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(b)
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, 6, and 8, and those claims depending therefrom, 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 1, the claimed “each nozzle among the at least one row of nozzles comprising a nozzle inlet and a nozzle outlet adapted to simultaneously eject compressed air towards the exposed surface” is indefinite. As the nozzle inlet and nozzle outlet are in the same path, only one would be considered to “eject compressed air towards the exposed surface” and the other would technically eject air towards the other of the “outlet” or “inlet,” depending on the flow direction.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed “wherein a cumulative cross-sectional area of all the nozzle outlets is less than half an averaged cross section of the channel” is indefinite. Applicant states “[i]n order to reduce pressure losses in the channel 10 and to build up the air stream at the surface 2 more efficiently, the cumulative cross-sectional area of nozzle outlets 8 of all the nozzles 6 should if possible be less than half an averaged cross section of the channel 10” [Application Publication; paragraph 0029].
Figure 3 is the only cross section that Applicant shows.
A cross section is the intersection of a plane with a 3-dimensional body.
Applicant indicates that this “nozzle outlet” is an outlet to the “nozzle”, and that the “nozzle outlet” and “nozzle inlet” are considered planar exits and entrances to the “nozzle.”
That being said, “half an averaged cross section of the channel” is indefinite as to what is being averaged as there seemingly is only one cross-section of the channel. Secondly, a “cumulative cross-sectional area of all the nozzle outlets” is indefinite because there is seemingly only one cross-section of the nozzle outlets. In short, the claim seems to be requiring multiple measurements without showing how and where these measurements are being taken place, or how many are being added.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed “the channel has a connection for supplying with compressed air at each end among opposite ends thereof” is indefinite as the claim requires a singular “connection” but also requires a connection at two ends.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashford (US-2006/0068696).
Regarding claim 1, Ashford (US-2006/0068696) discloses a pneumatic apparatus for applying an air flow to an exposed surface of a sensor apparatus of a vehicle, the pneumatic apparatus comprising:
a housing (body section 20) configured to extend in an installed state along at least one edge of the exposed surface (viewing window 18) (“Body section 20 is configured generally to follow the contours of housing 16 and, preferably, particularly is configured to follow the contours of the viewing window 18.”) [Ashford; paragraph 0030]; and
at least one row of nozzles (one or more slits 24) (“one sees that body section 20 includes one or more slits 24 on its top surface that generally following along at least a portion of the lower perimeter of window 18”) [Ashford; paragraph 0030], each nozzle among the at least one row of nozzles comprising a nozzle inlet and a nozzle outlet adapted to simultaneously eject compressed air towards the exposed surface (air is passing through, simultaneously in and out).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nozzle outlet is positioned in direct vicinity of the exposed surface (viewing window 18) (“Thus, one sees that body section 20 includes one or more slits 24 on its top surface that generally following along at least a portion of the lower perimeter of window 18”) [Ashford; paragraph 0030] (“pressurized air is vented through the one or more slits 24, which are configured to create a generally laminar flow in front of viewing window 18--illustrated as the roughly vertical air currents in the drawing”) [Ashford; paragraph 0033].
Regarding claim 3, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein a direction of ejection of a compressed air jet ejected from the nozzle is oriented at an angle of between 0 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the exposed surface (window 18) (Fig. 2). The Examiner notes that the “pneumatic apparatus” is merely “for applying an air flow to an exposed surface of a sensor apparatus” and that the “exposed surface” for which the angle of the nozzle is relative is not part of the claimed “pneumatic apparatus,” but merely how the apparatus is intended to be used. In other words, this is merely stating “[a] pneumatic apparatus for applying an air flow to an exposed surface of a sensor apparatus [at an angle of between 0o and 30o relative to the exposed surface],” which is considered an intended use statement not limiting to the structure of the “pneumatic apparatus.” It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 4, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein a direction of ejection of a compressed air jet ejected from the nozzle is oriented parallel to the exposed surface (window 18) (Fig. 2). The Examiner notes that the “pneumatic apparatus” is merely “for applying an air flow to an exposed surface of a sensor apparatus” and that the “exposed surface” for which the angle of the nozzle is relative is not part of the claimed “pneumatic apparatus,” but merely how the apparatus is intended to be used. In other words, this is merely stating “[a] pneumatic apparatus for applying an air flow to an exposed surface of a sensor apparatus [wherein a direction of ejection of a compressed air jet ejected from the nozzle is oriented parallel to the exposed surface],” which is considered an intended use statement not limiting to the structure of the “pneumatic apparatus.” It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 5, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the housing has an internal channel (chamber 32) which extends along the housing (body section 20) (“Thus, one sees that body section 20 includes one or more slits 24 on its top surface that generally following along at least a portion of the lower perimeter of window 18”) [Ashford; paragraph 0030], and wherein the nozzles (one or more slits 24) open into the channel (chamber 32) (Fig. 7) (“The one or more slits 24 vent chamber 32 to the outside”) [Ashford; paragraph 0032].
Regarding claim 6, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein a cumulative cross-sectional area of all the nozzle outlet is less than half an averaged cross section of the channel (see interpretation under 35 USC 112(b) above) (the cross-sectional area of the nozzle outlet is less than half the cross section of the channel and, therefore, the cumulative of the channel and all the nozzles would be proportional).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ashford (US-2006/0068696).
Regarding claim 7, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein the housing (body section 20) comprises a first housing part and a second housing part (see annotated Fig. 8 below), but fails to disclose wherein the channel is formed by connecting together the first housing part and the second housing part.
PNG
media_image2.png
277
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the claimed “wherein the channel is formed by connecting together the first housing part and the second housing part” is considered a product-by-process. A product-by-process claim, which is a product claim that defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made, is proper. Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 1354, 117 USPQ2d 1733, 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); and In re Steppan, 394 F.2d 1013, 156 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1967). “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art is silent as to how the first housing part and second housing part are connected (integral molding, additive manufacturing, joining two pieces, etc.) while the claimed invention connects them by connecting them together. Applicant states that “[t]he housing 4 is made from two housing parts 11, 12 which are preferably welded together or alternatively otherwise tightly connected together” [Present Application; paragraph 0029]. The prior art shows the two portions connected as one piece and, though they may be connected by different methods/processes, the prior art ultimately forms two housing parts tightly connected together. Therefore, the prior art connection of Ashford is considered to be the same or obvious from the claimed product-by-process connection.
Regarding claim 8, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein the channel (chamber 32) has a connection (port 28) for supplying with compressed air at each end among opposite ends thereof (supplies compressed air at each end and in between, all throughout chamber 32) (“In operation, pressurized air is supplied to the air guard 14 from an external source (not illustrated), which may be provided to air guard 14 through air supply hoses coupled to one or more air inlet ports--two such inlet ports, ports 28 and 30, are illustrated. Note that ports 28 and 30 may include body ferrules for more secure coupling of the air supply lines.”) [Ashford; paragraph 0031].
Regarding claim 9, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the nozzle (one or more slits 24) is configured as an opening in a housing wall of the housing (body section 20) (Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashford (US-2006/0068696) in view of Owashi (US-20080205878).
Regarding claim 10, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the nozzle (one or more slits 24) has a cross section which tapers from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlet.
However, it is well known in nozzle design to use a converging tapered design for nozzles to control the flow of fluid through a nozzle, a concept which is shown in Owashi (US-20080205878) (Owashi; Fig. 7) (“is sprayed from the spray nozzles 29 toward the front surface of the low pass filter 12”) [Owashi; paragraph 0059]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase fluid velocity by tapering the cross section of the nozzle (one or more slits 24) of Ashford from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlet in order to create a higher velocity of the gas (as is known in nozzle design), and thus better removal force (as taught by Owashi) for removing dust (“Due to force of the blown air the dust that has adhered to the front surface of the low pass filter 12 is removed and the removed dust is blown off toward the underlying suction unit 26.”) [Owashi; paragraph 0059].
Regarding claim 11, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the housing (body section 20) is arranged, relative to a vertical axis of the vehicle, in the region of an upper end of the exposed surface (This is considered intended use as the vehicle nor the exposed surface is part of the pneumatic apparatus. In other words, this is being treated as though saying what how the claimed structure is intended to be used rather than conveying additional structure than what is already claimed.).
Regarding claim 12, Ashford discloses the pneumatic apparatus at least as claimed in claim 11, wherein the nozzles (one or more slits 20), relative to the vertical axis, open into the channel (chamber 32) at the deepest point thereof (where, in Figure 7, the bottom is considered the side shown in annotated Figure 7 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
296
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
While the term “deepest” is understood to convey an orientation of the claimed structure relative to the installed state on which it is mounted for use with an exposed surface of a sensor apparatus of a vehicle, the claimed “apparatus” is claimed separately from “an exposed surface of a sensor apparatus of a vehicle” and, therefore, any statement claiming an intended use of the claimed structure, like orienting it in a specific way relative to a surface of a sensor apparatus of a vehicle, is not considered to convey additional structure. Put another way, the claimed “apparatus” is stand alone, separate from the “exposed surface of a sensor apparatus of a vehicle” and one must be able to differentiate it from other structures that may appear the same as the claimed structure despite being used in different ways or for different purposes. In this case, the claimed structure used as intended does not differentiate it from Ashford which possess the claimed structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20100230991, US-20210188218, US-20210061237, US-20200331438, US-20190337489, US-20190314865, US-11279325, US-20110005030, US-20080205878, US-8950036, US-20200148133, US-20070273971, US-20060068696, US-20120117745, US-20200398795, US-20190278078, and US-4240691 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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 Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723