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, 4-8 and 10-14 are pending
Claims 2-3, 9 and 15-19 have been canceled
Claims 1, 4 and 13-14 have been
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 1, 4-8 and 10-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “...the liquid controller is configured to output a control signal having a certain duty cycle to the washer pump motor to adjust a spraying intensity of the washer fluid, wherein the liquid controller is further configured to, for each control signal for driving the washer pump motor, determine a number of operations of the washer pump motor...” This statement is unclear because it introduces the phrase “for each control signal” without first clearly establishing that multiple, distinct control signals are generated or how such signals are defined relative to one another. Earlier in the claim, the liquid controller is configured to “output a control signal having a certain duty cycle”. This phrasing implies a singular control signal and does not expressly introduce a plurality of control signals as separate signals. There is no explicit recitation that the controller outputs discrete control signals. However, the later clause states “for each control signal for driving the washer pump motor”, which presumes that multiple control signals exist and for each a determination is made on a number of operations. The word “each” inherently refers to members of a defined set, yet no set of control signals is previously defined. This creates ambiguity regarding what control single to analysis for determining “a number of operations”. Additionally, the recitation of “when the on-period exceeds the predefined reference length, a single control signal corresponds to a plurality of operations” further confuses the control signal definition. It is unclear how or if “a single control signal” is related to the previously recited control signals. As a result, the particular metes and bounds of the control signal are unclear.
Claims 13 and 14 further recites “adjust a duty cycle of a control signal”. However, “a control signal having a certain duty cycle” is defined in claim 1 from which claims 13 and 14 depend. It is unclear if these are the same control signals or different control signals. Further claims 13 and 14 recites “the control signal” however, multiple control signals are defined previous to reciting “the control signal”. Therefore, it is unclear what “the control signal” is referring to.
Claims 4-8 and 10-14 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “for each control signal for driving the washer pump motor, determine a number of operations of the washer pump motor based on a length of an on period of a control signal and a predefined reference length”, this reads as a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitation of “determine” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “controller” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally judging if the pump should be stopped based on observations of an on period.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the decision is made the washing pump is stopped for an undefined idle time based on an undefined number of operations based on the metal step, which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. Controlling the washing pump under undefined circumstances is equivalent to merely applying the judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a vehicle sensor, as washing pump and a controller for operating the washing pump and idling the washing pump, which are well understood, routine and conventional in vehicle sensor cleaning art, as further discussed below. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recite “the maximum number of operations is determined according to an outside temperature.”, this reads as a judgment and therefore could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitation of “determine” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “controller” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally or with pen and paper determining the maximum number of operations based on an observation of the outside temperature.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the decision is made the washing pump is controlled generically by stopping or continuing to operate based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. Controlling the washing pump is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a vehicle sensor, as washing pump and a controller for operating the washing pump and idling the washing pump, which are well understood, routine and conventional in vehicle sensor cleaning art, as further discussed below. Claim 4 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 13 and 14 recite “adjust a duty cycle of a control signal for controlling the washer pump motor according to an outside temperature/supply voltage”, this reads as a judgment and therefore could be a mental step. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section Ill). The limitation of “adjust...according to” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “controller” language, “adjust...according to” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally or with pen and paper deciding how to adjust the duty cycle based on an observed an outside temperature/supply voltage.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a particular practical application because once the determination is made the washing pump is controlled generically based on the mental step(s), which amounts to “applying” the abstract idea generally without integrating it into a particular practical application. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a particular practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04 (d) I. Controlling the washing pump is equivalent to merely applying the “judicial exception” and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a vehicle sensor, as washing pump and a controller for operating the washing pump and idling the washing pump, which are well understood, routine and conventional in vehicle sensor cleaning art, as further discussed below. Claims 13-14 are therefore not patent eligible.
The remaining claims further modify the abstract ideas discussed above and/or recite well understood, routine and conventional features in vehicle sensor cleaning art and therefore are not patent eligible for the same reasons above.
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 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(s) 1, 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. WO2020/162085 (US 2022/0097658 used for citations) (WO’085) in view of Schmidt US 2019/0210570 (US’570).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 13, WO’085 teaches a vehicle sensor cleaning apparatus (vehicle system including external sensors, para. 93-97, fig. 1) comprising: a washer pump motor configured to spray a washer fluid on at least one sensor located in a vehicle, wherein the liquid controller is configured to output a control signal having a certain duty cycle to the washer pump motor to adjust a spraying intensity of the washer fluid (motor pumps that supply the cleaning fluid to the cleaner units that eject cleaning fluid to on-vehicle objects to be cleaned, abstract and 112-120 any spraying process would enharnetly have a intensity and duty cycle); and a liquid controller configured to control the washer pump motor (vehicle control unit 3, para. 94-97, see fig. 2), wherein the liquid controller is further configured to stop the washer pump motor from operating for a predefined idle time (stop time t2, by providing the operation stop time period t2 for stopping the discharge of the cleaning fluid after the pump and the solenoid valves are operated and the cleaning fluid is discharged to the LiDARs 6f, 6r, 6l, heat dissipation properties of the pump and the solenoid valves can be improved, and deterioration of the front pump 112 and the solenoid valves 22 to 24 due to overheating can be prevented, see fig. 7-8, para. 136-142) when a determined number of operations of the washer pump motor reaches a predefined maximum number of operations (the cleaner control unit 116 determines whether the number of operations of the front pump and the like based on one cleaning signal received from the vehicle control unit 3 is equal to or greater than a threshold value, a predetermined number of times (step S5), see fig. 7).
WO’085 does not teach wherein the liquid controller is further configured to, for each control signal for driving the washer pump motor, determine a number of operations of the washer pump motor based on a length of an on period of a control signal and a predefined reference length, such that, when the on-period exceeds the predefined reference length, a single control signal corresponds to a plurality of operations, with regard to claim 1, wherein the maximum number of operations is determined according to an outside temperature, with regard to claim 4 and wherein the liquid controller is further configured to adjust a duty cycle of a control signal for controlling the washer pump motor according to an outside temperature and output the control signal having the adjusted duty cycle, with regard to claim 13.
US’570 teaches a vehicle sensor cleaning system (abstract). The system includes a computer 105 can specify a first liquid pump 140 duty cycle and a first air pump 145 duty cycle to allow cleaning the sensor 110 upon request by the vehicle 101 user. The computer 105 can determine the duty cycle for the liquid pump 140 (i.e., the liquid pump 140 duty cycle) and the duty cycle for the air pump (i.e., the air pump 145 duty cycle) based on a temperature of the sensor 110 and an amount of occluding material on the sensor 110. The sensors may increase in temperature based on current environmental conditions. during vehicle operation, sensor data and/or environmental conditions around a vehicle can be changing, and such changes can affect sensor operation. It is a problem to process the various factors and to maintain sensors in a usable condition. The process overcomes these problems by cooling and cleaning the sensor based on the temperature of the sensor and the amount of occluding material on the sensor (abstract para. 38-39, 63-68, table 1, see fig. 8). Therefore, US’570 teaches assigning a duty cycle to a vehicle sensor cleaning process, such as the process of WO’085, based on the outside environmental temperature and the dirtiness of the sensor to maintain the sensor in a usable condition. The combination of the teachings of US’570 and WO’085 teach controlling pump operation based on both the necessity to idle mechanical equipment to prevent damage and a recognition that outside environmental factors impact pump operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of WO’085 to include wherein the liquid controller is further configured to, for each control signal for driving the washer pump motor, determine a number of operations of the washer pump motor based on a length of an on period of a control signal and a predefined reference length, such that, when the on-period exceeds the predefined reference length, a single control signal corresponds to a plurality of operations, with regard to claim 1, wherein the maximum number of operations is determined according to an outside temperature, with regard to claim 4 and wherein the liquid controller is further configured to adjust a duty cycle of a control signal for controlling the washer pump motor according to an outside temperature and output the control signal having the adjusted duty cycle, with regard to claim 13 because US’570 teaches it can maintain the sensor in a usable condition, therefore the combined teachings of US’570 and WO’085 teach controlling pump operation based on both the necessity to idle mechanical equipment to prevent damage and a recognition that outside environmental factors impact pump operations and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’085 in view of US’570 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang US2023/0182689 (US’689).
Regarding claims 5-6, the modified apparatus of WO’085 teaches the vehicle sensor cleaning apparatus of claim 1.
The modified apparatus of WO’085 does not teach at least one compressor motor configured to compress air to spray air on the at least one sensor located in the vehicle; and an air controller configured to control the at least one compressor motor, with regard to claim 5 and wherein washer fluid spraying and air spraying are alternately performed, with regard to claim 6.
US’689 teaches a spray structure for cleaning a sensor and, more particularly, to a spray structure for cleaning an environmental sensor on a vehicle (para. 2-6). The spray structure can provide a cleaning fluid or air to the sensor for cleaning. Compressed air from a compressor motor or washer fluid may be supplied from the supply channel 130 disposed in the rod 110 to the lidar sensor L sequentially through the manifold provided in the lower plate 200 and the lower nozzles 210 (para. 52-62 see fig. 1-5). According to the present disclosure, it is possible to provide various cleaning patterns to maximize the cleaning performance of a lidar sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of WO’085 to include at least one compressor motor configured to compress air to spray air on the at least one sensor located in the vehicle; and an air controller configured to control the at least one compressor motor, with regard to claim 5 and wherein washer fluid spraying and air spraying are alternately performed, with regard to claim 6 because US’689 teaches it provides various cleaning patterns to maximize the cleaning performance of a lidar sensor.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’085 in view of US’570 and US’689 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2023/0166694 (US’694).
Regarding claim 7, the modified apparatus of WO’085 teaches the vehicle sensor cleaning apparatus of claim 5.
The modified apparatus of WO’085 does not teach wherein the air controller is further configured to alternately operate a plurality of compressor motors.
US’694 teaches an assisted sensor cleaning system configured to receive support from a cooperative system that assists the sensor cleaning system (abstract). The cooperative system uses multiple air compressors to reduce the load of the compressor used for the air cleaning system to reduce the frequency of compressor breakdown by operating a sensor cleaning system in conjunction with a compressor used for another system in a vehicle (para 10-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of WO’085 to include wherein the air controller is further configured to alternately operate a plurality of compressor motors because US’694 teaches it can reduce the load of the compressor used for the air cleaning system to reduce the frequency of compressor breakdown by operating a sensor cleaning system in conjunction with a compressor used for another system in a vehicle.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’085 in view of US’570 and US’689 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US’694 and Knight US2004/0211398 (US’398).
Regarding claim 8, the modified apparatus of WO’085 teaches the vehicle sensor cleaning apparatus of claim 1.
The modified apparatus of WO’085 does not teach wherein the air controller is further configured to alternately operate a plurality of compressor motors.
US’694 teaches an assisted sensor cleaning system configured to receive support from a cooperative system that assists the sensor cleaning system (abstract). The cooperative system uses multiple air compressors to reduce the load of the compressor used for the air cleaning system to reduce the frequency of compressor breakdown by operating a sensor cleaning system in conjunction with a compressor used for another system in a vehicle (para 10-44, see fig. 1-3). US’398 teaches a multiple electric motor driven air compressor, for example, for gasoline or diesel engine powered vehicles. Using multiple motors simultaneously in the air compressor allows a higher-pressure air to be achieved compared with a single motor air compressor (para. 3-14 and 22-38, see fig. 1). Therefore, the multi-motor air compressor of US’398 can be used as the “another vehicle system” of US’694 to supply high pressure air to the air tank of US’694 for achieving reduced the frequency of compressor breakdown as taught by US’694.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of WO’085 to include wherein the air controller is further configured to alternately operate a plurality of compressor motors because US’694 teaches it can reduce the load of the compressor used for the air cleaning system to reduce the frequency of compressor breakdown by operating a sensor cleaning system in conjunction with a compressor used for another system in a vehicle and US’694 teaches another system of a vehicle can include a multi-motor air compressor of US’398 can supply a higher pressure air supply than conventional single motor air compressors.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’085 in view of US’570 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deane et al. US 2020/0001832 (US’832).
Regarding claims 10-12, the modified apparatus of WO’085 teaches the vehicle sensor cleaning apparatus of claim 1.
The modified apparatus of WO’085 does not teach a plurality of heaters configured to provide heat to prevent freezing of a washer fluid sprayer and/or air sprayer that sprays washer fluid and/or air on the at least one sensor located in the vehicle; and a heating controller configured to control the plurality of heaters, with regard to claim 10, wherein the heating controller is further configured to output control signals to the plurality of heaters at predefined intervals in order to prevent an excessive inrush current, with regard to claim 11 and wherein the heating controller is further configured to repeatedly output a control signal including a predefined on period and off period to each of the plurality of heaters a certain number of times, with regard to claim 12.
US’832 teaches systems and methods for cleaning, drying, and thermally managing vehicle components, the vehicle components can include various sensors and, more particularly, the surfaces of cameras, LIDAR sensors, etc., that need to be clean to effectively perceive the environment around the vehicle (abstract). The system includes multiple heaters including a parasitic heater 1212 and an electric heater 1213 are arranged (i) in series with each other and (ii) in parallel (e.g., to form a hybrid parasitic-electric heater). the controller 1224 is configured to selectively disengage the electric heater 1213 when the hot fluid 1201 recirculating between the engine 1214 and the parasitic heater 1212 is sufficiently warm (e.g., after a predetermined time period, when the vehicle is put into drive, and/or under some other condition. The controller can receive the temperature signals and apply or shut off electric current to the channel's heating element such that desired temperatures are achieved. Heaters can be designed to apply enough power to heat fluid from ambient to the desired delivery temperature in a desired amount of time, usually less than 60 seconds. This enables the vehicle components to be repetitively cleaned with properly heated fluid. In some embodiments, the centralized controller can selectively apply current to the channels' heaters to maintain electric power usage within desired limits, FIG. 38 is a graph of fluid temperature versus time for the heating of washer fluid within a heating chamber. the fluid heating system provides an initial rapid fluid heating 3806 curve. This can provide the washer fluid with enough thermal energy to reduce its viscosity, increase its flow rate, and improve its cleaning ability. Once the lower limit 2802 of the target temperature range is reached, the fluid heating system may manage the expenditure of power in different ways to reduce power draw from the vehicle. If power is readily available, heating may continue as before, following the curve 3808 denoting continued rapid fluid heating. If cumulative power management is needed, the fluid heating system may reduce the power provided to the heater in the heating chamber, resulting in a reduced power fluid heating curve 3810 (para. 68, 98-101, 222). Therefore, US’832 teaches that heating the washing fluid of the apparatus of WO’085 provides the washer fluid with enough thermal energy to reduce its viscosity, increase its flow rate, and improve its cleaning ability and the power demands of the heating process on the vehicle can be managed by providing multiple heaters that are controlled at predefined intervals depending on the power needs of the vehicle. By limiting the use of the resistive heater, excessive inrush current would be prevented.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of WO’085 to include a plurality of heaters configured to provide heat to prevent freezing of a washer fluid sprayer and/or air sprayer that sprays washer fluid and/or air on the at least one sensor located in the vehicle; and a heating controller configured to control the plurality of heaters, with regard to claim 10, wherein the heating controller is further configured to output control signals to the plurality of heaters at predefined intervals in order to prevent an excessive inrush current, with regard to claim 11 and wherein the heating controller is further configured to repeatedly output a control signal including a predefined on period and off period to each of the plurality of heaters a certain number of times, with regard to claim 12 because US’832 teaches it provides the washer fluid with enough thermal energy to reduce its viscosity, increase its flow rate, and improve its cleaning ability and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’085 in view of US’570 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takai et al. US 2014/0166109 (US’109).
Regarding claim 14, the modified apparatus of WO’085 teaches the vehicle sensor cleaning apparatus of claim 1.
The modified apparatus of WO’085 does not teach wherein the liquid controller is further configured to dynamically adjust a duty cycle of a control signal for controlling the washer pump motor according to a supply voltage, and output the control signal having the adjusted duty cycle.
US’109 teaches the pump control device 11 embeds an inverter circuit (not shown in the figures) composed of a microprocessor, a switching element, and the like; modifies a duty cycle regarding ON/OFF of an electric power supply of the electric motor 21 by a PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) system; and controls a rotating speed of the electric motor 21. By the pump control device 11, in the washer pump system 1, an adjustment of the pressure of the washer fluid guided to the first derivation flow channel 6 (i.e., a selection of closing or opening the first and second distribution flow channels 112 and 114) can be facilitated. Also, even in a case wherein a certain amount of power-supply voltage is supplied from the electric power supply, there also has the advantage that an electric voltage which is applied to the electric motor 21 can be easily adjusted by changing the duty cycle. Incidentally, an adjustment of the electric voltage which is applied to the electric motor 21 may be carried out by providing not only the aforementioned PWM control (para. 64). The supply voltage of the motor driving the pump is controlled by controlling the PWM or duty cycle, which reads on a duty cycle of a control signal for controlling the washer pump motor according to a supply voltage. Controlling the supply voltage and the PWM allows the fluid pressure to be controlled more precisely when supplying multiple fluid flow paths (para. 10-18 and 64-73), such as the apparatus of WO’085 which cleans multiple sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of WO’085 to include wherein the liquid controller is further configured to dynamically adjust a duty cycle of a control signal for controlling the washer pump motor according to a supply voltage, and output the control signal having the adjusted duty cycle because US’190 teaches allows the fluid pressure to be controlled more precisely when supplying multiple fluid flow paths, such as the apparatus of WO’085 which cleans multiple sensors.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 to incorporate subject matter of claim 3 into claim 1 and include subject matter regarding further control signals has changed the scope of claim 1. However, the teachings of WO’085 and US’570 still appear to read on the limitation recited. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejection of claim 1 is made under 103 as obvious over WO’085 in view of US’570 which includes both the rejection of claim 1 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 8-26-25 and rejection of claim 3 as stated in the non-final office action relevant to subject matter incorporated into claim 1 and additional discussion regarding the newly added subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-26-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments that, the claim elements are integrated into the practical operation of tangible components to achieve a technological cleaning function and improved hardware longevity, has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the “determine” limitations is drafted at a high level of generality and is not structurally confined to any particular signal configuration. As discussed above with regard to the 112 and 101 rejection of claim 1, the claim does not define what constitutes the “control signal” or how multiple signals are configured. Instead, it broadly recites determining “a number of operations” based on undefined values and unclear control signals.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the duty cycle of the washer pump motor is not constant each time) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As discussed above with regard to the 112 rejection of claim 1, the metes and bounds of the “control signal” are not clear because it introduces the phrase “for each control signal” without first clearly establishing that multiple, distinct control signals are generated or how such signals are defined relative to one another. Earlier in the claim, the liquid controller is configured to “output a control signal having a certain duty cycle”. This phrasing implies a singular control signal and does not expressly introduce a plurality of control signals as separate signals. There is no explicit recitation that the controller outputs discrete control signals or that they encompass different duty cycles.
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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713