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 .
Claims 18-20 are pending. Claims 1 – 17 are cancelled.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1 of the specification, in para [0001], the phrase “United States Patent Application No. 17/319, 616, filed May 13, 2021” should apparently be replaced with “United States Patent Application No. 18/162,191, filed January 31, 2023, and issued as United States Patent No. 12,030,095 on July 9, 2024, which is a continuation of United States Patent Application No. 17/319, 616, filed May 13, 2021, and issued as United States Patent No. 11,596,986 on March 7, 2023”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “transducer mechanically” in lines 1-2 should apparently be replaced with “transducer is mechanically”.
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 18-20 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 18 recites the limitation "the environmental pollutants" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “title at an angle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear exactly what this means. It appears the intended meaning may be “tilt at an angle” and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 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 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.
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.
Claims 18 and 19 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 US 2018/0009418 to Newman (“Newman”).
Regarding claim 18, Newman teaches an optical sensor assembly for a vehicle (abstract), the assembly comprising: a sensor having an optical surface (Fig. 16A – 16C, ref. 1616, para [0146]); and a protection device comprising an ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 16C, ref. 1654, para [0149]) that is configured to emit an ultrasonic field into air in front of the optical surface of a sensor to form a protection zone in the air.
Newman does not explicitly teach the assembly being operated in a manner wherein the protection zone will destroy and/or move the environmental pollutants in the air and block the environmental pollutants reaching the optical surface of the sensor, and the protection zone will provide a contactless cleaning of the sensor. However, since Newman discloses the claimed structural features, the Newman assembly appears to be substantially identical, and the Newman ultrasonic field is located between the transducer and the sensor, the Newman assembly appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 can be made when the prior art product seems to be identical except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic. MPEP 2112(III)(A).
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP 2112(V).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 19, Newman discloses an assembly wherein the ultrasonic transducer is mechanically coupled to the optical surface such that at least a part of the ultrasonic field will be emitted by the optical surface itself (Fig, 1, note Fig. 116C, para [0047] and [0146]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and rejected as indefinite, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and properly amended to cure the indefiniteness.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is US 2018/0009418 to Newman. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein the optical surface of the sensor is configured to tilt at an angle depending on wind direction when the vehicle is moving, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FR 3052416 to Valeo Systemes dEssuyage SAS teaches an optical sensor protection device.
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