CTNF 18/615,420 CTNF 79605 DETAILED ACTION 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than one paragraph in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. 06-11 AIA 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. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: LIDAR CLEANING SYSTEM . 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. 07-30-06 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: “an actuator which is configured to displace a cleaning arm” 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 4-7 and 9-10 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. Each of claims 4 and 6-7 recites the limitation "the further fluid channel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Are claims 4 and 6-7 each meant to depend from claim 3 instead of claim 2? Additionally, each of claims 4-7 in line 2 also recites “the fluid channel” and this is inconsistent from the phrasing of claim 2 that recites “… at least one fluid channel.” Claim 9 line 2 recites “the air deflection element”. Claim 8, from which claim 9 depends, recites that the arm as “ at least one air deflection element.” Claim 9 is inconsistent in the number of air deflection elements required. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 10 recites the limitation " The vehicle… " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Trebouet, US 2021/0387598 . Regarding claim 1, Trebouet discloses a LiDAR cleaning system comprising: an actuator (actuator not shown, paragraph [0053]; includes drive arm 122) which is configured to displace a cleaning arm (121) along a sensor surface of a LiDAR sensor (surface of 140, paragraph [0043], Figure 2), wherein the cleaning arm has at least one nozzle unit (124, Figure 4), wherein the LiDAR cleaning system is configured to clean the sensor surface (Figure 2) by displacing the cleaning arm and by discharging at least one fluid using the nozzle unit (see arrow D in Figures 2-3 directed to the movement direction of the cleaning arm, see also paragraph [0059]). Regarding claim 2, the cleaning arm (121) has a first side on which at least one fluid channel is arranged (123 on right side as oriented in Figure 4), wherein the fluid channel has at least one nozzle opening (124 on right side as oriented in Figure 4) which is configured to direct the at least one fluid onto the sensor surface (Figure 4). Regarding claim 3, the cleaning arm (121) has a second side on which at least one further fluid channel is arranged (123 on left side as oriented in Figure 4), wherein the further fluid channel has at least one further nozzle opening (124 on left side as oriented in Figure 4) which is configured to direct the at least one fluid onto the sensor surface (Figure 4), wherein a first discharge direction of the nozzle opening and a second discharge direction of the further nozzle opening are oriented substantially opposite to each other (as they are oriented on opposite sides of wiper blade 150 in Figure 4). Regarding claim 4, the fluid channels (123) have a plurality of nozzle openings for discharging fluid onto the sensor surface (124, paragraph [0059]), wherein a first subset of the plurality of nozzle openings has a first setting angle and wherein a second subset of the plurality of nozzle openings has a second setting angle (paragraph [0059] states that the nozzles are distributed over an entire length of the ducts or channels 123; one subset may be associated with one channel 123 the other subset associated with the other channel 123 and Figure 4 shows that these subsets of nozzle openings have the same setting angle, angled directly towards surface 140). Regarding claim 5, the plurality of nozzle openings are arranged on the fluid channel (Figure 4) based on a predetermined pattern (the pattern being “distributed over an entire length” of the duct or channel as described in paragraph [0059]). Regarding claim 7, the fluid channels (123) are configured to connect to a fluid source (fluid reservoir, paragraphs [0011] and [0060]) by means of an attachment of the cleaning arm to the LiDAR cleaning system (see Figures and claim 2). Regarding claim 8, the cleaning arm has at least one air deflector element (151, Figure 4), wherein the air deflector element is configured to deflect an air flow to assist the discharge of the fluid onto the sensor surface (paragraph [0059], Figure 4). Regarding claim 10, there is a vehicle (300) comprising the LiDAR cleaning system of claim 1 (see discussion relating to claim 1; paragraph [0039]) . 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trebouet, US 2021/0387598 in view of Paskov et al., US 10,040,430 . Trebouet discloses all elements previously discussed above, however fails to disclose that the fluid channels have at least one heating element. Paskov et al. teaches a cleaning system that incorporates cleaning fluid on a vehicle (Abstract). Regarding claim 6, the cleaning system includes fluid channels (32) for cleaning fluid to flow from a reservoir to a nozzle (Figure 1), the fluid channels have at least one heating element (36) in order to raise the temperature of the fluid based on outside ambient temperature (column 5 lines 27-31, 53-56). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid channels of Trebouet to further include at least one heating element, as taught by Paskov et al., so that the temperature of the cleaning fluid can be heated if the ambient temperature surrounding the vehicle is cold in order to ensure effective cleaning . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trebouet, US 2021/0387598 in view of Egner-Walter et al., DE 3829465 A1 (see English translation) . Trebouet discloses all elements previously discussed above, however fails to disclose that the cleaning arm is configured to change an orientation of the air deflection element. Egner-Walter et al. teach a cleaning system with a cleaning arm (10) having at least one air deflector element (spoiler 23, Figure 1), the air deflector element is configured to deflect an air flow (see English translation of Abstract, and English translation discussing Figure 1). Regarding claim 9, the cleaning arm is configured to change an orientation of the air deflection element (via pivot pin 22, see English translation) so that it is adjustable relative to a surface being cleaned depending on outside variables (speed, direction of airflow, force; see English translation entirely including the Abstract), the adjustment should be made so that there is an appropriate contact pressure between the arm and the surface being cleaned (see English translation discussion of Figure 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one air deflection element of Trebouet so that it is configured to change an orientation, as taught by Egner-Walter et al., in order to maintain an optimal contact pressure between the cleaning arm and the sensor surface being cleaned. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm. 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 at 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 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. /LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 lcg Application/Control Number: 18/615,420 Page 2 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/615,420 Page 3 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/615,420 Page 4 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/615,420 Page 5 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/615,420 Page 7 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/615,420 Page 8 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/615,420 Page 9 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/615,420 Page 10 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/615,420 Page 11 Art Unit: 3723
Prosecution Insights