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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the first displacement” that should be “the first displacement of the first rod element”;
Claim 5 recites “the second displacement” that should be “the second displacement of the second rod element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the wiper unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 recites “a wiper unit”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a spring element, wiper arm with a lip, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0039] of the specification of the instant application).
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 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the wiper arm". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “a wiper arm”.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Born (1,734,937) in view of Jo (2019/0361227).
Regarding Claim 1, Born teaches A cleaning system (Fig. 1) comprising:
an actuator (Ref. 5, Fig. 1) configured to drive a first spindle element (Ref. 6&10, left side, Fig. 1) and a second spindle element (Ref. 6&10, right side, Fig. 1),
a first rod element (Ref. 8, left rod, Fig. 1), which is displaceably arranged on the first spindle element (Fig. 1),
a second rod element (Ref. 8, right rod, Fig. 1), which is displaceably arranged on the second spindle element (Fig. 1),
a wiper unit (Ref. 14, 18-19, Fig. 2), which is displaceably arranged on the first rod element (8, left rod) and on the second rod element (8, right rod),
wherein the actuator (5) is configured to displace the wiper unit towards a surface (Ref. 3, Fig. 1) by means of a first displacement of the first rod element (Fig. 1 shows the actuator provides a rotational displacement of the first rod element) along the first spindle element (Fig. 2) and by means of a second displacement of the second rod element (Fig. 1 shows the actuator provides a rotational displacement of the second rod element) along the second spindle element (Fig. 2) in order to clean the sensor surface with the wiper unit ([Pg. 1, Lines 84-86] describes "…the wiper rod 19 is pivoted toward the glass to press 8a the wiper into engagement therewith…").
Born teaches the surface is a glass surface (Ref. 3, Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach a Lidar cleaning system to have the wiper unit clean a sensor surface of a lidar sensor. Jo teaches a cleaning system with a wiper, an actuator, and rods and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to wipe a surface. Jo teaches a Lidar cleaning system (Fig. 1) comprising a window cover (Ref. 200, Fig. 1) for a LiDAR sensor (Fig. 1, [0033]), a wiper (Ref. 500, Fig. 1), an actuator (Ref. 300, Fig. 4), that is used to clean a glass surface ([0033-0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the glass surface, as taught by Born, to be a LiDAR sensor with a window cover, as taught by Jo, to achieve the predictable result of wiping a glass surface.
Regarding Claim 2, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Born further teaches wherein the first rod element (8, left rod) comprises a first carriage (Ref. 12, left side, Fig. 1&2) arranged on a first transverse guide (Ref. 15, left side, Fig. 2), wherein the second rod element (8, right rod) comprises a second carriage (Ref. 12, right side, Fig. 1) arranged on a second transverse guide (Ref. 15, right side, Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Born further teaches wherein the first spindle element (6, left side), the second spindle element (6, right side), the first transverse guide (15, left side), and the second transverse guide (15, right side) are arranged substantially parallel to one another (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Born further teaches wherein the first displacement (24) and the second displacement (26) are substantially opposite (Fig. 2 shows each rods and their displacements are opposite to one another on either side).
Regarding Claim 5, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Born further teaches wherein the first spindle element (6&10, left side) has a first surface contour (Fig. 2 shows a geared surface contour), wherein the first surface contour is configured to define a first displacement direction of the first displacement ([Pg. 1, Lines 56-61], Fig. 2), wherein the second spindle element (6&10, right side) has a second surface contour (Fig. 1-2 shows a geared surface contour), which is configured to define a second displacement direction of the second displacement ([Pg. 1, Lines 56-61], Fig. 2), wherein the first displacement direction and the second displacement direction are opposite to one another (Fig. 2 shows each rods and their displacements are opposite to one another on either side).
Regarding Claim 6, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Born further teaches wherein the first spindle element (6&10, left side) and the second spindle element (6&10, left side) are arranged on a side face of the LiDAR sensor (Fig. 1 top side face), wherein the wiper unit (18&19) comprises a lip (Ref. 18, Fig. 2) for cleaning the sensor surface ([Pg. 1, Lines 84-86] describes "…the wiper rod 19 is pivoted toward the glass to press 8a the wiper into engagement therewith…"), wherein the sensor surface (3) and the side face (top side) are arranged at an angle of about 90 degrees to one another (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 7, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Born further teaches wherein the lip (18) is fastened to the wiper unit (19) by means of a wiper arm (Ref. 19, Fig. 2), wherein the wiper arm (19) is releasably arranged on the wiper unit (Fig. 6, [Pg. 1, Lines 88-93]).
Regarding Claim 9, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Born further teaches wherein the wiper unit comprises a displacement element (Ref. 12, Fig. 1), wherein the displacement element (12) comprises a first bore (Ref. 13, left side, Fig. 1-2) and a second bore (Ref. 13, right side, Fig. 1-2), wherein the first rod element (8, left side) is arranged in the first bore (Fig. 2), wherein the second rod element (8, right side) is arranged in the second bore (Fig. 1-2), wherein the displacement element (12) is displaceable along the first rod element and the second rod element by means of a rotation of the first spindle element and the second spindle element (Fig. 1-4, [Pg. 1, Lines 48-72] describes rotating the spindles to displace the displacement element along the rods).
Regarding Claim 10, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Born further teaches wherein the LiDAR cleaning system comprises a housing (Ref. 44, Fig. 8) which at least partially encloses the first spindle element and the second spindle element ([Pg. 2, Lines 23-24]).
Regarding Claim 11, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Born further teaches wherein the first rod element (8, left rod) is arranged on the first spindle element (6&10, left) by means of a first threaded element (Ref. 10, left side, Fig .2), wherein the second rod element (8, right rod) is arranged on the second spindle element (6&10, right side) by means of a second threaded element (Ref. 10, right side, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Born as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Jo further teaches a vehicle ([0003]) comprising a LiDAR sensor and LiDAR cleaning system ([0003-0004], Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the LiDAR cleaning system, as taught by Born as modified, to be on a vehicle, as taught by Jo, to allow for autonomous parking function and the like [0003].
Claims 1-3, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth (7,574,769) in view of Jo (2019/0361227).
Regarding Claim 1, Nemeth teaches a cleaning system (Fig. 1) comprising:
an actuator (Ref. 20, Fig. 2) configured to drive a first spindle element (Ref. 22A, Fig. 2) and a second spindle element (Ref. 22, Fig. 3, [Col. 7, Lines 1-4] describes "…the motor of the presented invention would provide power to one or both drive rods. One practiced in the art would be able to design such a system using, for example, a series of gears or drive shafts to bring power from the motor to both drive rods…"),
a first rod element (Ref. 24, Fig. 2), which is displaceably arranged on the first spindle element (22a, Fig. 2),
a second rod element (Ref. 25, Fig. 3), which is displaceably arranged on the second spindle element (Fig. 3, [Col. 7, Lines 1-4]),
a wiper unit (Ref. 14, Fig. 1-2), which is displaceably (Fig. 1) arranged on the first rod element and on the second rod element (Fig. 4),
wherein the actuator is configured to displace the wiper unit (14) towards a surface (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) by means of a first displacement of the first rod element (Fig. 2, [Col. 6, Lines 56-58] describes "The motor turns one or more gears 22 which are intermeshed directly or indirectly with gears 22a attached to the drive rods 24 and (as shown in FIG. 3) 25.", examiner notes the actuator (20) provides a rotational displacement of the first rod element) along the first spindle element (Fig. 2) and by means of a second displacement of the second rod element (Fig. 3, [Col. 6, Lines 56-58] describes "The motor turns one or more gears 22 which are intermeshed directly or indirectly with gears 22a attached to the drive rods 24 and (as shown in FIG. 3) 25.", examiner notes the actuator (20) provides a rotational displacement of the second rod element (25)) along the second spindle element ([Col. 7, Lines 1-4]) in order to clean the sensor surface with the wiper unit (Fig. 1).
Nemeth teaches the surface is a glass surface (Ref. 3, Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach a Lidar cleaning system to have the wiper unit clean a sensor surface of a lidar sensor. Jo teaches a cleaning system with a wiper, an actuator, and rods and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to wipe a surface. Jo teaches a Lidar cleaning system (Fig. 1) comprising a window cover (Ref. 200, Fig. 1) for a LiDAR sensor (Fig. 1, [0033]), a wiper (Ref. 500, Fig. 1), an actuator (Ref. 300, Fig. 4), that is used to clean a glass surface ([0033-0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the surface, as taught by Nemeth, to be a LiDAR sensor with a window cover, as taught by Jo, to achieve the predictable result of wiping a glass surface.
Regarding Claim 2, Nemeth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Nemeth further teaches wherein the first rod element (24) comprises a first carriage (Ref. 16, right side, Fig. 4 ) arranged on a first transverse guide (Ref. 28, Fig. 2), wherein the second rod element (25) comprises a second carriage (Ref. 16, left side, Fig. 4) arranged on a second transverse guide (Ref. 26, [Col. 6, Line 61]).
Regarding Claim 3, Nemeth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Nemeth further teaches wherein the first spindle element (22A), the second spindle element (22, [Col. 7, Lines 1-4]), the first transverse guide (28), and the second transverse guide (26) are arranged substantially parallel to one another (Fig. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 8, Nemeth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Nemeth further teaches wherein the wiper unit (14) comprises a spring element (Ref. 30, Fig. 2) configured to press the wiper arm (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) and/or the lip against the sensor surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Nemeth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Jo further teaches a vehicle ([0003]) comprising a LiDAR sensor and LiDAR cleaning system ([0003-0004], Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the LiDAR cleaning system, as taught by Nemeth as modified, to be on a vehicle, as taught by Jo, to allow for autonomous parking function and the like ([0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brouwer (2022/0355766), Gu (2021/0116269), and Tsuruta (2018/0056945) teaches cleaning systems with a wiper, actuator, and rods and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights