DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 06/01/2026 following the Requirement for Restriction/Election of 03/31/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending with claims 3, 11 and 13-20 withdrawn from consideration as being party to a non-elected Group.
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 Group II (claims 4-10) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged; claims 1-2 and 12 being generic to all Groups.
Claims 3, 11 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/01/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0355808, herein referenced as Albuquerque.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Albuquerque
Regarding Claim 1, Albuquerque discloses a debris management system comprising:
a slider (see cleaning unit 30 figs. 1-2b) adapted to move in first and second directions (see first direction toward the right in fig. 2a and second direction toward the left in fig. 2b) along a track (see track defined by guide rails 15 and 16 in fig. 1) disposed across a vehicle surface (see surface of housing 10, including cover 22, in fig. 1, it can be considered a vehicle surface since the device 1 is integrated with a vehicle as stated in pr. 2) “Different surroundings sensors are used for this purpose, for example radar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, cameras and LIDAR systems, which each must be integrated into a vehicle” pr. 2, device 1 being mounted on to a vehicle would establish its surface a vehicle surface), the slider comprising a first side (see right side of 30 in fig. 2a which facing rightward) facing the first direction, a second side (see left side of 30 facing leftward in fig. 2b) facing the second direction, and a spray barrier disposed along each of the first and second sides (comprised of wiper blades 38,38’ in figs. 2a-2b; the wiper blades form a structure which be analogous to a spray barrier for a spray nozzle); and
a wiper mechanism (comprised of wiper blades 38,38’ and their connection with holding units 31,34 which are driven to move about 80 via the drive unit 35 in fig. 1) that extends from the slider and is adapted to make contact with the vehicle surface (the wiper blades 38,38’ are shown to extend from the cleaning unit 30 and to make contact with the surface of cover 22).
Regarding Claim 2, Albuquerque discloses the debris management system of claim 1, further comprising the track, wherein one or more sensors are embedded within the vehicle surface proximate to the track (a LIDAR sensor is provided within the housing 10 behind cover 22 in fig. 1; “A LIDAR sensor (not illustrated) is situated within the housing. The housing includes a transmitter/receiver window 20, through which laser beams are emitted into the surroundings in the conventional manner and reflected signals from the surroundings may be received. Transmitter/receiver window 20 includes a cover 22, the cover being designed to be transparent to sensor signals of the LIDAR sensor” pr. 32), and wherein each sensor has a field of view facing outwardly through the vehicle surface (see transmitter/receiver window 20 where the field of view of the LIDAR sensor faces outwardly through the surface in fig. 1), wherein the vehicle surface is transparent to the field of view of each sensor (“cover 22, the cover being designed to be transparent to sensor signals of the LIDAR sensor” pr. 32).
Regarding Claim 4, Albuquerque discloses the debris management system of claim 2, wherein the slider is configured to move to and cover the field of view of at least one of the one or more sensors (see movement 80 caused by the drive unit 35 of cleaning unit 30 in figs. 1-2b; see position of cleaning unit 30 where it is shown to cover (i.e. positioned to be in front of as well as obstruct) the cover 22 in fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Albuquerque discloses a debris management system comprising:
a track (see track defined by guide rails 15 and 16 in fig. 1) disposed across a vehicle surface (surface of housing 10, including cover 22, in fig. 1; “Different surroundings sensors are used for this purpose, for example radar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, cameras and LIDAR systems, which each must be integrated into a vehicle” pr. 2, device 1 being mounted on to a vehicle would establish its surface a vehicle surface);
a slider (see cleaning unit 30 figs. 1-2b) adapted to move in first and second directions (see first direction toward the right in fig. 2a and second direction toward the left in fig. 2b) along the track (see figs. 2a-2b), the slider comprising a first side (see right side of 30 in fig. 2a which facing rightward) facing the first direction, a second side (see left side of 30 facing leftward in fig. 2b) facing the second direction, and a spray barrier disposed along each of the first and second sides (a spray barrier which comprised of wiper blades 38,38’ in figs. 2a-2b; the wiper blades form a structure which be analogous to a spray barrier for a spray nozzle);
one or more sensors embedded within the vehicle surface proximate to the track (a LIDAR sensor is provided within the housing 10 behind cover 22 in fig. 1; “A LIDAR sensor (not illustrated) is situated within the housing. The housing includes a transmitter/receiver window 20, through which laser beams are emitted into the surroundings in the conventional manner and reflected signals from the surroundings may be received. Transmitter/receiver window 20 includes a cover 22, the cover being designed to be transparent to sensor signals of the LIDAR sensor” pr. 32), wherein each sensor has a field of view facing outwardly through the vehicle surface (see transmitter/receiver window 20 where the field of view of the LIDAR sensor faces outwardly through the surface in fig. 1), wherein the vehicle surface is transparent to the field of view of each sensor (“cover 22, the cover being designed to be transparent to sensor signals of the LIDAR sensor” pr. 32); and
a wiper mechanism (comprised of wiper blades 38,38’ and their connection with holding units 31,34 which are driven to move about 80 via the drive unit 35 in fig. 1) that extends from the slider and is adapted to make contact with the vehicle surface (the wiper blades 38,38’ are shown to extend from the cleaning unit 30 and to make contact with the surface of cover 22).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albuquerque, as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of US 2021/0009087, herein referenced as Doorley.
PNG
media_image2.png
601
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Doorley
Regarding Claim 5, Albuquerque discloses the debris management system of claim 4, but fails to anticipate wherein a nozzle extends from the vehicle surface proximate to each sensor, wherein the nozzle is adapted to spray fluid onto the vehicle surface in the field of view.
Albuquerque and Doorley are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of debris management systems.
Doorley teaches wherein a nozzle extends from the vehicle surface proximate to each sensor (see spray nozzles 108a,108b,108c extending from vehicle roof 104 near dome 102 which sensors in fig. 1; “Cameras, laser scanning equipment, and the like may be housed within dome 102” pr. 41), wherein the nozzle is adapted to spray fluid onto the vehicle surface in the field of view (“spray nozzles may be positioned around dome 102 to spray wiper fluid, such as cleaning and/or lubricating fluid, onto surface 106 of the dome 102” pr. 60, the surface 106 would include the field of view of the sensors within the dome 102). Doorley also teaches that
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albuquerque, as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of JP2014180593A, herein referenced as Horie.
Regarding Claim 7, Albuquerque discloses the debris management system of claim 4, wherein a fluid reservoir (“nozzles 32, 32′, 32″ are connected to a water tank” pr. 33) and a pump [are] operationally connected to a nozzle [of the slider] (see at least nozzle 32’ that is part of in fig. 2a) adapted to spray fluid from the fluid reservoir onto the vehicle surface (cover 22 fig. 1; “Cleaning unit 30 includes three first nozzles 32, 32′, 32″ (water nozzles), which are each designed to spray water onto cover 22. For this purpose, nozzles 32, 32′, 32″ are connected to a water tank, which is not illustrated, e.g., via hoses” pr. 33).
However, Albuquerque fails to explicitly anticipate wherein the slider includes a fluid reservoir and a pump operationally connected to a nozzle.
Albuquerque and Horie are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of debris management systems.
Horie teaches of wherein the slider (see carriage 301 and movable housing 312 in figs. 4-5b) includes a fluid reservoir (tank 305 figs. 4-5) and a pump (pump 315 figs. 4-5; “Therefore, although not shown in the diagram, the detergent tank 305 and pump 315 may be mounted on the external frame 309 of the mobile housing 312, and a minimum size detergent tank 305 and pump 315 may be mounted on the mobile housing 312” pr. 40) operationally connected to a nozzle (ejection nozzle and cleaning liquid ejection means 313 figs. 4-5; “ the cleaning agent tank 305 and the pump 315 of the cleaning liquid ejection means 313 are mounted on the external frame 309 of the mobile housing 312” pr. 38). Horie further teaches that by provided the tank 305 and pump 315 mounted on the external frame 309 and/or mobile housing 312, “a small, lightweight cleaning agent tank 305 filled with the minimum necessary cleaning solution is mounted on the mobile housing 312, and when the cleaning solution runs out, it can be replenished by going to the larger cleaning agent tank 305 on the frame 309, which acts as a cleaning solution supply base. Therefore, the mobile enclosure 312 can be made lighter, and the piping 314 can also be simplified” in pr. 40.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the mobile cleaning unit of Albuquerque to include the pump and tank mounted on the mobile housing, as disclosed by Horie, to obtain the benefit of ‘making the mobile enclosure lighter as well as to simplify the piping’ as taught by Horie.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Albuquerque and Horie discloses the debris management system of claim 7, wherein when positioned to cover the field of view of the at least one of the one or more sensors, the nozzle is configured to spray the fluid onto the vehicle surface in the field of view (when the cleaning unit is positioned in front of, or to obstruct, the field of view of the LIDAR sensor’s window 20, it sprays fluid onto cover 22 as shown in figs. 2a-2b of Albuquerque).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Albuquerque and Horie discloses the debris management system of claim 8, wherein the wiper mechanism comprises a wiper that pivots through an arc, and is configured to wipe the vehicle surface in the field of view (since the cover 22 would have an arc shape due to the circular form of housing 10 in fig. 1 of Albuquerque, the wiper blades 38,38’ would pivot through this arc as they are configured to wipe the arc-shaped surface of cover 22 which defines the field of view of the LIDAR sensor; “Cover 22 is designed as a glass pane, which has a curvature corresponding to the curvature of the housing wall” pr. 32 of Albuquerque).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Albuquerque and Horie discloses the debris management system of claim 8, wherein the wiper mechanism comprises a wiper that translates in a direction transverse to the wiper, and is configured to wipe the vehicle surface in the field of view (since the wiper blades 38,38’ are oriented vertically, as shown in fig. 1 of Albuquerque, their translation between left and right (i.e. circumferentially) would be transverse to the primary orientation which is vertical; the blades translating circumferentially would wipe the surface of cover 22 which defines the field of view of the LIDAR sensor).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0239693, herein referenced as Nabavi.
PNG
media_image3.png
769
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 29 of Nabavi
Regarding Claim 1, Nabavi discloses a debris management system comprising:
a slider (comprised of fluid applicator 936 and optical body cleaning mechanism 932 in figs. 28-30) [that has relative movement to a vehicle surface] in first and second directions (a first direction being counter-clockwise in fig. 29 and a second direction being clockwise in fig. 29) along a track (see track/path that 936,932 takes relative to optical window 928 in fig. 29) disposed across [the] vehicle surface (see surface of optical window 928 in figs. 28-30; as noted above in the claim interpretation section, “vehicle surface” is an intended use/purpose of the claim invention), the slider comprising a first side facing the first direction (see right side in fig. 30), a second side facing the second direction (see left side in fig. 30), and a spray barrier disposed along each of the first and second sides (the primary seal 216 is shown to be disposed on both the left side and right side in fig. 30, it is also shown in the figure to have the structure required of a spray barrier); and
a wiper mechanism that extends from the slider and is adapted to make contact with the vehicle surface (see body cleaning mechanism with attached wiper blade in figs. 28-30). Nabavi also discloses “the optical disc plate is rotated about an axis A by a suitably configured and arranged drive mechanism (not shown) so that the optical window 928 is moved with respect to both the fluid applicator 936 and an optical body cleaning mechanism 932” in pr. 187.
However, Nabavi fails to anticipate wherein the slider [is] adapted to move in first and second directions along a track disposed across a vehicle surface.
Since the only difference between the prior art is which component moves relative to the other, and it appears that reversing/swapping which of the components moves relative to teach other would not have modified the operation of the device (the device would still accomplish the operation of cleaning the optical body/window), it would be an obvious matter of Reversal of Parts to modify the Nabavi such that the assembly of the fluid applicator 936 and optical body cleaning mechanism 932 is driven to move with respect to the optical window 928. See VI. A. “Reversal of Parts” in MPEP 2144.04 for more details.
Regarding Claim 2, Nabavi as modified above comprises the debris management system of claim 1, further comprising the track, wherein one or more sensors are embedded within the vehicle surface proximate to the track (see optical device 126 embedded/behind the optical window 928 in figs. 28-30), and wherein each sensor has a field of view facing outwardly through the vehicle surface (see field of view of 126 facing outward through optical window 928 in fig. 30), wherein the vehicle surface is transparent to the field of view of each sensor (shown in fig. 30).
Regarding Claim 4, Nabavi as modified above comprises the debris management system of claim 2, wherein the slider is configured to move to and cover the field of view of at least one of the one or more sensors (the structure of assembly of 932 and 936 is shown to be capable of covering (i.e. being in front of and/or obstructing) the field of view of optical device 126 in figs. 28-30).
Regarding Claim 6, Nabavi as modified above comprises the debris management system of claim 4, wherein the slider further comprises a calibration box disposed on a surface within the field of view and facing the at least one of the one or more sensors (the bottom surface of the assembly of 932 and 936 can constitute a calibration box/target as it is box-shaped and would present a same/repeatable image when in front of and covering the optical device which could be used to calibrate the device 126).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11782142 and US 10632507 – US patent grant of prior art cited above.
US 2023/0331190 – discloses a laterally moving wiper for a windshield that includes sprayers.
US 11034336 – discloses a spraying assembly which moves along a track to clean vehicle sensors.
US 2022/0234295 – discloses a wiper which a fluid dispenser provided between two wiper blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
