DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 7/20/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190092287 by Leach et al.
As to claim 1, Leach discloses a cleaning device for an external sensor disposed on a moving body configured to detect an outside of the moving body, the cleaning device comprising a cleaning part 154 to spray cleaning fluid on a detection surface; a sensor performance calculation part to calculate a performance detection value of the sensor (para. 25), wherein the cleaning part sprays the fluid based on the calculated performance detection value (para. 25), wherein the cleaning part sprays the fluid based on a calculated change amount of the performance detection value with respect to time or a travel distance (para. 92).
As to claim 6, Leach discloses that the sensor may be a lidar sensor (para. 25).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190092287 by Leach et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240198970 by Salter et al.
As to claim 2, Leach does not teach that a time from interrupting cleaning to restarting cleaning is determined based on a tank capacity and replenishment frequency of the cleaning fluid. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to base the time on tank capacity and replenishment frequency. Salter teaches a cleaning device for an external vehicle sensor, the device configured to sense a cleaning fluid level in a tank and determine the frequency of cleaning based on the fluid level (para. 53). In particular, Salter teaches that if the level is below a threshold, cleaning is performed less frequent (para. 53). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, based on Salter’s suggestions, that tank capacity and replenishment frequency are variables indicate a cleaning fluid supply amount and that based on the tank capacity and replenishment frequency, in particular when the capacity and frequency are indicative of a low fluid level, the time from interrupting and restarting cleaning (i.e. the cleaning frequency) should be determined accordingly.
As to claim 3, based on the teachings of Salter discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to determine whether to restart a stopped decontamination operation based on at least a residual amount of the cleaning fluid. Salter teaches that cleaning frequency should reduced when a fluid level is low, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have logically reasoned that if a residual amount of cleaning fluid is insufficient for cleaning then a decontamination operation should not restart, and if there is sufficient fluid, the operation may be restarted.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190092287 by Leach et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20250065848 by Adachi.
As to claim 4, Leach is silent as to stopping a driving support function based on a performance detection value. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to stop a support function based on a detection value. Adachi teaches that if contamination cannot be removed then a driving support function, in particular autonomous driving, should be stopped because sensor contamination has a great effect on autonomous driving (para. 51). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus understood that if a performance detection value calculated by the device of Leach indicates that contamination cannot be removed then a driving support function should be stopped based on the teachings of Adachi.
As to claim 5, Leach teaches that the moving body is a vehicle, but does not teach that a detection surface is a bumper or a windshield in front of a detection direction of a sensor. However, Leach is directed to cleaning sensors such as LiDAR sensors, and Adachi teaches that LiDAR sensors may be provided in a front or rear bumper of a vehicle (para. 24). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious that a detection surface may be a bumper when a LiDAR sensor is located in or otherwise integrated with a bumper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights