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 – 18 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the term " like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination the limitation will be examined as “a chain seal element”.
Claims 8 – 9 and 15 – 16 are further rejected as being dependents on rejected claim 7.
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.
Claims 1 – 6, 10 – 14 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trebouet (FR 3105133 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Trebouet teaches a sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) for cleaning a sensor field (cleaning surface, 202) of a sensor (Paragraph [0002] and [0024]), said apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising at least one wiper drive housing (housing, 4 AND 5), which houses at least a majority of at least one wiper drive unit (drive assembly, 6 with motor, 5; Fig. 1 ), comprising at least one wiper (arm, 9) arranged at least partially outside of the wiper drive housing (Fig. 1) and configured to clean the sensor field (202) by way of a wiping motion (Paragraph [0003])), and comprising at least one wiper receiving element (carriage, 8) for transferring a drive movement from the wiper drive unit (6) to the wiper (9; Paragraph [0040]) and a sealing unit (sealing device, 25) configured for an at least water-tight seal of the wiper drive housing (Paragraphs [0011] and [0012]) and comprising at least one movable passage opening (opening, 46) for the wiper receiving element (8) and/or for the wiper.
Regarding Claim 2, Trebouet teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the sealing unit (25) comprises at least one movably mounted sealing element (lips, 14).
Regarding Claim 3, Trebouet teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the movable passage opening (46) and/or the movably mounted sealing element (14) is/are configured to follow the wiping movement during a wiping operation of the wiper (10, the sealing element and the opening of th follow the wiper movement as the opening and lips move as the wiper moves).
Regarding Claim 4, Trebouet teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the wiper receiving element (8) and/or the wiper (9) is/are at least connected to the sealing unit (14) in a water-tight manner (Paragraphs [0011] and [0012]).
Regarding Claim 5, Trebouet teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the sealing element (14) is configured as a flexible tape (Fig. 4 - lip seals 14 are made of waterproof deformable polymer formed in a tape manner).
Regarding Claim 6, Trebouet teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the sealing unit (14) comprises a faceplate (42), which seals the sealing element (14) towards a front side (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Trebouet teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the sealing element (14) comprises at least one guide element (attachment member, 84) for guiding the movement of the sealing element (14), which is configured for an engagement with a corresponding guide element (lever, 7) of the wiper drive housing (4/5).
Regarding Claim 11, Trebouet teaches a sensor (Paragraph [0024]) having a sensor field (202) and having the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) according to claim 1 for cleaning the sensor field (202).
Regarding Claim 12, Trebouet teaches a vehicle (Paragraph [0001]) having a sensor (Paragraph [0024]) according to claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13, Trebouet teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1), wherein the sensor is a LiDAR sensor in a vehicle (Paragraph [0002).
Regarding Claim 14, Trebouet teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the wiping motion of the wiper (9) is exclusively translational (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Trebouet teaches the sensor (Fig. 1) wherein the sensor is a LiDAR sensor (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 18, Trebouet teaches the vehicle where the vehicle is an air, water, and/or land vehicle (Paragraph [0033] – motor vehicle which can be all three).
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.
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 7 – 9 and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trebouet (FR 3105133 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Trebouet teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Trebouet does not teach wherein the sealing unit comprises a chain-like seal support element, which supports at least one flexible sealing element extending over a plurality of chain links of the seal support element, however, 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 apparatus of Trebouet to explicitly teach the sealing unit comprises a chain-like seal support element, which supports at least one flexible sealing element extending over a plurality of chain links of the seal support element, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of
ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Trebouet, as modified, teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus of claim 7 as discussed above.
Trebouet does not teach the seal support element includes chain links that are at least connected to one another in a water-tight manner, and are at least rotatable relative to one another, however, 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 apparatus of Trebouet to explicitly teach the seal support element includes chain links that are at least connected to one another in a water-tight manner, and are at least rotatable relative to one another, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, Trebouet, as modified, teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus of claim 7 as discussed above.
Trebouet does not teach the seal support element is configured as an endless chain or an open chain, however, 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 apparatus of Trebouet to explicitly teach the seal support element is configured as an endless chain or an open chain, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 15, Trebouet, as modified, teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus of claim 8 as discussed above.
Trebouet does not teach wherein the chain links are clipped onto one another, however, 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 apparatus of Trebouet to explicitly teach the seal support element is configured as an endless chain or an open chain, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 16, Trebouet, as modified, teaches the sensor cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the sealing element (14) comprises at least one guide element (attachment member, 84) for guiding the movement of the sealing element (14), which is configured for an engagement with a corresponding guide element (lever, 7) of the wiper drive housing (4/5).
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: U. S. Patent Publication 2023/0358869 A1 to Wijntjes teaches a system having has a housing module for cooperating with the sensing device, comprising a window opening, that defines a sensor window plane, for receiving the sensor window of the optical sensing device. A wiper module includes a wiper (for wiping the sensor window. A drive module comprises a rotary output organ. A kinematic transformer module is interconnected between the drive module and the wiper module and configured for transforming a rotation of the rotary output organ of the drive module so as to drive the wiper in a cyclic wiper trajectory.
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