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 .
Priority
The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: The instant application, filed on 03/27/2024, claims foreign priority to DE Application No. 102023203051.9, filed on 03/31/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (lDS) submitted on 12/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the title of the invention, “REINIGUNGSSYSTEM FÜR EIN LIDARSENSORSYSTEM” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a magnet unit” for each of the wiping unit and the drive of claim 7; and, “a pivot axis” relative to the movement axis of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “comprising” should read --comprising:--.
Regarding claim 4, “one side with the rail” should read --one side with a rail--.
Regarding claim 9, line 1, “a lidar sensor” should read --a lidar sensor system--.
Further regarding claim 9, lines 1-2, “a cleaning system” should read
--the cleaning system--.
Further regarding claim 9, line 4, “by means of” should read --through--.
Further regarding claim 9, line 5, “by means of” should read --through--.
Claims 2-10 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
Claim 6 recites “a contact pressure element … to press the wiper blade (12) against a surface (3) to be cleaned.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how an “element” is capable of performing the function of providing “contact pressure” and the function “to press the wiper blade (12) against a surface (3) to be cleaned” without further structural definition and therefore the term is treated a generic placeholder.
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
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.
Claims 3, 6 and 8-10 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.
Regarding claim 3, lines 3-5 recite that “the connecting element (7) is in contact with a rail (8), by means of which the connecting element (7) can be moved relative to the drive (5) along the longitudinal direction (200) when the connecting element (7) is guided along the movement axis (100) along the rail (8).” The phrase “guided along the movement axis … along the rail” is unclear as to the positional relationship between the rail and the movement axis or the path along which the connecting element is guided. Specifically, it is unclear whether: (1) the connecting element is guided in the direction of the movement axis while the rail causes movement of the connecting element relative to the drive in the longitudinal direction; or (2) the connecting element is guided along the rail, with the rail itself extending along the movement axis. It is unclear which relationship is intended, nor is it clear how guidance “along the movement axis” results in movement along the longitudinal direction, recited as perpendicular to the movement axis in parent claim 1. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are unclear.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a contact pressure element … to press the wiper blade (12) against a surface (3) to be cleaned” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claimed function is pressing the wiper blade against a surface to be cleaned. The specification identifies the contact pressure element 11 only by name, location, and result. In particular, the specification states that the contact pressure element is arranged between the connecting element and the wiper blade and that, as a result, the wiper blade is pressed against the surface. The drawings show a generic shape labeled 11. Neither the drawings nor the written description identify what structure or material the “element” has, how it produces contact pressure, or how it performs the pressing function as claimed. A mere box, labeled component, or statement of the result to be achieved is insufficient corresponding structure for one of ordinary skill in the art to identify from the written description the structure, material, or acts that perform the entire claimed function of the claimed “element.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 8, line 2 recite “the wiping device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “and/or” renders the scope of the claim unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether the claim requires the surface to be a surface through which laser radiation is emitted and received, whether the claim requires the surface to be a surface through which laser radiation is emitted or received, or whether the claim is intended to encompass all of the following alternatives: emission only, reception only, and both emission and reception. As a result, the phrase “and/or” does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hegyi (US 20220410845 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hegyi discloses a cleaning system for a lidar sensor system (Fig. 2, wiper device 10a for sensor device 12a; ¶ 46, sensor device 12a is “configured as a Lidar device”), the cleaning system comprising:
a wiping unit (Fig. 3, wiper 22a), a drive (Fig. 2, drive unit 42a), and an adjustment unit (Fig. 3, contact pressure unit 44a and arm 20a; ¶ 54),
wherein the drive is designed to move the wiping unit along a movement axis on a surface of the lidar sensor system (Fig. 2, left/right guide path 50a across surface 16a; ¶ 53, drive unit 42a moves wiper “in a linear manner across the surface 16a” along guide path 50a),
wherein the wiping unit is designed to wipe the surface of the lidar sensor system (¶¶ 48, 53, wiper 22a wiping surface 16a),
wherein the adjustment unit is designed to move the wiping unit relative to the drive along a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the movement axis (Fig. 3, contact pressure unit 44a includes adjustment screw 54a used to adjust spacing 52a and displaces wiper along adjustment axis 64a, perpendicular to guide path 50a; ¶¶ 53-54, 67-69).
Regarding claim 2, Hegyi discloses the cleaning system of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the adjustment unit has a connecting element (Fig. 3, arm 20a) which is coupled to the drive and can be moved along the longitudinal direction relative to the drive (¶ 53, arm 20a connected to drive unit 42a; ¶¶ 53, 67-68, drive unit 42a remains fixed to lidar system/vehicle when arm 20a is displaced along adjustment axis 64a by adjustment screw 54a).
Regarding claim 8, Hegyi discloses the cleaning system of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the wiping device can be pivoted relative to the drive about a pivot axis (Fig. 3, wiper 22a pivoting via rotary joint 26a about rotation axis 28a, while drive unit 42a moves the wiper along guide path 50a; ¶ 48) parallel to the movement axis (¶¶ 53, 60-61, guide path 50a defined as the rectilinear wiping path across surface 16a, and rotation axis 28a as parallel to surface 16a and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the wiper, yielding a parallel rotation axis 28a to guide path 50a).
Regarding claim 9, Hegyi discloses a vehicle having a lidar sensor (Fig. 1, vehicle 150a with sensor system 200a, system 200a as further detailed in Figs 2-3; ¶ 45, sensor system 200a configured as a Lidar system; ¶ 46, sensor device 12a, part of 200a, is a Lidar device) and a cleaning system according to claim 1 (see prior § 102 rejection of claim 1 under Hegyi, as previously presented), wherein the cleaning system is designed to clean such a surface of the lidar sensor system (Figs 2-3, surface 16a) by means of which laser radiation can be emitted from the lidar sensor system and/or by means of which laser radiation can be received by the lidar sensor system (¶ 46, protective element 14a of Lidar device 12a; ¶ 47, wiper device 10a wipes surface 16a corresponding to protective element 14a; ¶ 49, protective element 14a “enables a laser beam of the sensor device 12a to exit the sensor housing 34a” and is transparent to a detection wavelength of the Lidar sensor element).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 20210237693 A1) in view of Westenberger (DE 102010021573 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi discloses a cleaning system for a lidar sensor system (Fig. 1, a vehicle cleaning system 20 for ranging sensor 11; ¶¶ 28-30), the cleaning system comprising
a wiping unit (Fig. 2, wiper arm 45 and blade rubber 46; ¶ 49),
a drive (Fig. 2, wiper driver 31; ¶¶ 35-47, 61), and [1: …],
wherein the drive is designed to move the wiping unit (¶ 61, wiper driver 31 includes a movement converter that causes the wiper to perform a reciprocal wiping operation) along a movement axis on a surface of the lidar sensor system (Fig. 2, axial/pivot axis of wiper driver 31, corresponding to a movement axis; ¶¶ 47-50, 55-57, 61-62, wiper driver 31 comprises drive shaft 40c coupled to moving wiper arm 45 rotationally along the movement axis of wiper driver 31 resulting in a reciprocal wiping operation across sensing surface 11a),
wherein the wiping unit is designed to wipe the surface of the lidar sensor system (Fig. 2, wiper blade 32 contacts sensing surface 11a and “performs a reciprocal wiping operation … to remove extraneous objects from the sensing surfaces”; ¶¶ 49-50, 56, 59, 61), [2: …].
Yamauchi does not disclose:
(1) “an adjustment unit”; and,
(2) “wherein the adjustment unit is designed to move the wiping unit relative to the drive along a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the movement axis.”
However, Westenberger teaches an adjustment unit (Fig. 2, guide 14 + sliding piece 24 with counter-cam 28 + control disk 20 with cams 26 + return spring 25) designed to move the wiping unit (Fig. 2, wiper blade 16) relative to the drive (Fig. 2, drive 22) along a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the movement axis (Fig. 2, arrow of motion perpendicular to pivot axis 18), as further described in ¶¶ 38, 40-43, that sliding piece 24 is “mounted to be longitudinally displaceable” in guide 14, wiper blade 16 is firmly connected to sliding piece 24, and the pendulum movement initiates oscillation of sliding piece 24 and wiper blade 16 “directed in the longitudinal direction of the wiper arm 12” where the longitudinal/radial direction is perpendicular to pivot axis 18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning system of Yamauchi and adopted the adjustment unit of Westenberger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve surface cleaning and accelerate the removal of unwanted deposits more quickly and effectively (Westenberger, ¶¶ 6, 11, 39).
Regarding claim 2, Yamauchi in view of Westenberger teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the adjustment unit has a connecting element (Westenberger, Fig. 2, sliding piece 24 with counter-cam 28) which is coupled to the drive and can be moved along the longitudinal direction relative to the drive (Westenberger, ¶¶ 8, 13, 15, 41-43, sliding piece 24 is coupled to drive 22 through guide 14, which is coupled to the drive, and is “mounted to be longitudinally displaceable”; wiper blade 16 connected to sliding piece 24 so that movement of sliding piece 24 is transferred to wiper blade 16).
Regarding claim 3, Yamauchi in view of Westenberger teaches the cleaning system of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the connecting element (Westenberger, Fig. 2, sliding piece 24 with counter-cam 28) is in contact with a rail (Westenberger, Fig. 2, control disk 20 with cams 26; ¶¶ 18-19, 41-42, counter-cam “interlocks with several cams fixed in position along the wiping direction” such that cam and counter-cam “meet” during the pendulum movement), by means of which the connecting element can be moved relative to the drive along the longitudinal direction when the connecting element is guided along the movement axis along the rail (Westenberger, ¶¶ 37-43, counter-cam 28 guided along cams 26 during movement about pivot axis 18 causing sliding piece 24 to be longitudinally displaced radially from pivot axis 18 and drive 22).
Regarding claim 4, Yamauchi in view of Westenberger teaches the cleaning system of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the connecting element is in contact on one side with the rail and can be moved unidirectionally along the longitudinal direction by the rail or is in contact on both sides with the rail and can be moved bidirectionally along the longitudinal direction (Westenberger, ¶¶ 17, 41-42, control disk 20 with cams 26 acts on sliding piece 24 with counter-cam 28 to deflect the sliding piece radially outward, where the displacement means act “only unidirectionally” on sliding piece 24, i.e., always radially outward, while return spring 25 moves it radially inward after the counter-cam enters a space between cams).
Regarding claim 5, Yamauchi in view of Westenberger teaches the cleaning system of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the connecting element is preloaded into a predefined standard position relative to the drive via a resetting element (Westenberger, Fig. 2, return spring 25 preloads sliding piece 24; ¶¶ 17, 41-43, return spring 25 moves sliding piece 24 radially inward after cam engagement, where the inward spring-biased position corresponding to the predefined standard/rest position relative to drive 22).
Regarding claim 8, Yamauchi in view of Westenberger teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the wiping device (Yamauchi, Fig. 2, wiper arm 45 and blade 46; Westenberger, Fig. 2, wiper blade 16) can be pivoted relative to the drive about a pivot axis (Westenberger, Fig. 2, pivot axis 18 provides pivoting relative to drive 22; Yamauchi, Fig. 6, axis along center of 45a provides pivoting relative to driver 31) parallel to the movement axis (Yamauchi, Fig. 6, axis along center of 45a parallelly overlaps with axial/pivot axis of driver 31; Westenberger, Fig. 1, pivot axis 18 parallelly overlaps with central axial of driver 22).
Regarding claim 9, Yamauchi in view of Westenberger teaches the cleaning system according to claim 1 (see § 103 rejection of claim 1 over Yamauchi in view of Westenberger, previously presented), and further teaches: a vehicle (Yamauchi, Fig. 1, vehicle 10) having a lidar sensor (Yamauchi, Fig. 1, ranging sensor 11) and the cleaning system (Yamauchi, Fig. 1, cleaning system 20 as modified by Westenberger), wherein the cleaning system is designed to clean such a surface of the lidar sensor system (Yamauchi, Fig. 2, cleaning system 20 cleaning surface 11a of ranging sensor 11) by means of which laser radiation can be emitted from the lidar sensor system and/or by means of which laser radiation can be received by the lidar sensor system (Yamauchi, ¶¶ 4, 28-29, sensing surface 11a described as external lens/cover glass surfaces exposed to the outside and in the optical path of ranging sensor 11).
Claims 1-2, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorley (US 20160121855 A1) in view of Kanda (JP 2014189028 A).
Regarding claim 1, Doorley discloses a cleaning system for a lidar sensor system (Fig. 1, wiper system 100 cleaning surface 106 of dome 102; ¶¶ 1, 25, 32, 54, dome 102 houses laser scanner and camera), the cleaning system comprising
a wiping unit (Fig. 2, wiper blade 112A; ¶¶ 33, 37),
a drive (Fig. 2, arm 116 with connector 118; ¶¶ 34-36), and [1: …],
wherein the drive is designed to move the wiping unit along a movement axis on a surface of the lidar sensor system (¶¶ 35-37, 49, arm 116 with connector 118 designed to move blade 112A along dome surface 106 about the axis of pin 130, corresponding to the movement axis),
wherein the wiping unit is designed to wipe the surface of the lidar sensor system (¶ 37, wiper blades clear optical deterrents from dome surface 106), [2: …].
Doorley does not disclose:
(1) “an adjustment unit”; and,
(2) “wherein the adjustment unit is designed to move the wiping unit relative to the drive along a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the movement axis.”
However, Kanda teaches an adjustment unit (Figs. 3-4, support portion 23 + electromagnets 30a-30b + permeant magnets 31a-31h + holder 24) designed to move the wiping unit (Fig. 3, wiper blade 18) relative to the drive (Fig. 3, arm 17) along a longitudinal direction (¶¶ 29-34, 42-46, wiper blade 18 slides longitudinally relative to arm 17) perpendicular to the movement axis (Fig. 1, perpendicular to axis of pivot 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive and wiper unit of Doorley with the adjustment unit (Fig. 3, elements 23, 24, 30, 31) of Kanda such that the drive (Doorley, arm 116) adopted the support portion 23 + electromagnets 30a-30b as attached to arm 17 of Kanda, and the wiper unit (Doorley, wiper blade 112A) was modified to adopted the permeant magnets 31a-31h and holder 24 of wiper blade 18 of Kanda, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the wiping range and effective wiping area while reducing unwanted residue and streaks, thereby improving overall surface cleaning efficacy (Kanda, ¶¶ 18, 21, 49, 51).
Regarding claim 2, Doorley in view of Kanda teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the adjustment unit has a connecting element which is coupled to the drive (Kanda, Fig. 4, holder 24 coupled to support portion 23) and can be moved along the longitudinal direction relative to the drive (Kanda, ¶¶ 28-31, support portion 23 and slides longitudinally relative to holder 24).
Regarding claim 7, Doorley in view of Kanda teaches the cleaning system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the drive (Kanda, Fig.3, support portion 23) and the wiping unit (Kanda, Fig.3, wiper blade 18) each have a magnet unit (Kanda, Fig. 3, electromagnets 30a-30b and permanent magnets 31a-31h, respectively) in order to adjust a relative position of the wiping unit with respect to the drive along the longitudinal direction (Kanda, ¶¶ 12-13, 34-36, 42-45, magnetic attraction/repulsion moves blade 18 longitudinally relative to arm 17).
Regarding claim 9, Doorley in view of Kanda teaches the cleaning system according to claim 1 (see § 103 rejection of claim 1 over Doorley in view of Kanda, previously presented), and further teaches: a vehicle (Doorley, Fig. 10, vehicle 200 with wiper system 100) having a lidar sensor (Doorley, ¶¶ 1, 25, 32, 54) and the cleaning system (Doorley, Fig. 1, wiper system 100 as modified by Kanda), wherein the cleaning system is designed to clean such a surface of the lidar sensor system by means of which laser radiation can be emitted from the lidar sensor system and/or by means of which laser radiation can be received by the lidar sensor system (Doorley, ¶¶ 25, 32, 54, 64, dome surface debris occludes cameras and attenuate the laser scanner, thus cleaned dome surface is the optical surface for the laser sensor system).
Regarding claim 10, Doorley in view of Kanda teaches the vehicle according to claim 9, and further teaches: wherein the surface (Doorley, ¶¶ 7-8, 32, dome surface 106 has a curved dome-shaped surface) has a curvature transverse to the movement axis (Fig. 2, axis of 130 normal to surface 106 of dome 102).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorley in view of Kanda further in view of Berne (US 20200216036 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Doorley in view of Kanda teaches the cleaning system of claim 2, and further teaches: […] the connecting element (Kanda, Fig. 4, holder 24) and a wiper blade of the wiping unit (Kanda, Fig. 4, blade rubber 25 of wiping blade 18) […]. However, Doorley in view of Kanda does not teach: “wherein a contact pressure element is arranged between” [the connecting element and a wiper blade of the wiping unit] “in order to press the wiper blade against a surface to be cleaned.” Berne teaches the limitation in Fig. 6 and ¶¶ 42-43, 48, 53, where pistons 40 act as the contact pressure elements distributed between body 30 and blade 20, configured to be pressurized in order to uniformly press blade 20 against windshield 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connecting element and wiper blade of Doorley in view of Kanda, with the contact pressure element of Berne, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more uniform blade pressure and reduce unwiped areas, especially in curved regions, thereby improving overall surface cleaning efficacy (Berne, ¶ 10).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Hegyi2 (US 20220410846 A1) a lidar sensor cleaning system having a wiper unit, wiper lip, linear drive movement across the lidar surface, and spring-based contact pressure structures.
Fujita (JP 5952472 B1) discloses a surface wiper with a reciprocating drive, wiper blade, rail-guided telescoping adjustment, magnetic contact pressure features, and operation on curved surfaces.
Brouwer (US 20220355766 A1) discloses a LiDAR optical sensor cleaning unit with a wiper, drive unit, linear guide track carriage, and mechanisms for tilting and retracting the wiper relative to the sensor window.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights