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
Below is the Final Actions on claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 13. Claim 3 is cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1 – 2 and 4 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karsten (DE 102017216917 A1) as cited by Applicant – see machine translation provided in view of Abe et al. (JP 2020005104 A) citing equivalent (U. S. 2021/0261068 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Karsten teaches a system for cleaning a detection surface sensor (Fig. 3B) comprising: a cleaning device (droplet dispenser, 23; Fig. 3B) including a plurality of nozzles (Annotated Fig. 3B) configured to deposit droplets of liquid on an acceleration surface (protective screen, 4) situated upstream of the detection surface (field of view, 8), a tank (Paragraph [0038]) connected to the cleaning device (23) and configured to store the liquid (Paragraph [0038]), and a device for accelerating the movement of the droplets of liquid (superhydrophobic layer, 30 with hydrophobic layer of 4; Paragraph [0024]) from the acceleration surface (4) onto the detection surface (Paragraph [0025]).
Karsten does explicitly teach the cleaning system wherein the liquid has a surface tension greater than a surface tension of said detection surface.
Abe, however, teaches the liquid (20) has a surface tension greater than a surface tension of said detection surface (Paragraphs [0034] and [0047]; Fig. 7).
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 system of Karsten to explicitly teach the liquid has a surface tension greater than a surface tension of said detection surface, as taught by Abe, to provide a system that enhances wetting thus improving contact and signal transfer.
Regarding Claim 2, Karsten teaches the cleaning system of claim 1 as discussed above.
Karsten teaches droplets but does not explicitly teach the droplets have a volume of between 2 L and 50 L.
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 system of Karsten to explicitly teach the droplets have a volume of between 2 L and 50 L, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the
size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Karsten teaches the cleaning system for cleaning a detection surface sensor (Fig. 3B) wherein said nozzles (Annotated Fig. 3B) are spaced apart from one another such that said droplets form a water front (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 5, Karsten teaches the cleaning system for cleaning a detection surface sensor (Fig. 3B) wherein said cleaning device (23) further comprises a perforated bar (Annotated Fig. 3B) connected on one side to said nozzles (Annotated Fig. 3B) and on another side to said tank (Paragraph [0038]).
Regarding Claim 6, Karsten teaches the cleaning system for cleaning a detection surface sensor (Fig. 3B) wherein said cleaning device (23) further comprises comprising a support element for the perforated bar (Annotated Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 7, Karsten teaches the cleaning system for cleaning a detection surface sensor (Fig. 3B) wherein said acceleration device is: an air flow-projection device, or a device composed of a grid of electrodes that is configured to be passed through by an electrical current, or a device configured to create a Leiden frost effect, or a device configured to synthesize an ultrasonic wave propagating in the acceleration surface, or a device composed of particles of different polarities (Karsten teaches superhydrophobic layer as discussed in Paragraph [0038] which inherently teaches a composite material combining low surface energy chemistry with nanoscale surface roughness to trap air, creating a texture where water beads up and rolls off effortlessly, preventing wetting and allowing for self-cleaning; and thus teaches a device composed of particles of different polarities).
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Karsten teaches an assembly (Fig. 3B) comprising a detection surface (8) of a sensor (camera, 3) and a cleaning system (Fig. 3B), with the cleaning system (Fig. 3B) including a cleaning device (23) with a plurality of nozzles (Annotated Fig. 3B) configured to deposit droplets of liquid on an acceleration surface (protective screen, 4) situated upstream of the detection surface (Fig. 3B), a tank (Paragraph [0038]) connected to the cleaning device (23) and configured to store the liquid (Paragraph [0038]), and a device for accelerating the movement of the droplets of liquid (superhydrophobic layer, 30 with hydrophobic layer of 4; Paragraph [0024]) from the acceleration surface (4) onto the detection surface (Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 9, Karsten teaches the assembly (Fig. 3B) wherein the sensor (3) is an optical sensor (camera, 3; Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 10, Karsten teaches the assembly (Fig. 3B) the detection surface and the acceleration surface form part of the sensor or the detection surface (8) and the acceleration surface (4) do not form part of the sensor (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 11, Karsten teaches the assembly (Fig. 3B) wherein the detection surface (8) and the acceleration surface (4) are on the same plane (Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 12, Karsten teaches the assembly (Fig. 3B) a portion of the detection surface (8) is partially coincident with a portion of the acceleration surface (4; Fig. 3B).
Regarding Independent Claim 13, Karsten teaches a method for cleaning a detection surface (8) of a sensor (3) for a vehicle comprising: depositing droplets of liquid on an acceleration surface (4) of the sensor (3); the acceleration surface (4) being situated upstream of the detection surface (8), by means of a plurality of nozzles (Annotated Fig. 3B) of a cleaning device (23), accelerating the movement of the droplets of liquid from the acceleration surface (4) onto the detection surface (8) by means of an acceleration device (30; Paragraph [0038]).
Karsten does explicitly teach the cleaning system wherein the liquid has a surface tension greater than a surface tension of said detection surface.
Abe, however, teaches the liquid (20) has a surface tension greater than a surface tension of said detection surface (Paragraphs [0034] and [0047]; Fig. 7).
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 system of Karsten to explicitly teach the liquid has a surface tension greater than a surface tension of said detection surface, as taught by Abe, to provide a system that enhances wetting thus improving contact and signal transfer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated February 10, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Abe.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights