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
The Amendment filed 27 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 1 December 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, and 15 are 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.
Claims 2-5 all recite the limitation "the at least one assumed position" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear if it requires the pressure sensor to “generate at least one measuring signal” in each one of the plurality of positions, any of the plurality of positions, or a particular one of the plurality of positions.
Claim 3 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear if it requires the pressure sensor to “generate at least one measuring signal” in each one of the plurality of positions, any of the plurality of positions, or a particular one of the plurality of positions.
Claim 4 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear if it requires the pressure sensor to “generate at least one measuring signal” in each one of the plurality of positions, any of the plurality of positions, or a particular one of the plurality of positions.
Claim 5 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear if it requires the pressure sensor to “generate at least one measuring signal” in each one of the plurality of positions, any of the plurality of positions, or a particular one of the plurality of positions.
Claim 6 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear if it requires the pressure sensor to “close a circuit of the nozzle heater” in each one of the plurality of positions, any of the plurality of positions, or a particular one of the plurality of positions.
Claim 8 is rejected as being indefinite because it appears to require the pressure measuring element to assume the plurality of positions, which would require the pressure measuring element to be in a plurality of locations (“positions”) at the same time, and this is impossible.
Claims 9-10 and 15 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear if it requires the pressure measuring element to “open or close a circuit when reaching” each one of the plurality of positions, any of the plurality of positions, or a particular one of the plurality of positions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 6-9, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rappl (US 2,556,440).
Regarding claim 1, Rappl teaches a cleaning device (col. 1, ln. 1-4) for cleaning a see-through area of an environment sensor of a motor vehicle and for determining an operating-pressure- dependent functional state of at least one cleaning nozzle, the cleaning device comprising: the at least one cleaning nozzle (5), which is configured to dispense a cleaning fluid (col. 1, ln. 51-52), wherein the at least one cleaning nozzle comprises a pressure sensor (col. 2, ln. 30-43 – “a hydraulic switch”) configured to assume a plurality of positions (col. 2, ln. 36 – “a circuit-open position”; col. 2, ln. 40 – “a circuit closing position”) as a function of an operating pressure of the cleaning fluid at the cleaning nozzle (col. 2, ln. 36-40) and thus determine an operating-pressure-dependent functional state of the at least one cleaning nozzle as at least one measuring signal (col. 2, ln. 40-43 – interpreted to be the state in which the resistance element is energized to heat the liquid at the nozzle).
Regarding claim 4, Rappl teaches the cleaning device described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the at least one assumed position of the pressure sensor indicates that the operating pressure at the at least one cleaning nozzle is in a design operating pressure range (col. 2, ln. 37-40), the pressure sensor being configured to generate at least one measuring signal in this plurality of positions by opening or closing a measuring circuit, the at least one measuring signal indicating a design operation functional state of the at least one cleaning nozzle (col. 2, ln. 40-43 – in this position the circuit will be closed and electrical current will be supplied to the heater).
Regarding claim 6, Rappl teaches the cleaning device described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the cleaning device comprises at least one nozzle heater (14), which is provided in an area of a nozzle head (figs. 1, 2 – the heater is provided in the conduit 6, which is near the nozzle head 5), for freeing the at least one cleaning nozzle head from ice and/or snow (col. 2, ln. 45-46 – “warm” water will melt ice and/or snow), the pressure sensor being configured to close a circuit of the nozzle heater in the plurality of positions, thereby activating the nozzle heater (col. 2, ln. 37-43).
Regarding claim 7, Rappl teaches the cleaning device described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the at least one cleaning nozzle comprises at least one nozzle head (5) and/or a cleaning fluid supply line (6) and/or a check valve in which the pressure sensor is at least partially accommodated or integrated (use of the phrase “and/or” is interpreted to recite this element as being optional).
Regarding claim 8, Rappl teaches the cleaning device described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the pressure sensor comprises a pressure measuring element (19), a counter-pressure applicator (21) and a fluid riser duct (fig. 2 – unlabeled, interpreted to be the housing of the piston 19 and spring 21) in which the pressure measuring element is disposed in a displaceable manner and configured to be displaced (col. 2, ln. 35-40; fig. 2) against a counter-pressure force generated by the counter-pressure applicator (col. 2, ln. 35-36), as a function of the operating pressure of the cleaning fluid at the cleaning nozzle so as to assume the plurality of positions (col. 2, ln. 36-40).
Regarding claim 9, Rappl teaches the cleaning device described regarding claim 8, and further wherein the counter-pressure applicator comprises at least one spring element (col. 2, ln. 35).
Regarding claim 11, Rappl teaches the cleaning device described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the at least one measuring signal comprises a binary measuring information or information on a discrete operating pressure measuring value (col. 2, ln. 36-43 – the circuit is either open or closed, therefore it is “binary” based on the operating pressure of the fluid).
Regarding claim 15, Rappl teaches the cleaning device described regarding claim 9, and further wherein the at least one spring element is a return spring (col. 2, ln. 35-36), and/or a magnetic spring element and/or a hydraulic spring element and/or a pneumatic spring element (because of the phrase “and/or”, each of these is interpreted as being optional).
Regarding claim 18, Rappl teaches the cleaning device described regarding claim 7, and further wherein the at least one cleaning nozzle and the pressure sensor are integrated (fig. 1 – both individual parts are combined together within the larger unit or assembly or whole of the cleaning device, see also definition of “integrated” in the American Heritage Dictionary).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ida et al. (US 2022/0118950) in view of Klein et al. (US 4,779,762).
Regarding claim 1, Ida teaches a cleaning device (10) for cleaning a see-through area of an environment sensor of a motor vehicle (par. 2) and for determining an operating-pressure-dependent functional state of at least one cleaning nozzle (par. 22), the cleaning device comprising: the at least one cleaning nozzle (par. 36; fig. 2), which is configured to dispense a cleaning fluid (par. 36), wherein the at least one cleaning nozzle comprises a pressure sensor (18, see fig. 2) configured to assume at least one position as a function of an operating pressure of the cleaning fluid at the cleaning nozzle (par. 36 – “a pressure threshold”) and thus determine an operating-pressure-dependent functional state of the at least one cleaning nozzle as at least one measuring signal (par. 36 – “determines that clogging has occurred in the exhaust nozzle”).
Ida does not explicitly disclose that the pressure sensor is configured to assume a plurality of positions as a function of an operating pressure of the cleaning lfuid at the cleaning nozzle.
Klein teaches a fluid nozzle (28, see col. 1, ln. 33-35) comprising a pressure sensor (36) configured to assume a plurality of positions as a function of an operating pressure of the fluid at the nozzle (col. 11, ln. 38-51) and thus determine an operating-pressure-dependent functional state of the fluid nozzle (col. 4, ln. 39-48).
It would have been obvious to have modified the cleaning device of Ida to further comprise pressure sensor that is configured to assume a plurality of positions as a function of an operating pressure, as taught by Klein. Ida does not disclose the specific structure or type of pressure sensor used, and Klein teaches a specific pressure sensor configured to use in a fluid system to determine and control an operating-pressure-depending functional state of a fluid nozzle. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to pressure sensor of Klein in the cleaning device of Ida.
Regarding claim 2, Ida in view of Klein discloses the cleaning device described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the at least one assumed position of the pressure sensor indicates that there is no operating pressure or a reference operating pressure at the at least one cleaning nozzle (par. 37 – “a predetermined ejection pressure”), the pressure sensor being configured to generate at least one measuring signal in this plurality of positions by opening or closing a measuring circuit, the at least one measuring signal indicating the functional state of the at least one cleaning nozzle, said functional state being free from operating pressure or subject to reference operating pressure (par. 37 - control unit 21 may adjust the opening degree of the pressure adjusting valve 19 on the basis of…a predetermined ejection pressure…smaller than the pressure threshold”).
Regarding claim 3, Ida in view of Klein discloses the cleaning device described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the at least one assumed position of the pressure sensor indicates that the operating pressure at the at least one cleaning nozzle deviates from a design operating pressure, the pressure sensor being configured to generate at least one measuring signal in this plurality of positions by opening or closing a measuring circuit, the at least one measuring signal indicating that the functional state of the cleaning nozzle is deviating from the design operating pressure, in particular malfunctioning (par. 36 – “if the control unit 21 determines that clogging has occurred in the exhaust nozzle, the control unit 21 may give, to an external device such as a display via the interface 20, a warning indicating the occurrence of a nozzle anomaly”).
Regarding claim 5, Ida in view of Klein discloses the cleaning device described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the at least one assumed position of the pressure sensor indicates that the operating pressure at the at least one cleaning nozzle is in an overpressure range in which the at least one cleaning nozzle is at least partially blocked by a foreign body and/or a disturbance, and/or is pressurized incorrectly (par. 36), the pressure sensor being configured to generate at least one measuring signal in this plurality of positions by opening or closing a measuring circuit (par. 36 – several actions are taken if the pressure indicates a clog), the at least one measuring signal indicating an overpressure functional state of the at least one cleaning nozzle (par. 36 – “a predetermined value greater than atmospheric pressure”).
Regarding claim 12, Ida discloses a roof module (fig. 1) for forming a vehicle roof on a motor vehicle (11), the roof module comprising: a panel component which at least partially forms a roof skin of the vehicle roof, the roof skin serving as an outer sealing surface of the roof module (fig. 1), at least one environment sensor (13) configured to send and/or receive electromagnetic signals through a see-through area so as to detect a vehicle environment (par. 24), and Ida, in view of Klein, discloses the at least one cleaning device described regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Ida teaches a motor vehicle (11, see par. 21) comprising: a roof module for forming a vehicle roof on a motor vehicle, the roof module comprising a panel component which at least partially forms a roof skin of the vehicle roof, the roof skin serving as an outer sealing surface of the roof module (fig. 1), at least one environment sensor (13) configured to send and/or receive electromagnetic signals through a see-through area so as to detect a vehicle environment (par. 24), and/or the at least one cleaning device of Ida in view of Klein described regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Ida in view of Klein discloses the motor vehicle described regarding claim 13, and further which comprises comprising a motor vehicle body (fig. 1), wherein the roof module forms a structural unit disposed on the motor vehicle body (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Ida in view of Klein discloses the motor vehicle described regarding claim 14, but not explicitly that the structural unit disposed on the motor vehicle body is an at least one body rail of the motor vehicle body. Nevertheless, it was well-known to include a body rail supporting the roof module on the vehicle body of the motor vehicle. Further, Ida discloses mounting the environmental sensor to a number of positions on the vehicle body in order to collect data at that portion of the motor vehicle (par. 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural unit of the motor vehicle of Ida to be at least one body rail.
Regarding claim 17, Ida in view of Klein discloses the cleaning device described regarding claim 1, and Klein further teaches wherein the plurality of positions is at least three positions (fig. 3; col. 11, ln. 41-51 – there are an infinite number of positions).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappl in view of Ida.
Regarding claim 10, Rappl discloses the cleaning device described regarding claim 8, but not further wherein the pressure measuring element is configured to open or close a circuit when reaching the plurality of positions so as to generate the at least one measuring signal and trigger a shutoff of the cleaning nozzle depending on the functional state.
Ida teaches the cleaning device described above regarding claim 1, and further wherein the pressure measuring element is configured to open or close a circuit when reaching the plurality of positions so as to generate the at least one measuring signal and trigger a shutoff of the cleaning nozzle depending on the functional state (par. 36 – if the pressure exceeds the threshold value, valve 23 is closed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning device of Ida such that the pressure measuring element is configured to open or close a circuit when reaching the plurality of positions so as to generate the at least one measuring signal and trigger a shutoff of the cleaning nozzle depending on the functional state, as taught by Ida. This was known to shut off the flow to the cleaning nozzle when it is determined that the nozzle is plugged (Ida, par. 36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding Rappl have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of this reference being used in the current rejection. Therefore, Rappl is interpreted to teach the newly added limitations of amended claim 1, as explained in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Ida have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752