CTNF 18/611,907 CTNF 64627 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings filed 3/21/2024 are approved by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. In the present application, the terms “first connecting means” and “second connecting means” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For the purpose of claim interpretation, first connecting means” and “second connecting means” are defined as: First connecting means – a permanent or electromagnetic magnet (paragraph [0009]). Second connecting means – a permanent or electromagnetic magnet (paragraph [0011]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 111632980 A) in view of Trebouet (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0387598) and Cheng et al (CN 110749188 A) . With respect to claim 1, Liu et al disclose: A LiDAR cleaning system [ figures 1 and 2 teach a camera cleaning system ] comprising: an actuator configured to displace a first connecting means along a predetermined direction [ gear motor (10) drives inner magnetic eraser (2) ] , a housing, said housing substantially completely enclosing the actuator and the first connecting means [ taught by waterproof housing (9) and window (8) ] , a wiper unit comprising a second connecting means [ taught by magnetic outer eraser (1); page 5 of the translation states, “…the magnetic outer eraser 1 is set on the outer side of the waterproof shell 9, and the magnetic inner eraser 2 is separated by the transparent cover plate 8, only by magnetic adsorption. the shell body of the magnetic outer eraser 1 is made of corrosion resistant plastic added with antibacterial substance; it is strip-shaped, the two sides of the bottom are embedded with blades…” ] , wherein the first connecting means and the second connecting means are force-conductively connected to each other [ the abstract states, “…The invention can solve the problem of cleaning outside of underwater camera, based on non- contact connection principle of magnetic force…” ], wherein the housing is at least partially arranged between the first connecting means and the second connecting means [ window (8) is shown between magnetic outer eraser (1) and magnetic inner eraser (2) ] , wherein the actuator is configured to displace the wiper unit along the predetermined direction via the first connecting means and the second connecting means to clean a sensor surface of a LiDAR sensor [ page 5 of the translation states , “…the magnetic inner eraser 2 through the inner eraser rotating shaft 3 is installed on the inner eraser rotating wheel 4; the magnetic outer eraser 1 located outside the transparent cover plate 8 is connected by magnetic force adsorption; the magnetic outer eraser 1 and the action are synchronous…” ]. Liu et al does not teach using their device in a LIDAR cleaning system. Trebouet teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a driven wiper to clean the outside of the window of a LIDAR device. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the cleaning system of Liu et al to a LIDAR because external wiping was a known way to clean these devices and Liu et al taught a way to keep drive structure inside a waterproof housing. Liu et al does not explicitly teach that the inner and outer magnetic erasers include a permanent or electromagnetic magnet. However, the use inner and outer magnetic erasers would have required known structure for creating a magnetic force; thus being obvious as a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan in light of Cheng et al, which shows it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used magnets (4) to provide an attractive force between a driving element (5) and a wiper (10). Claim 2 is met by the combination of Liu et al, Trebouet and Cheng et al, as applied to claim 1, because Liu et al taught teaches magnetic inner and outer erasers. Claims 3 and 4 are met by the combination of Liu et al, Trebouet and Cheng et al, as applied to claim 1, because Cheng et al teaches the use of magnets (4). Claim 5 further recites: wherein the housing comprises at least one guide element configured to form a pretensioning force on a lip of the wiper unit in order to clean the sensor surface. Figure 4 of Trebouet teaches that it was known to have provided a guide element ( support 126 ) including a support beam (128) configured to apply force to the rubber wiper blade (150). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device produced by the combination of Liu et al, Trebouet and Cheng et al, as applied to claim 1, to meet claim 5, when seeking to better clean a surface, as shown by figure 4 of Trebouet. Claim 11 is met by the combination of of Liu et al, Trebouet and Cheng et al, as applied to claim 1, because Trebouet taught using wipers in vehicle applications . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6-10, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 07-100 AIA Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981 . Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. /MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/611,907 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/611,907 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/611,907 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/611,907 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/611,907 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights