transparent cover.
Schmidt, however, teaches the wiper (7) comprises a linear stationary wiper (Fig. 3) that is disposed proximate to an edge of the field of view along the radius of the transparent cover (1; Fig. 3) and wherein the rotation of the transparent cover (1), relative to the contact of the stationary wiper (7) with the surface of the second flat side (second side of cover, 1) removes the debris (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Meister to further explicitly include the wiper comprises a linear stationary wiper that is disposed proximate to an edge of the field of view along the radius of the transparent cover, as taught by Schmidt, to provide a device where the wiper is out of view and prevents the wiper from being picked up by the camera.
Regarding Claim 3, Meister, as modified, teaches the debris management system (deflectors, 200) wherein the transparent cover (220) is configured to rotate around a fixed axis (221; Fig. 4b) outside of the field of view (Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding Claim 4, Meister, as modified, teaches the debris management system (deflectors, 200) wherein the solvent nozzle (500) is configured to spray solvent while the transparent cover (220) executes an indexed rotation sufficient to move a region of the transparent cover (220) initially within the field of view to outside of the field of view (Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Meister teaches the debris management system of claim 3 and 11 as discussed above.
Meister further teaches counterclockwise directions as viewed from the second flat side Fig. 2) but fails to explicitly teach the transparent cover is configured to rotate in a clockwise direction.
Schmidt, however, teaches the transparent cover (1) is configured to rotate in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions (see arrows in Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Meister to further explicitly include the transparent cover is configured to rotate in a clockwise direction, as taught by Schmidt, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04) This modification would be beneficial in that it allows for friction to be created and the effective dislodging of dirt and debris.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Meister teaches the debris management system of claim 3 and 11 as discussed above.
Meister does not teach the transparent cover is configured to move continuously.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Meister to further include, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the cycle of a component. A change in the cycle is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04) This modification would be beneficial in that it allows for the system to maintain clear visibility, thus providing a safe operating condition for the vehicle.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Meister teaches a debris management system (deflectors, 200) the system comprising: a one or more sensors (cameras, 110a and b) disposed on a first flat side of a vertical disc-shaped transparent cover (transparent circular disc, 220; Paragraph [0072]), the one or more sensors having a field of view through the transparent cover (220; Paragraph [0072]), wherein the transparent cover (220) is configured to rotate over the field of view of the one or more sensors by rotating around an axis outside of the field of view (Paragraphs [0086] and [0087]); a one or more solvent nozzles (500) disposed on a second flat side of the transparent cover (220), wherein the one or more solvent nozzles (500) is are configured to spray solvent at a surface of the second flat side and into the field of view (Paragraph [0095]); and a one or more wipers disposed in contact with the surface of the second flat side (Paragraph [0105]).
Meister does not explicitly teach the wiper located to maintain contact with the surface while the transparent cover rotates over the field of view of the sensor.
Schmidt, however, teaches the wiper (wiper, 7) located to maintain contact with the surface (Fig. 3) while the transparent cover (cover, 1) rotates over the field of view (window viewing area, 4) of the sensor (sensor, 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Meister to further explicitly include the wiper located to maintain contact with the surface while the transparent cover rotates over the field of view of the sensor, as taught by Schmidt, to provide a device where the wiper is out of view and prevents the wiper from being picked up by the camera.
Regarding Claim 12, Meister teaches the debris management system of claim 11 as discussed above.
Meister further teaches the one or more wipers (Paragraph [0105]) aligned perpendicular to a direction of motion of the transparent cover (220, Fig. 2 – wiper would be attached perpendicular to a direction of motion of the transparent cover) but fails to explicitly teach the wiper comprises one or more linear stationary wiper that is disposed proximate to an edge of the field of view along the radius of the transparent cover.
Schmidt, however, teaches the one or more wipers (7) comprises one or more linear stationary wipers (Fig. 3) that is disposed proximate to an edge of the field of view along the radius of the transparent cover (1; Fig. 3) and wherein the rotation of the transparent cover (1), relative to the contact of the stationary wiper (7) with the surface of the second side (second side of cover, 1) removes the debris (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Meister to further explicitly include the wiper comprises a linear stationary wiper that is disposed proximate to an edge of the field of view along the radius of the transparent cover, as taught by Schmidt, to provide a device where the wiper is out of view and prevents the wiper from being picked up by the camera.
Regarding Claim 13, Meister, as modified, teaches the debris management system (deflectors, 200), wherein the one or more solvent nozzles (500) is are configured to spray solvent while the transparent cover (220) executes an indexed rotation sufficient to move a region of the transparent cover (220) initially within the field of view to outside of the field of view (Paragraph [0089]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated December 17, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 11 – 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues “Meister expressly teaches away from the use of wipers altogether”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Meister explicitly teaches the use of a wiper in Paragraph [0105]. One cannot teach away from having a wiper if the reference explicitly teaches that one can be used.
Applicant further argues that Meister does not anticipate the claimed structure of the wiper.
Examiner agrees as Meister is used to reject not under 102(a)(1) but 103, as Schmidt teaches the specific structural limitations of the wiper.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723