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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter in claims 6, 9 and 13 describing inclusion of a sensor housing in combination with a vehicle must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently FIGS. 1 and 2 show a vehicle sensor assembly without a sensor housing within a vehicle and FIGS. 3-5 show a vehicle sensor assembly. This leaves the disclosure somewhat ambiguous as to how the inventor intended to incorporate the housing and particularly the pneumatic vents defined by the housing into the lens-vehicle interface given that FIGS. 1 and 2 show no gap between lens 115 and exterior surface 125. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20200057301 (hereinafter Kuratani) in view of 20210270948 (hereinafter Villalobos-Martinez).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuratani teaches a vehicle sensor assembly (image capturing apparatus 100, [0137] describes 100 as being a camera, LiDAR or RADAR), comprising:
a lens (protective cover 2, Examiner notes the instant specification states lens 115 can be any shape and the shape of the lens 115 in FIG. 3 of the instant specification is very close to protective cover 2 of Kuratani) disposed in an aperture defined by a body (casing 1) (see FIG. 2);
a sensor (imaging element 6) disposed in an internal volume of the vehicle defined by the body (casing 1), the sensor disposed adjacent to the internal surface (FIG. 2 shows imaging element 6 adjacent to imaging element 6); and
a debris clearing assembly for removing debris from the outer surface, the debris clearing assembly comprising:
an air mover (cleaning nozzle 3, [0038] describes replacement of nozzle 3 with an air blower); and
a vibration mechanism mechanically coupled to the lens (piezoelectric resonator 15 is shown coupled to protective cover 2 by way of second cylindrical member 14).
While Kuratani describes the use of 100 on the front or rear of a vehicle (see [0003], [0083] & [0143]) it does not specifically describe how it would be mounted and whether it would be disposed in an aperture defined by a body of a vehicle.
However, Villalobos-Martinez describes a LIDAR assembly (24) mounted in an aperture (30, see FIG. 2) defined by a front bumper (26 see FIGS. 1 & 2) of a body of a vehicle (10, see FIG. 1). Villalobos-Martinez at [0018] describes a number of alternative exterior mounting locations including a vehicle body panel, a fender and a rear bumper.
Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez both describe different aspects of vehicle mounted sensors. Given that Kuratani is silent as to how its sensor assembly would be mounted to a vehicle, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to use the teachings of Villalobos-Martinez for instruction on how to mount the sensor assembly taught by Kuratani. Doing so would be obvious in light of [0025] of Villalobos-Martinez, which describes how securely fasteners are able to secure the sensor to the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the vehicle sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein an orientation of the sensor defines a line of sight through the lens in a direction substantially aligned with an optical axis of the lens (FIG. 2 of Kuratani shows alignment of imaging element 6 with optical axis of protective cover 2).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the vehicle sensor assembly of claim 2, wherein the vibration mechanism (piezoelectric resonator 15) is configured to oscillate the lens in the direction (FIG. 2 shows piezoelectric resonator 15 made up of piezoelectric plates 16/17, which [0025] describes as circular or ring shaped & [0030] describes how resonator 15 applies longitudinal vibration, which would be in “the direction” of the optical axis of protective cover 2).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the vehicle sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein:
the outer surface defines a portion of an external surface of the vehicle body (FIG. 1 of Kuratani shows how lens 2 forms an exterior surface of a forward facing surface of 100 and once 100 is secured in an aperture of a vehicle as described in the rejection of claim 1, protective cover 2 forms an exterior surface of the vehicle; and
the air mover is disposed in the internal volume (cleaning nozzle 3 of Kuratani as shown in FIG. 1 would at least partially be disposed within the internal volume when 100 is mounted within the aperture of the vehicle as described in Villalobos-Martinez).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the vehicle sensor assembly of claim 4, wherein the air mover comprises a fan configured to move the air from the internal volume to the outer surface ([0038] of Kuratani describes the air mover as being an air blower, which always includes some kind of fan for moving air).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the vehicle sensor assembly of claim 5, further comprising a sensor housing defining a channel configured to direct the air moved by the fan (FIG. 2 of Kuratani depicts a channel within cleaning nozzle 3 that would carry air when cleaning nozzle 3 is takes the alternative form of an air blower, see [0038]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kuratani teaches a visual sensor system (image capturing apparatus 100, [0137] describes 100 as being a camera, LiDAR or RADAR) for a vehicle, comprising:
a sensor assembly including a sensor housing (casing 1) and a lens (protective cover 2, Examiner notes the instant specification states lens 115 can be any shape and the shape of the lens 115 in FIG. 3 of the instant specification is very close to that of protective cover 2 of Kuratani) disposed in an aperture defined by a (casing 1), the body at least partially defining an external surface
a visual sensor (imaging element 6) disposed in the sensor housing (casing 1);
a channel (nozzle 3) defined by the sensor housing (casing 1) and configured to direct air tangentially across the outer surface of the lens (at least some of the air exiting nozzle 3 at opening portion 31 would travel tangentially across the outer surface of protective cover 2);
an air mover disposed within an internal volume defined by the vehicle body and configured to move the air through the channel (cleaning nozzle 3, [0038] describes replacement of nozzle 3 with an air blower); and
a vibration mechanism connected to the lens (piezoelectric resonator 15 is shown connected to protective cover 2 by cylindrical member 14).
While Kuratani describes the use of 100 on the front or rear of a vehicle (see [0003], [0083] & [0143]) it does not specifically describe how it would be mounted/attached and whether it would be disposed in an aperture defined by a body of a vehicle.
However, Villalobos-Martinez describes a LIDAR assembly (24) mounted in an aperture (30, see FIG. 2) defined by a front bumper (26 see FIGS. 1 & 2) of a body of a vehicle (10, see FIG. 1). Examiner notes that Villalobos-Martinez at [0018] also describes a number of alternative exterior mounting locations including a vehicle body panel, a fender and a rear bumper.
Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez both describe different aspects of vehicle mounted sensors. Given that Kuratani is silent as to how its sensor assembly would be mounted to a vehicle, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to use the teachings of Villalobos-Martinez for instruction on how to mount the sensor assembly taught by Kuratani. Doing so in accordance with the teachings of Villalobos-Martinez would be obvious in light of [0025] of Villalobos-Martinez, which describes how securely fasteners are able to secure the sensor to the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the visual sensor system of claim 9, wherein the vibration mechanism (piezoelectric resonator 15) is configured to oscillate the lens in a plane parallel to a line of sight of the visual sensor (FIG. 2 shows piezoelectric resonator 15 made up of piezoelectric plates 16/17, which [0025] describes as circular or ring shaped & [0030] describes how resonator 15 applies longitudinal vibration, which would be in “the direction” of the line of sight of imaging element 6).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the visual sensor system of claim 9, wherein the vibration mechanism is configured to oscillate the lens in a plane perpendicular to a line of sight of the visual sensor ([0025] describes piezoelectric resonator 15 as being circular or ring shaped & [0030] describes how resonator 15 applies horizontal vibration, which would be in a plane perpendicular to the line of sight of imaging element 6).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the visual sensor system of claim 9, wherein the sensor housing includes a sidewall and the lens is secured to the sidewall (flange portion 14b secures protective cover 2 to a sidewall of casing 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Kuratani teaches a debris clearing assembly for a vehicle sensor, comprising:
an air mover (nozzle 3) in fluid communication with an external surface of a lens (protective cover 2), the lens at least partially defining an external surface
a controller (controller 20, see FIG. 3) electrically coupled to a sensor (monitor 30/vibrator 12, [0042] describes how monitor 30 detects a drop in resonant frequency of vibrator 12 corresponding to the presence of adherents on protective cover 2) and the air mover (discharge device 50), the sensor disposed adjacent the lens (FIG. 2 shows vibrator 12/resonator 15 separated from protective cover 2 only by cylindrical member 14), the controller configured to detect fluid on the lens in response to a signal received from the sensor ([0042] describes detection of adherents on the protective cover 2 corresponding to a drop in resonant frequency of sensor/vibrator 12) and activate the air mover to move the air to remove the fluid from the lens (FIG. 4, see response by discharge device 50 to change in resonant frequency).
While Kuratani describes the use of 100 on the front or rear of a vehicle (see [0003], [0083] & [0143]) it does not specifically describe how it would be mounted/attached and whether it would be disposed in an aperture defined by a body of a vehicle.
However, Villalobos-Martinez describes a LIDAR assembly (24) mounted in an aperture (30, see FIG. 2) defined by a front bumper (26 see FIGS. 1 & 2) of a body of a vehicle (10, see FIG. 1).
Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez both describe different aspects of vehicle mounted sensors. Given that Kuratani is silent as to how its sensor assembly would be mounted to a vehicle, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to use the teachings of Villalobos-Martinez for instruction on how to mount the sensor assembly taught by Kuratani. Doing so would be obvious in light of [0025] of Villalobos-Martinez, which describes how securely fasteners are able to secure the sensor to the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the debris clearing assembly of claim 16, further comprising a vibration mechanism mechanically connected to the lens (FIG.2 shows vibrator 12/resonator 15 connected to protective cover 2).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the debris clearing assembly of claim 17, wherein:
the controller is electrically coupled to the vibration mechanism (FIG. 3 of Kuratani shows controller 20 electrically coupled to discharge device 50/air mover); and
the controller is configured to oscillate the lens via the vibration mechanism when the controller detects the fluid on the lens via the sensor (see vibratory oscillation FIG. 4 of Kuratani).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the debris clearing assembly of claim 16, wherein:
the vehicle comprises a vehicle body (see vehicle body of vehicle 10 as shown in FIG. 1 of Villalobos-Martinez) defining the external surface (exterior of vehicle 10) and an internal volume (cavity 28, FIG. 2 of Villalobos-Martinez); and
the air mover (nozzle 3 of Kuratani would be in cavity 28 when the teachings of Villalobos-Martinez are applied to Kuratani as described in the rejection of claim 16) is disposed in the internal volume.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez in view of US PG PUB 20200230659 (hereinafter Nabavi).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the vehicle sensor assembly of claim 4, but the combination fails to teach the remainder of claim 7.
However, Nabavi teaches wherein the air mover comprises a vacuum pump configured to move the air from beyond the external surface, over the outer surface, and into the internal volume ([0103] and [0144] of Nabavi describe a configuration in which fluid {examiner notes air is considered a fluid} is retrieved from an outlet for reapplying it to the sensor window, [0172] also describes the use of a pump to move the fluid around within the sensor cleaning components).
Nabavi and the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez both teach configurations for using some kind of fluid to clean a sensor window of a sensor. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez with an outlet for recirculating the cleaning fluid for reapplication of the fluid to the sensor window using a pump as taught by Nabavi. The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to do so in light of the teachings of Kuratani at [0083], which points out the disadvantages of needing a large tank to store a large amount of air or cleaning fluid in a tank since recirculating a portion of the cleaning fluid would reduce the size of the tank needed to support cleaning operations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez in view of US PG PUB 20060238893 (hereinafter Nakashima).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the vehicle sensor assembly of claim 1, but does not describe alternative configurations using different vibratory motors.
However, Nakashima describes wherein the vibration mechanism comprises an electromagnetic linear actuator or a rotary mass vibration motor ([0008] & [0112] describes the use of an electromagnetic linear actuator to move a lens).
Nakashima and the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos both describe configurations in which lenses are moved by some kind of electric motor. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the piezoelectric vibration mechanism taught by the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos with the electromagnetic linear actuator taught by Nakashima. Doing so would be obvious since applying a known device to yield predictable results would be obvious. Use of an electromagnetic linear actuator in lieu of a piezoelectric vibrator would be an improvement since electromagnetic linear actuators are known to allow for larger stroke distances and lower driving voltages than piezoelectric actuators.
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez in view of Mazeika et al, “Disc Type Piezoelectric Actuator for Optical Lens Positioning” (hereinafter Mazeika).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the visual sensor system of claim 9, but does not specifically teach a use case in which a vibrator induces translation of the lens about an axis perpendicular to a line of sight of the visual sensor.
However, the first column of page 261 of Mazeika teaches the use of an annular piezoelectric actuator used to apply asymmetric vibrations to a lens assembly, which would induce translation of the lens assembly about an axis perpendicular to a line of sight of the visual sensor.
Mazeika and the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez both describe configurations in which piezoelectric actuators are used to apply vibrations to a lens assembly. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the piezoelectric actuator taught by the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez with the teachings of Mazeika in order to give it the ability to impart a wider variety of vibrational profiles for more efficiently removing liquid by imparting offset square or sawtooth electrical waveforms to the piezoelectric actuator.
Regarding Claim 14, The visual sensor system of claim 13, wherein the vibration mechanism comprises a plurality of actuators (FIG. 2 of Mazeika shows how the piezoelectric actuator is made up of multiple different actuators with separate electrodes attached thereto and that the configuration of FIG. 2 also shows a ) disposed between the sidewall and the lens.
Regarding Claim 15, The visual sensor system of claim 14, wherein the plurality of actuators are spaced apart around a peripheral portion of the lens (FIG.2 of Mazeika also shows how the actuators are distributed around the peripheral portion of the lens. Examiner notes that while the piezoelectric actuator is arguably below the position of the lens as shown in FIG. 1, the instant application refers to actuators 230 as being arranged around the lens 115 periphery, and FIG. 4 clearly shows actuators 230 below lens 115).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez in view of 20200249354 (hereinafter Yeruhami).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez teaches the debris clearing assembly of claim 16, but does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a visual sensor.
However, Yeruhami teaches using a visual sensor to detect contaminates on the sensor window (FIG. 10F shows contaminate detection distributions on the sensor array of pixels 1034 as pointed out in FIG. 10E).
Yeruhami and the combination of Kuratani and Villalobos-Martinez both describe systems for removing obstructions from a sensor window. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to identify obstructions on the sensor window of the sensor using the sensor itself at least as a secondary object detection sensor since Kuratani already teaches the inclusion of an imaging element from FIG. 6, in accordance with the teachings of Yeruhami.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights