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
Claims 1-12 are currently pending on the application, all of which are amended.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous art rejections are withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
In light of the amendments, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because of the new references utilized to meet the new limitations.
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) 1, 5, & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2015231765A) in view of Yasuda (JP2005075218A), Shimizu (WO2019167766A1), and Sasaki (US20160207504A1).
As to claims 1, 9-10, & 11, Hayashi discloses a system for cleaning sensors (abstract) comprising: a pump (Fig.1 ref Pr or Fig.2 ref Ps); a plurality of spray nozzles (refs 13 & 14); a control unit (ref 17) which performs a cleaning method including: receiving a cleaning request from a sensor [0029, 0032-0037, & 0045-0050], determining a flow rate as a function of the request (see [0015-0016 & 0031] stating the flow rate is decided based on the request for the cleaning identifying a sensor is to be cleaned), adjusting a flow rate by varying voltage of the pump [0009, 0013-0014, 0031, 0037-0038, 0040, 0043-0045 & 0047] to provide a predetermined pressure for the determined flow rate (intrinsically present via control of pump rotation speed [0031]) to a nozzle (refs 13/14) for an associated sensor (refs 4/5). The adjustment of a flow rate via the rotational speed implicitly indicates that a pressure of fluid discharged by the pump is modified. Hayashi does not disclose pulse width modulation (pwm) signal for controlling the voltage, however such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Yasuda. Assuming arguendo the Hayashi does not explicitly disclose the adjustment of fluid pressure based on a PWM signal and the modification of a rotational speed of the pump motor, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Shimizu and Sasaki.
Yasuda discloses an art related system for cleaning of an element of a vehicle (abstract), wherein a known manner for controlling the voltage of a pump to adjust flow rate is through the use of a pwm signal [0013].
Shimizu discloses an art related vehicle cleaning system (abstract & title), wherein spray pressure of the pump motor can be advantageously adjusted using PWM [0146], thereby reducing fluid consumption [0147]. PWM control of the pump can reduce rotation speed and spray pressure [0148]. Utilizing PWM for controlling the pump allows for more efficient control [0149] and accurate fluid supply pressure to account for vehicle speed [0151] and temperature [0152].
Sasaki discloses an art related washer injector for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is known that PWM control signal for controlling a fluid pump changes discharge pressure of the pump by varying rotational speed [0097 & 0168] of the pump motor, to thereby account for viscosity variations based on temperature [0010] and enable a desired amount of fluid to be discharged [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hayashi to utilize a PWM signal to adjust the voltage and control the flow rate dispensed by the pump, as such is a known in configuration in the art. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner adjusting pump voltage in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to modify Hayashi to adapt the supply voltage via a PWM signal to vary the rotational speed of the pump motor to adjust the discharge pressure as needed to account for vehicle speed and/or temperature to ensure a desired amount of fluid is provided in an efficient manner (Shimizu [0147-0152] & Sasaki [0014]).
As to claim 5, Modified Hayashi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is a camera (see Hayashi refs 4/5 & [0020]).
As to claim 12, Modified Hayashi teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the control unit is configured to open a solenoid with the associated spray nozzle to allow cleaning fluid to pass through a pipe (Hayashi refs 15/18) connected to the spray nozzle (Hayashi see refs 16/19 also [0027-0028], electromagnetic switching valve which reads on a solenoid valve).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2015231765A) in view of Yasuda (JP2005075218A), Shimizu (WO2019167766A1), and Sasaki (US20160207504A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh (US 20220018461 A1), Ishii (US 4728260 A), and Yamamoto (US 20220113381 A1).
As to claim 2, Modified Hayashi teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose adapting the voltage based on a chart of various pressure per flow rate. However, the use of curves and stored tables relating pressure and flow rates of pumps are known in the art, as seen by Singh and Ishii. Further, the feature of utilizing lookup tables (equivalent to a chart) which store the relation between two parameters for control of a variable by a controller is well-known in the art, as seen by Yamamoto.
Singh discloses an art related sensor cleaning system and method (abstract), wherein it is known for a controller to correlate flow rate to pressure utilizing lookup tables [0060].
Ishii discloses an art related cleaning system for a vehicle (abstract & Col.1 line 10), wherein there is a known relationship between pump pressure and flow rate (see Fig.13 and Col.7 lines 20-25).
Yamamoto discloses an art related sensor apparatus for a vehicle (abstract), wherein a controller can utilize a variable in order to control the operation an element via adjustment of the amount electricity to the element [0064 & 0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hayashi to allow the controller to determine the voltage required based on a lookup table correlating pressure to flow rate as it is well-known to utilize lookup tables for correlating parameters and determining control operations (Singh [0060], Ishi Fig.13, & Yamamoto [0064 & 0098]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known manner of correlating parameters with output control operations when one is not explicitly disclosed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2015231765A) in view of Yasuda (JP2005075218A), Shimizu (WO2019167766A1), and Sasaki (US20160207504A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiyama (US 20190003238 A1) and Leleve (US 4865059 A).
As to claim 3, Modified Hayashi teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose that when the duty cycle of the pwm signal is 100% the voltage corresponds to a battery voltage of the vehicle. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Sugiyama and Leleve.
Sugiyama discloses an art related vehicle control system wherein power is adjusted by pwm control (abstract). Sugiyama further indicates that when a duty of the pwm signal is 100% then a battery voltage is applied, and when the duty cycle is lower than 100% than the voltage is decreased from battery voltage [0082-0083].
Leleve discloses an art related washing device for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is known that control for a fluid pump can be obtained utilizing a pwm circuit that is supplied with batter voltage (Col.5 lines 39-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hayashi to utilize battery voltage as a source voltage for the pump, as is known in the art (Leleve Col5 lines 39-45). Further, would also find it obvious to allow the controller to provide battery voltage to the pump when the duty cycle is 100%, as such is a common manner of control when utilizing pwm control (Sugiyama [0082-0083]). Such a modification would merely apply a known manner of providing pwm control, as Modified Hayashi does not explicitly detail the pwm control provided, and would be in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2015231765A) in view of Yasuda (JP2005075218A), Shimizu (WO2019167766A1), and Sasaki (US20160207504A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adachi (US 20220105902 A).
As to claim 4, Modified Hayashi teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose adapting the voltage based on an ambient condition. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Adachi.
Adachi discloses an art related vehicle cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to adjust voltage supply for controlling a pump based on an ambient temperature in order to remove bubbles and adapt for more viscous fluid being pumped [0196-0198].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hayashi to allow the controller to adjust the supply voltage based on the ambient temperature in order to remove bubbles and adapt for more viscous fluids being pumped (Adachi [0196-0198]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2015231765A) in view of Yasuda (JP2005075218A), Shimizu (WO2019167766A1), and Sasaki (US20160207504A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trebouet (WO2020064880A1).
As to claims 6-7, Modified Hayashi teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose the pressure being a function of the type of sensor being cleaned. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Trebouet.
Trebouet discloses an art related cleaning system for a motor vehicle (abstract), wherein it is shown that vehicles may be provided with multiple sensors (see Fig.1 ref 2) which require cleaning. Trebouet further indicates that some of such sensors on a vehicle are cameras while others are lidars, and depending on the sensor different pressures may be required [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hayashi to provide the controller with the capability of setting the pressure based on the sensor being cleaned (Trebouet [0022]) in order to allow for the cleaning of lidar sensors which may be present with vehicles.
US20210268995A1 [0050]
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2015231765A) in view of Yasuda (JP2005075218A), Shimizu (WO2019167766A1), and Sasaki (US20160207504A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Galera (US 20170313286 A1) and evidentiary reference Namyoung (KR19980034224U).
As to claim 8, Modified Hayashi teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose the pressure for cleaning. However, such pressures are known for cleaning, as seen by Galera.
Galera discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein known pressures for cleaning of a sensor are within the range of 0.5 to 9 bar [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hayashi to provide a pressure of 0.5 to 9 bar for the cleaning of the sensor. Further, as it is well-known in the art that increasing of a pressure of cleaning improves cleaning efficiency (e.g., see evidentiary reference Namyoung abstract). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize a high pressure within the range including within the range of 6-8 bar, while reserving a pressure of 9 bar for the cleaning of the windshield utilizing the pump at the higher voltage.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2015231765A) in view of Yasuda (JP2005075218A), Shimizu (WO2019167766A1), and Sasaki (US20160207504A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krishnan (US 20180354468 A1).
As to claims 9-10, Modified Hayashi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that a control unit reads on a computer (see Hayashi [0029 0032-0033, 0035, 0047, & 0050] a control unit which executes procedures based on determinations made from data obtained reading on a computer). Further, a control unit which makes determinations based on sensor data intrinsically has memory which stores the instructions which the control unit executes. However, assuming arguendo that Modified Hayashi does not explicitly indicate that the control unit is a computer with a non-transitory computer-readable medium, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Krishnan.
Krishnan discloses an art related vehicle sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is indicated that a controller for controlling a pump system is a computer that utilizes a computer which includes non-transitory medium in order to execute instructions [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the control unit of Hayashi to be a computer with a processor and memory in order to allow the control unit to perform tasks to control the pump (Krishnan [0065]) based on stored information after intaking data, as is well-known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frey (DE102004007273A1) discloses that pump voltage is controlled so flow rate is adjusted while maintaining pressure [0019].
Kolanowski (US20170072915A1) discloses controlling fluid output pressure of a pump and rotational speed via modulation of a pulse-width signal [0032 & 0042] and allows for reduced outlet pressure and consumption to utilize for defrosting [0014].
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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711