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 .
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1, line 4 recites “a sensor” but line 1 recites “a vehicle sensor”. It is unclear if they are the same element or different elements. There is only one sensor but they were given two different names and that is improper.
Claim 1, line 8 recites “the audible source” and there is no antecedent basis for it.
Claim 11, line 3 recites “a sensor” but line 1 recites “a vehicle object detection sensor”. It is unclear if they are the same element or different elements. There is only one sensor but they were given two different names and that is improper.
Claim 14, line 3 recites “the first period” and there is no antecedent basis for it.
Claim 15, line 2 recites “the first period” and there is no antecedent basis for it.
The remaining claims are rejected for depending on claims 1 and 11.
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 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonar (US 2012/0243093) in view of Goemer (US 2022/0332292).
As to claim 1, Tonar includes a system to clear debris from a vehicle sensor (Embodiment of Fig. 45), comprising:
a vehicle (30) having a sound system (330) arranged to output sound outside of the vehicle (para 161);
a sensor (Light sensor 336, its covering 324, and its lens 322) mounted on the vehicle (Claim 8 recites the light sensing assembly as on a vehicle); and
a control system coupled to the sound system and including one or more programs or instructions that actuate the sound system (A control device which uses instructions for actuating the sound system is inherently present in order to successfully vibrate the sensor once mass changes result from debris on the lens cover; Abstract), wherein the sound system is arranged to cause vibrations of the sensor (330 vibrates 322; para 161).
Tonar does not include the control system including a processor, and memory communicated with the processor, and the programs or instructions of the control system are operable to vary the frequency of an output from the audible source.
Goemer includes a system to clear debris from vehicle surfaces having a control system (124) including a processor (126), and memory (128) communicated with the processor (For a computer, memory would communicate with a processor; para 17). Programs or instructions of the control system would vary the frequency of an output from the audible source (para 23).
It would have been obvious to modify Tonar to include the control system including a processor, and memory communicated with the processor, as taught by Goemer, providing an alternative approach for controlling the sound system which won’t wear out over time, and to modify the programs or instructions of the control system to vary the frequency of an output from the audible source, as taught by Goemer, in order to more powerfully clean the sensor via vibration.
As to claim 2, wherein the output sound includes at least one frequency that is outside of a range of sound audible by humans (para 132).
As to claim 3, wherein the output sound includes multiple frequencies that are within the range of sound audible by humans (para 144).
As to claim 4, wherein the sound system includes at least one speaker mounted to the vehicle and arranged to provide sound outside of the vehicle (Claim 8 recites the light sensing assembly as on a vehicle. Also, sound reaches the outside of the car because the entire system is outside of the car).
As to claim 9, Tonar does not include wherein the programs include instructions to vary both the frequency and amplitude of the output within the time period.
Goemer includes a system to clear debris from vehicle surfaces having programs or instructions of the control system which vary the frequency and amplitude of an output from the audible source (para 23).
It would have been obvious to modify the programs or instructions of the control system to vary both the frequency and amplitude of an output from the audible source, as taught by Goemer, in order to more powerfully clean the sensor via vibration.
As to claim 10, wherein the sensor is an object detection sensor and is one of a camera, optical sensor, ultrasonic sensor, magnetometer, radar sensor or lidar sensor (The sensor is a light sensor, which is an optical sensor; para 4). The sensor can be a camera (para 81).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonar (US 2012/0243093) in view of Goemer (US 2022/0332292), and further in view of Wolters (US 2007/0012334).
As to claim 5, Tonar does not include wherein the sound system includes multiple speakers spaced apart on the vehicle.
Wolters includes a system to clear debris from a bottle which has multiple speakers (142) spaced apart (Fig. 4 and para 54).
It would have been obvious to modify the sound system of Tonar to include multiple speakers spaced apart on the vehicle, as taught by Wolters, in order to increase the effectiveness of the cleaning done by vibration.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonar (US 2012/0243093) in view of Goemer (US 2022/0332292), and further in view of McBride (US 2020/0230663).
As to claim 7, Tonar does not include wherein the programs include instructions to control the length of a time period in which the sound output is provided.
McBride includes a system to clear debris from a sensor (100) including programs having instructions to control the length of a time period in which the sound output is provided (para 43).
It would have been obvious to modify the programs to include instructions to control the length of a time period in which the sound output is provided, as taught by McBride, so that energy is saved because vibration happens only as long as essential.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonar (US 2012/0243093) in view of Goemer (US 2022/0332292), and further in view of Hutchinson (US 2022/0281172).
As to claim 8, Tonar does not include wherein the programs include instructions to control the sound system so that the sound system intermittently provides the output.
McBride includes a system to clear debris from an object including programs having instructions to control a sound system so that the sound system intermittently provides the output (para 89).
It would have been obvious to modify the programs to have instructions to control a sound system so that the sound system intermittently provides the output, as taught by McBride, so that energy is saved because vibration happens only as long as essential.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The best reference, Tonar (US 2012/0243093), does not include the step of determining that more than a threshold amount of a sensor of a vehicle is blocked by debris (The vehicle object detection sensor uses mass of debris on the sensor in order to actuate the sound system), as taught by claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights