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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 11-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed on 05/08/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0203077 to Gokan (hereinafter “Gokan”) in view of US 2021/0109345 to Robertson, JR. et al. (hereinafter “Robertson”).
Regarding claim 1, Gokan teaches a cleaning device for cleaning a vehicle-mounted camera comprising a liquid controller configured to control washer fluid spraying to at least one sensor located in a vehicle (cleaning liquid-pump driving unit that controls operation of the cleaning liquid pump for spraying the lens of the camera) ([0037] and figures 3 and 7), and an air controller configured to control air spraying to at least one sensor located in the vehicle (air-pump driving unit that controls operation of the air pump for spraying the lens of the camera) ([0037] and figures 3 and 7). Gokan further teaches that the cleaning action determined by the cleaning-operation determiner (figure 7, #51) is for stablishing the frequency of air blowing or liquid supplied based on the speed of the vehicle and according if it is raining (see figure 8, and [0055-0062].
Gokan does not teach that the liquid controller is configured to adjust a duty cycle of a washer fluid control signal in inverse proportion to an amount of rain to decrease a washer fluid spraying force as the amount of rain increases, wherein the air controller is configured to adjust a duty cycle of an air control signal in inverse proportion to the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal.
Robertson teaches a system comprising a sensor including a lens, a cleaning component, means for identifying a contaminant on the lens, and means for actuating the cleaning component to remove the contaminant from the lens [0021], wherein the cleaning component includes a fluid spray and an air nozzle [0034]. In addition, Robertson teaches that the precipitation sensor detects precipitation, e.g., rain, and communicates with a computer over a network, wherein based on data from the precipitation sensor, the computer can actuate one or more components to remove the contaminant from the lens [0047]. Moreover, Robertson teaches that if the precipitation sensor detects rain, the computer can actuate an air nozzle and suppress actuation of a fluid spray [0047-0048].
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 disclosed by Gokan wherein the liquid controller is configured to adjust a duty cycle of a washer fluid control signal in inverse proportion to an amount of rain to decrease a washer fluid spraying force as the amount of rain increases, wherein the air controller is configured to adjust a duty cycle of an air control signal in inverse proportion to the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Robertson teaches that when the precipitation sensor detects precipitation (e.g., rain), further liquid may not be necessary for removing the contaminant, and that the cleaning controller can actuate the air nozzle to remove the precipitation and the contaminant, and suppress actuation of the fluid spray ([0047-0048] of Robertson).
Regarding claim 5, Gokan/Robertson does not explicitly teach that the air controller is configured to when confirming that the liquid controller has adjusted a duty cycle of a washer fluid control signal, adjust a duty cycle of an air control signal according to an adjustment value of the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal.
However, 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 disclosed by Gokan/Robertson wherein the air controller is configured to when confirming that the liquid controller has adjusted a duty cycle of a washer fluid control signal, adjust a duty cycle of an air control signal according to an adjustment value of the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Robertson teaches that when the precipitation sensor detects precipitation (e.g., rain), further liquid may not be necessary for removing the contaminant, and that the cleaning controller can actuate the air nozzle to remove the precipitation and the contaminant, and suppress actuation of the fluid spray ([0047-0048] of Robertson).
Regarding claim 11, Gokan teaches a control method of a cleaning device for cleaning a lens of a vehicle-mounted camera (reads on “at least one sensor”), the method comprising the steps of determining the vehicle speed and/or an amount of rain (see figure 7, and [0036]), controlling a cleaning liquid-pump driving unit for controlling the operation of the cleaning liquid pump for spraying the lens of the camera ([0037] and figures 3 and 7) and controlling an air-pump driving unit for controlling the operation of the air pump for spraying the lens of the camera ([0037] and figures 3 and 7).
Gokan does not teach the steps of adjusting the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal in inverse proportion to the amount of rain to decrease a washer fluid spraying force as the amount of rain increases, and adjusting a duty cycle of an air control signal in inverse proportion to the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal.
Robertson teaches a method and a system for removing contaminants from a sensor, the system comprising a sensor including a lens, a cleaning component, means for identifying a contaminant on the lens, and means for actuating the cleaning component to remove the contaminant from the lens [0021], wherein the cleaning component includes a fluid spray and an air nozzle [0034]. In addition, Robertson teaches that the precipitation sensor detects precipitation, e.g., rain, and communicates with a computer over a network, wherein based on data from the precipitation sensor, the computer can actuate one or more components to remove the contaminant from the lens [0047]. Moreover, Robertson teaches that if the precipitation sensor detects rain, the computer can actuate an air nozzle and suppress actuation of a fluid spray [0047-0048].
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 method disclosed by Gokan with the steps of adjusting the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal in inverse proportion to the amount of rain to decrease a washer fluid spraying force as the amount of rain increases, and adjusting a duty cycle of an air control signal in inverse proportion to the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Robertson teaches that when the precipitation sensor detects precipitation (e.g., rain), further liquid may not be necessary for removing the contaminant, and that the cleaning controller can actuate the air nozzle to remove the precipitation and the contaminant, and suppress actuation of the fluid spray ([0047-0048] of Robertson).
Regarding claim 12, Gokan/Robertson does not explicitly teach the steps of adjusting a duty cycle of an air control signal according to an adjustment value of the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal, and controlling an air spraying force or spraying amount for the at least one sensor located in the vehicle, by using an air control signal with an adjusted duty cycle.
However, 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 method disclosed by Gokan/Robertson with the steps of adjusting a duty cycle of an air control signal according to an adjustment value of the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal, and controlling an air spraying force or spraying amount for the at least one sensor located in the vehicle, by using an air control signal with an adjusted duty cycle, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Robertson teaches that when the precipitation sensor detects precipitation (e.g., rain), further liquid may not be necessary for removing the contaminant, and that the cleaning controller can actuate the air nozzle to remove the precipitation and the contaminant, and suppress actuation of the fluid spray ([0047-0048] of Robertson).
Regarding claim 14, Gokan/Robertson does not explicitly teach that the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal and the duty cycle of the air control signal are adjusted with priority given to the amount of rain.
However, 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 method disclosed by Gokan/Robertson wherein the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal and the duty cycle of the air control signal are adjusted with priority given to the amount of rain, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of saving the cleaning fluid, since Robertson teaches that when the precipitation sensor detects precipitation (e.g., rain), further liquid may not be necessary for removing the contaminant, and that the cleaning controller can actuate the air nozzle to remove the precipitation and the contaminant, and suppress actuation of the fluid spray ([0047-0048] of Robertson).
Regarding claim 15, Gokan/Robertson further teaches a computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for performing the method ([0035, and 0062-0063] of Robertson).
Claims 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0203077 to Gokan (hereinafter “Gokan”) in view of US 2021/0109345 to Robertson, JR. et al. (hereinafter “Robertson”), and in further view of JP2005186855 to Shibata et al. (hereinafter “Shibata”, English translation).
Regarding claim 2, Gokan/Robertson does not teach that the liquid controller is configured to adjust a duty cycle of a washer fluid control signal in proportion to the vehicle speed to increase a washer fluid spraying force as the vehicle speed increases.
Shibata teaches a vehicle washer control device which controls the spray pressure and spray amount of washer fluid in accordance with the vehicle speed (English translation [0030]). Shibata teaches that the electric control unit is configured to change the duty ratio of the pulse current (the current flowing through the motor device) based on the detection value of the vehicle speed, which reduces or increases the rotation speed of the motor device and driving force of the pump device, thereby reducing or increasing the injection pressure and injection amount of the washer fluid injected through the injection nozzles for cleaning the front side or rear side windows (English translation [0034-0035]).
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 disclosed by Gokan/Robertson wherein the liquid controller is configured to adjust a duty cycle of a washer fluid control signal in proportion to the vehicle speed to increase a washer fluid spraying force as the vehicle speed increases, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Shibata teaches that it is effective to configure the electric control unit to change the duty ratio of the pulse current (the current flowing through the motor device) based on the detection value of the vehicle speed, which reduces or increases the rotation speed of the motor device and driving force of the pump device, thereby reducing or increasing the injection pressure and injection amount of the washer fluid injected through the injection nozzles for cleaning a surface (English translation [0034-0035] of Shibata).
Regarding claim 7, Gokan/Robertson does not teach that the liquid controller and/or the air controller are further configured to dynamically adjust a number of washer fluid sprayings or air sprayings according to the vehicle speed.
Shibata teaches a vehicle washer control device which controls the spray pressure and spray amount of washer fluid in accordance with the vehicle speed (English translation [0030]). Shibata teaches that the electric control unit is configured to change the duty ratio of the pulse current (the current flowing through the motor device) based on the detection value of the vehicle speed, which reduces or increases the rotation speed of the motor device and driving force of the pump device, thereby reducing or increasing the injection pressure and injection amount of the washer fluid injected through the injection nozzles for cleaning the front side or rear side windows (English translation [0034-0035]). Moreover, Shibata teaches that if the detected value of the vehicle speed detection sensor is greater than a predetermined speed threshold, it is considered to be high-speed driving, and the ON time of the switching element units is increased to increase the duty cycle of the pulse current (English translation [0035]).
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 disclosed by Gokan/Robertson wherein the liquid controller and/or the air controller are further configured to dynamically adjust a number of washer fluid sprayings, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Shibata teaches that the electric control unit is configured to change the duty ratio of the pulse current (the current flowing through the motor device) based on the detection value of the vehicle speed, which reduces or increases the rotation speed of the motor device and driving force of the pump device, thereby reducing or increasing the injection pressure and injection amount of the washer fluid injected through the injection nozzles for cleaning the front side or rear side windows (English translation [0034-0035] of Shibata), wherein if the detected value of the vehicle speed detection sensor is greater than a predetermined speed threshold, it is considered to be high-speed driving, and the ON time of the switching element units is increased to increase the duty cycle of the pulse current (English translation [0035] of Shibata).
Regarding claim 8, Gokan/Robertson does not teach that the liquid controller and/or the air controller are configured to dynamically adjust the duty cycle of the control signal according to the vehicle speed and the amount of rain.
Shibata teaches a vehicle washer control device which controls the spray pressure and spray amount of washer fluid in accordance with the vehicle speed (English translation [0030]). Shibata teaches that the electric control unit is configured to change the duty ratio of the pulse current (the current flowing through the motor device) based on the detection value of the vehicle speed, which reduces or increases the rotation speed of the motor device and driving force of the pump device, thereby reducing or increasing the injection pressure and injection amount of the washer fluid injected through the injection nozzles for cleaning the front side or rear side windows (English translation [0034-0035]).
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 disclosed by Gokan/Robertson wherein the liquid controller is configured to dynamically adjust the duty cycle of the control signal according to the vehicle speed and the amount of rain, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Robertson teaches that the precipitation sensor detects precipitation, e.g., rain, and communicates with a computer over a network, wherein based on data from the precipitation sensor, the computer can actuate one or more components to remove the contaminant from the lens ([0047] of Robertson), wherein if the precipitation sensor detects rain, the computer can actuate an air nozzle and suppress actuation of a fluid spray ([0047-0048] of Robertson), and Shibata teaches that the electric control unit is configured to change the duty ratio of the pulse current (the current flowing through the motor device) based on the detection value of the vehicle speed, which reduces or increases the rotation speed of the motor device and driving force of the pump device, thereby reducing or increasing the injection pressure and injection amount of the washer fluid injected through the injection nozzles for cleaning the front side or rear side windows (English translation [0034-0035] of Shibata), wherein if the detected value of the vehicle speed detection sensor is greater than a predetermined speed threshold, it is considered to be high-speed driving, and the ON time of the switching element units is increased to increase the duty cycle of the pulse current (English translation [0035] of Shibata).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0203077 to Gokan (hereinafter “Gokan”) in view of US 2021/0109345 to Robertson, JR. et al. (hereinafter “Robertson”), and in further view of WO 2016/177380 to Nyenstad (hereinafter “Nyenstad”).
Regarding claim 3, Gokan/Robertson does not teach that the air controller is configured to adjust a duty cycle of an air control signal in inverse proportion to the vehicle speed to reduce an air spraying force as the vehicle speed increases.
However, Nyenstad teaches a cleaning system for cleaning the car glass, lights and side mirrors based on air jets (page 2, lines 2-8 of Nyenstad). Nyenstad teaches that the air flow of the air jet can be regulated based on the velocity of the vehicle, and that the advantage of regulating the air flow based on the velocity is that by using the natural air flow that is created when the vehicle moves, it is possible to operate the system with a lower effect, thereby reducing the power consumption (page 11, lines 15-18 of Nyenstad). In addition, Nyenstad teaches that the air flow can be inversely proportional to the velocity of the vehicle (page 11, lines 15-23 of Nyenstad).
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 disclosed by Gokan/Robertson wherein the air controller is configured to adjust a duty cycle of an air control signal in inverse proportion to the vehicle speed to reduce an air spraying force as the vehicle speed increases, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Nyenstad teaches that the air flow of the air jet of a cleaning system of a vehicle can be regulated based on the velocity of the vehicle, that the advantage of regulating the air flow based on the velocity is that by using the natural air flow that is created when the vehicle moves, it is possible to operate the system with a lower effect, thereby reducing the power consumption, and that the air flow can be inversely proportional to the velocity of the vehicle (page 11, lines 15-23 of Nyenstad).
Regarding claim 4, Gokan/Robertson does not teach that the liquid controller and/or the air controller are configured to predefine a duty cycle of the control signal for each of a plurality of vehicle speed sections and adjust the duty cycle of the control signal according to the vehicle speed.
Nyenstad teaches a cleaning system for cleaning the car glass, lights and side mirrors based on air jets (page 2, lines 2-8 of Nyenstad). Nyenstad teaches that the air flow of the air jet can be regulated based on the velocity of the vehicle, and that the air flow can be inversely proportional to the velocity of the vehicle (page 11, lines 15-23 of Nyenstad). Moreover, Nyenstad teaches that regulating the air flow based on a maximum predefined level of velocity and a predefined minimum level of velocity (page 12, lines 20-34 of Nyenstad).
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 disclosed by Gokan/Robertson wherein the air controller is configured to predefine a duty cycle of the control signal for each of a plurality of vehicle speed sections and adjust the duty cycle of the control signal according to the vehicle speed, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Nyenstad teaches that the air flow of the air jet can be regulated based on the velocity of the vehicle, and that the air flow can be inversely proportional to the velocity of the vehicle (page 11, lines 15-23 of Nyenstad), wherein regulating the air flow can be based on a maximum predefined level of velocity and a minimum predefined level of velocity (page 12, lines 20-34 of Nyenstad).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0203077 to Gokan (hereinafter “Gokan”) in view of US 2021/0109345 to Robertson, JR. et al. (hereinafter “Robertson”), and JP2005186855 to Shibata et al. (hereinafter “Shibata”, English translation), and in further view of WO 2016/177380 to Nyenstad (hereinafter “Nyenstad”).
Regarding claim 13, Gokan/Robertson further teaches that the step of adjusting the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal includes adjusting the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal to be inversely proportional to the amount of rain, and the step of adjusting the duty cycle of the air control signal includes adjusting the duty cycle of the air control signal to be proportional to the amount of rain ([0047-0048] of Robertson).
Gokan/Robertson does not teach that the step of adjusting the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal includes adjusting the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal to be proportional to the vehicle speed, and that the step of adjusting the duty cycle of the air control signal includes adjusting the duty cycle of the air control signal to be inversely proportional to the vehicle speed.
Shibata teaches a vehicle washer control device which controls the spray pressure and spray amount of washer fluid in accordance with the vehicle speed (English translation [0030]). Shibata teaches that the electric control unit is configured to change the duty ratio of the pulse current (the current flowing through the motor device) based on the detection value of the vehicle speed, which reduces or increases the rotation speed of the motor device and driving force of the pump device, thereby reducing or increasing the injection pressure and injection amount of the washer fluid injected through the injection nozzles for cleaning the front side or rear side windows (English translation [0034-0035]).
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 method disclosed by Gokan/Robertson wherein the step of adjusting the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal includes adjusting the duty cycle of the washer fluid control signal to be proportional to the vehicle speed, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Shibata teaches that it is effective to configure the electric control unit to change the duty ratio of the pulse current (the current flowing through the motor device) based on the detection value of the vehicle speed, which reduces or increases the rotation speed of the motor device and driving force of the pump device, thereby reducing or increasing the injection pressure and injection amount of the washer fluid injected through the injection nozzles for cleaning a surface (English translation [0034-0035] of Shibata).
Gokan/Robertson/ Shibata does not teach that the step of adjusting the duty cycle of the air control signal includes adjusting the duty cycle of the air control signal to be inversely proportional to the vehicle speed.
However, Nyenstad teaches a cleaning system for cleaning the car glass, lights and side mirrors based on air jets (page 2, lines 2-8 of Nyenstad). Nyenstad teaches that the air flow of the air jet can be regulated based on the velocity of the vehicle, and that the air flow can be inversely proportional to the velocity of the vehicle (page 11, lines 15-23 of Nyenstad). Moreover, Nyenstad teaches that regulating the air flow based on a maximum predefined level of velocity and a predefined minimum level of velocity (page 12, lines 20-34 of Nyenstad).
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 method disclosed by Gokan/Robertson/ Shibata wherein the step of adjusting the duty cycle of the air control signal includes adjusting the duty cycle of the air control signal to be inversely proportional to the vehicle speed, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Nyenstad teaches that the air flow of the air jet can be regulated based on the velocity of the vehicle, and that the air flow can be inversely proportional to the velocity of the vehicle (page 11, lines 15-23 of Nyenstad), wherein regulating the air flow can be based on a maximum predefined level of velocity and a minimum predefined level of velocity (page 12, lines 20-34 of Nyenstad).
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 ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights