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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species 1 (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search and examination of all inventions and all species can be conducted without undue burden. This is not found persuasive because, it is alleged, the search and examination of one invention and species would be relevant to the searches and examination of the other invention and species.
This is not found persuasive because it is not true. While there may be overlap in the search of the different inventions and species Applicant has chosen to include in the present application, by no means do the inventions and species require the same search or even search in all of the same classes. Note, e.g., that the respective subject matter searches of the different inventions are in two different class/subclasses. And Applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps, while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements. In actuality, all of the inventions and species would require specialized individual searches that would be best executed in individual applications.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the controller is” in line 6 should apparently be replaced with “wherein the controller is”, “the controller”, or the like.
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.
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: cleaning device 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.
Based on a review of the specification, a cleaning device is interpreted to include a sprayer, or 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 § 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, 2, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,723,325 to Rice (“Rice”).
Regarding claim 1, Rice teaches a system useful for cleaning a vehicle sensor (abstract, col. 10, lines 5-10), the system comprising: a cleaning device (Fig. 2, ref. 222 – 226, Fig. 9, ref. 900, col. 16, lines 44-61, col. 25, line 54 – col. 26, line 7, col. 30, line 61 – col. 31, line 5, col. 31, lines 25-44) movable relative to a vehicle; an actuator (col. 14, lines 58-62) configured to position the cleaning device relative to the vehicle; and a controller (Fig. 1, ref. 106, col. 14, lines 58-62) communicatively coupled to the sensor and the actuator.
Rice discloses sensors (see, inter alia, the abstract), the controller considering sensor data including a spray location (col. 3, lines 40-44, col. 8, lines 9-15, col. 10, lines 5-10), and the locations of objects (col. 4, lines 4-12). Rice further discloses the controller using sensor data to direct spray at the sensor, the sensor data including location data of debris located at a particular part of the sensor (col. 9, line 62 – col. 10, line 9). Rice does not explicitly teach a sensor configured to collect information relating to a position of a vehicle sensor on the vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to receive information from the sensor and identify the vehicle sensor on the vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to operate the actuator to selectively position the cleaning device relative to the vehicle and target the vehicle sensor on the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Rice system wherein it includes a sensor configured to collect information relating to a position of a vehicle sensor on the vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to receive information from the sensor and identify the vehicle sensor on the vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to operate the actuator to selectively position the cleaning device relative to the vehicle and target the vehicle sensor on the vehicle, with reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of sensor data including locations of objects and since the goal of directing spray at a particular part of the sensor cannot be achieved unless the position of the senor is known and the cleaning device positioned accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Rice discloses a system wherein the controller is configured to determine a pollution level of the vehicle sensor and operate the cleaning device based on the determined pollution level (col. 6, lines 15, where no degradation of operating level is considered to be a lower level of pollution and a degraded operating level due to debris is considered to be a higher level of pollution).
Regarding claim 4, Rice discloses a fluid line (Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 52-65, col. 23, lines 55-67) connected to the cleaning device and a pump (col. 4, lines 23-41) connected to the fluid line, wherein the cleaning device comprises a sprayer (col. 2, lines 16-37) configured to spray pressurized fluid delivered to the cleaning device through the fluid line.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Rice system a system includes the controller wherein the controller includes a communication system (Fig. 1, ref. 102, col. 11, lines 36-55) that is configured to communicate with an onboard interface of the vehicle and receive information relating to at least one of the positions of the vehicle sensor on the vehicle from the onboard interface or a pollution level of the vehicle sensor. It is noted that the recited vehicle, and its onboard interface, are not positively claimed and are not interpreted to be required structural features of the claimed system.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Rice system appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner wherein the system is located at a transportation hub, and wherein the cleaning device is arranged to clean the vehicle sensor when the vehicle is parked at the transportation hub for loading or unloading (if the vehicle is parked at the hub, the system will be located at the hub as well). It is noted that the recited transportation hub is not positively claimed and is not interpreted to be a required structural feature of the claimed system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is US 10,723,325 to Rice. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of a support sized to extend at least partly across a width of the vehicle, wherein the sensor and the actuator are mounted to the support, and wherein the actuator is configured to move the cleaning device relative to the vehicle and at least partly across the width of the vehicle to reach portions of the vehicle (as in claim 3), or a proximity sensor that is configured to detect when the vehicle is within range of the cleaning device (as in claim 5), in combination with the other structural elements as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714