DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Translation Note
Applicant provided a translation of WO2020217600 by Kishi. However, in the examiner’s electronic tools, the text of this translation appears with slightly low resolution. The examiner has thus relied on his own computer-based translation of the Kishi document, and a copy of this Kishi translation used by the examiner is provided with this office action.
Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (currently recited by claims 1-9) in the reply filed on February 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objection
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: line 13 of claim 3 recites “…for a specified period, after the specified period, determine…”. This language is not grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required. One way to improve the grammar would be to add the word “and” before the word “after” as follows: “…for a specified period, and after the specified period, determine…”
Claim 9 recites “···(1)” after the equation recited in claim 9. This “···(1)” doesn’t appear to convey anything, and its existence in claim 9 appears to be merely a typographical mistake. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 recites (in lines 7-9 of claim 1) “changing a drive frequency of the driver within a high frequency band higher than or equal to about 100 kHz”. This “or equal to” language introduces confusion for the examiner. A “band” is range of frequencies. It is not clear what it means for a “band” to be “equal to about 100 kHz”. 100 kHz is a single value. A “band” clearly could not “equal” a single value. If applicant intends for the phrase “about 100 kHz” to mean 100 kHz ± 10%, is applicant saying that the “band” must equal 100 kHz ± 10%? This would be 90 kHz to 110 kHz. Or is applicant trying to specify that the “band” merely needs to somewhere within the range 100 kHz ± 10%? An example would be a “band” going from 94 kHz to 102 kHz. Confusion is increased by applicant not actually specifying that “about 100 kHz” is intended mean 100 kHz ± 10%; that was merely an assumption by the examiner for aiding discussion.
Claim 3 recites (in line 18) “the high-frequency-band resonant frequency determined again”. However, it is not clear if this phrase (in line 18) refers to the resonant frequency discussed in lines 13-14 (where applicant recites a step to “determine again a high-frequency-band resonant frequency”) of claim 3 or if this phrase (in line 18) refers to “the high-frequency-band resonant frequency determined again” recited in lines 8-9 of claim 3.
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.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020217600 by Kishi in view of U.S. 2020/0282435 by Magee.
With regard to claim 1, Kishi teaches a vibration device comprising a transparent protective cover 2 (reads on light transmitter), a vibrator 15 to vibrate the protective cover 2, and a driver 30 to drive the vibrator 15 (Abstract; page 4-7 of translation). Vibrator 15 comprises two transducers 16 and 17 (pages 4-5 of translation). Kishi teaches that the transparent protective cover 2 is located on a vehicle and serves to protect lenses 9 (in Figure 2) of an imaging device (pages 4-7 of translation). Kishi teaches cleaning the protective cover 2 by using the driver 30 to drive the vibrator 15 to vibrate the protective cover 2 (Pages 4-7 and 21-23 of translation). Kishi teaches that, when performing this cover-cleaning, the drive voltage should be selected based on the temperature of the cover 2 (Page 22 of translation). Kishi teaches a technique for estimating the temperature of the protective cover 2 such that the proper drive voltage can be selected (Pages 21-23 of translation). Kishi teaches (on pages 22-23 of the translation) estimating the temperature in the following manner:
As described above, in the cleaning device according to the third embodiment, the change amount (Δf) of the resonance frequency and the impedance detection when the signal processing circuit 20 drives the vibrating unit 12 with the first voltage (V1). The temperature of the protective cover 2 is estimated based on the amount of change (ΔI) of the current value with respect to the impedance detected by the unit 70, and the vibrating unit is used when cleaning the surface of the protective cover 2 based on the estimated temperature of the protective cover 2. The voltage for driving 12 is changed.
Earlier, Kishi discusses this driving of the vibrating unit 12 (this driving of the vibrating unit 12 is done via driving the vibrator 15, see pages 4-5 of translation) at the first voltage V1 is done while performing a sweep of frequencies such that a frequency value of a resonant frequency can be identified (pages 7-10 of translation).
Kishi does not specify that this sweep of frequencies to find the frequency value of a resonant frequency is performed in a frequency band higher than about 100 kHz.
Magee teaches that when using a transducer to agitate a protective lens cover of an imaging device on a vehicle, a transducer with a resonant frequency in a range above 100 kHz (Magee presents 120-140 kHz and 150-170 kHz as two example ranges) can successfully be used to perform such agitation (Par. 0014, 0062, and 0065).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kishi such that a transducer of the vibrator 15 is a transducer with a resonant frequency in a range above 100 kHz and by having Kishi’s frequency sweep at voltage V1 occur in a range above 100 kHz such that said “resonant frequency in a range above 100 kHz” is included within that sweep. Motivation for having the vibrator 15 comprise such a transducer was provided by Magee, who teaches that when using a transducer to agitate a protective lens cover of an imaging device on a vehicle, a transducer with a resonant frequency in a range above 100 kHz (Magee presents 120-140 kHz and 150-170 kHz as two example ranges) can successfully be used to perform such agitation. In this combination of Kishi in view of Magee, when the frequency sweep at voltage V1 finds the frequency value of said “resonant frequency in a range above 100 kHz”, this frequency value can be considered to read on applicant’s high-frequency-band resonant frequency and this value is used when estimating the temperature of the protective cover 2 (Kishi’s technique for temperature estimation is discussed on pages 22-23 of the Kishi translation). In the combination of Kishi in view of Magee, the estimation of the temperature of the protective cover 2 is performed by a controller comprising signal processing unit 50 in Figure 3 of Kishi (pages 21-23 of Kishi translation).
With regard to claim 8, in the combination of Kishi in view of Magee, the controller is configured to measure the drive current of the driver while sweeping the frequencies to find the high-frequency-band resonant frequency, and that drive current is used to determine the high-frequency-band resonant frequency (pages 11-13 and 22-23 of Kishi translation).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020217600 by Kishi in view of U.S. 2020/0282435 by Magee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0089102 by Sauer.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Kishi in view of Magee teaches that cleaning of the protective cover may be undermined by the temperature of the protective cover being too low, and the combination of Kishi in view of Magee teaches that the estimated temperature of the protective cover can be used to prevent that undermining of the cleaning (page 23 of Kishi translation).
The combination of Kishi in view of Magee does not teach that when the estimated temperature of the protective cover is below a threshold value, the controller is configured to determine again a high-frequency-band resonant frequency of the vibrator.
Sauer teaches that when a sensed temperature is below a threshold value, heating of a transparent surface of an imaging device on a vehicle can advantageously be performed until the temperature is no longer below the threshold value, wherein such heating up to a threshold value can advantageously prevent undesired freezing of water on the transparent surface (Par. 0038).
Magee teaches that, when using a transducer to vibrate a protective lens cover of an imaging device on a vehicle, heating of the protective lens can successfully be achieved by using a drive frequency (in the range of about 120 kHz to about 140 kHz) to vibrate the protective lens in order to heat it (Par. 0019 and 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kishi in view of Magee by having the controller configured to apply a drive signal (in a range of about 120 kHz to about 140 kHz) to the vibrator to vibrate and heat the protective cover when the temperature estimation of the protective cover indicates that the temperature of the protective is below a threshold value, wherein this threshold value is set in order to prevent liquids (such as rain drops, for example) from freezing on the protective cover, and wherein the controller is configured to repeatedly and alternately perform the temperature estimation and protective-cover-heating until the temperature is estimated to be above the threshold value. Motivation for performing heating of the transparent protective cover until the estimated temperature is above the threshold value was provided by Sauer, who teaches that when a sensed temperature is below a threshold value, heating of a transparent surface of an imaging device on a vehicle can advantageously be performed until the temperature is no longer below the threshold value, wherein such heating up to a threshold value can advantageously prevent undesired freezing of water on the transparent surface. Motivation for using a drive signal to perform such heating was provided by Magee, who teaches that, when using a transducer to vibrate a protective lens cover of an imaging device on a vehicle, heating of the protective lens can successfully be achieved by using a drive frequency (in the range of about 120 kHz to about 140 kHz) to vibrate the protective lens in order to heat it. In this combination of Kishi in view of Magee in view of Sauer, the repeated temperature estimation steps correspond to applicant’s steps of again determining the high-frequency-band resonant frequency, and the repeated heating steps correspond to applicant’s steps of having the vibrator vibrate at a frequency in the high frequency band for a specified period. In this combination of Kishi in view of Magee in view of Sauer, the drive signal in a range of about 120 kHz to about 140 kHz can be considered as in the high frequency band.
Remaining Claims Discussion
Claims 1-9 were rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Since the examiner can’t predict how applicant might choose to amend the claims in response to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner isn’t yet ready to say that any claims necessarily contain allowable subject matter. However, it is noted that claims 2, 4-7, and 9 can’t be rejected under the reviewed prior art.
With regard to claim 2, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Kishi in view of Magee used above to reject claim 1. The combination of Kishi in view of Magee fails to teach the apparatus recited in claim 2, wherein, if the estimated temperature of the light transmitter is lower than a specified value, the controller is configured to programmed to control the driver such that the driver causes the vibrator to vibrate at a high frequency of about 100 kHz or higher, and, if the estimated temperature of the light transmitter is higher than or equal to the specified value, the controller is configured or programmed to determine a low-frequency-band resonant frequency of the vibrator, according to a state of the driver obtained by changing the drive frequency of the driver within a lower frequency band lower than about 100 kHz and control the driver such that the driver causes the vibrator to vibrate at the determined low-frequency-band resonant frequency. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the apparatus of Kishi in view of Magee to arrive at the apparatus recited by claim 2. Claims 5-7 depend from claim 2.
With regard to claim 4, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Kishi in view of Magee in view of Sauer used above to reject claim 3. The combination of Kishi in view of Magee in view of Sauer fails to teach the apparatus recited in claim 4, wherein, if the temperature of the light transmitter estimated again has become higher than or equal to the specified value, or if the estimated temperature of the light transmitter is higher than or equal to the specified value, the controller is configured or programmed to determine a low-frequency-band resonant frequency of the vibrator, according to a state of the driver obtained by changing the drive frequency of the driver within a low frequency band lower than about 100 kHz and control the driver such that the driver causes the vibrator to vibrate at the determined low-frequency-band resonant frequency. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the apparatus of Kishi in view of Magee in view of Sauer to arrive at the apparatus recited by claim 4.
With regard to claim 9, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Kishi in view of Magee used above to reject claim 1. How the combination of Kishi in view of Magee estimates temperature is discussed on pages 22-23 of the Kishi translation. A relevant portion of that discussion is copied-and-pasted here:
As described above, in the cleaning device according to the third embodiment, the change amount (Δf) of the resonance frequency and the impedance detection when the signal processing circuit 20 drives the vibrating unit 12 with the first voltage (V1). The temperature of the protective cover 2 is estimated based on the amount of change (ΔI) of the current value with respect to the impedance detected by the unit 70, and the vibrating unit is used when cleaning the surface of the protective cover 2 based on the estimated temperature of the protective cover 2. The voltage for driving 12 is changed.
The equation that applicant recites in claim 9 is clearly a different way of estimating temperature than the technique taught by Kishi in view of Magee, and the equation recited in applicant’s claim 9 is not considered (by the examiner) to be an obvious variant of the technique taught by Kishi in view of Magee. The reviewed prior art fails to provide motivation to modify the combination of Kishi in view of Magee to arrive at the apparatus recited by claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights