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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 15 recites “wherein the axis of rotation of…are substantially parallel”. The word “axis” is singular. “Axes” would be the plural of “axis”. It is not grammatically correct to recite what a singular axis “are” doing. Appropriate correction is required. As discussed below in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 15, it appears that applicant accidentally miswrote claim 15 and probably intended to recite that “axes” are present, meaning that the first cleaning roller rotates about a first axis of rotation and that the second cleaning roller rotates about a second axis of rotation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and claim 10 recited that the “cleaning mechanism” comprises both “a first cleaning tool located on a first side of the lens” and “a second cleaning tool located on a second side of the lens”. The specification, as originally filed, does not teach having such a combination of cleaning tools on different sides of the lens, wherein this combination of cleaning tools is also between the lens and the roller. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to recite that “the first cleaning tool is positioned between the lens of the sensor and the roller” in claim 11 instead of “the cleaning mechanism is positioned between the lens of the sensor and the roller”.
Claim 15 recites that “the first cleaning tool is a first cleaning roller and the second cleaning tool is a second cleaning roller that are configured to rotate about an axis of rotation”. However, in applicant’s specification as originally filed, the first cleaning tool (item 226A in applicant’s Figure 2A) rotates about a first rotation axis and the second cleaning tool (item 226B in applicant’s Figure 2A) rotates about a second rotation axis; the cleaning tools don’t both rotate about the same axis. The rollers don’t both rotate about “an” (singular) axis. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to write something to the effect of the following: “the first cleaning tool is a first cleaning roller and the second cleaning tool is a second cleaning roller, wherein the first cleaning roller is configured to rotate about a first axis of rotation and the second cleaning roller is configured to rotate about a second axis of rotation”. In claim 15, it was presumed that when applicant recited that “wherein the axis of rotation of the first cleaning tool and the second cleaning tool are substantially parallel…”, applicant probably intended to write something to the effect of the following: “wherein the axes of rotation of the first cleaning tool and the second cleaning tool are substantially parallel…”
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 14 and 22 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 14 recites “the cleaning tool”. However, claim 10 (the independent claim) recites “a first cleaning tool” and “a second cleaning tool”, and it is thus not clear which cleaning tool is referenced by the phrase “the cleaning tool” in claim 14. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to write “the first cleaning tool” in claim 14 instead of “the cleaning tool”.
Claim 22 recites “the cleaning tool” in the first line of claim 22. However, claim 10 (the independent claim) recites “a first cleaning tool” and “a second cleaning tool”, and it is thus not clear which cleaning tool is referenced by the phrase “the cleaning tool” in claim 22. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to write “the cleaning mechanism” in the first line of claim 22 instead of “the cleaning tool”.
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, 3-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH11173912 by Iwase.
With regard to claim 1, Iwase teaches a guard system for protecting an optical sensor (item 2 in Figure 5) from dust, wherein the system comprises a transmissive film 1 through which the optical sensor senses light, wherein the film comprises an inner surface (facing upwards when looking at Figure 5) that is configured to face the optical sensor and an outer surface (facing downwards when looking at Figure 5) that is exposed to environmental elements and that opposes the inner surfaces (Abstract; pages 2-6 of translation). Iwase’s system comprises a primary cleaning tool (comprising cleaning roller 6B in Figure 5) configured to clean the outer surface of the film (pages 4-6 of translation). Iwase’s system comprises a secondary cleaning tool (comprising brush 20 in Figure 6) spaced apart from the primary cleaning tool, wherein the secondary cleaning tool is configured to clean the inner surface of the film (pages 3 and 5-6 of translation). Iwase’s system comprises a roller 5B configured to move the film with respect to the sensor and to guide the film to clean the film with the primary cleaning tool (pages 2-6 of translation). Iwase’s primary cleaning tool is a cleaning roller (item 6B in Figure 5) that is rotatable about an axis of rotation as the film is guided along the roller 5B to remove debris from the outer surface of the film (pages 4-6 of translation). Applicant’s limitations specifying that the sensor comprises a lens and can capture images within a field of view of the lens specify intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and are not given patentable weight. The guard system of Iwase is structurally capable of guarding such a sensor from dust by having such a sensor arranged through an elastic lid (item 8 in Figure 5) of the guard system.
With regard to claim 3, in the apparatus of Iwase’s the film is partially wound around the roller 5B, and the roller 5B is configured to wind and unwind the film to move the film with respect to the sensor (pages 2-6 of translation).
With regard to claim 4, the roller 5B is coupled to a drive system that is configured to rotate the roller 5B to wind and unwind the film (pages 2-6 of translation).
With regard to claim 5, the system of Iwase comprises slits (one of which is labeled as 14 in Figure 5, the other of which is shown but not labeled in Figure 5) that extend into a space beyond the end of the sensor 2, and these slit structures are considered to form a bezel because they are structurally capable of serving as a frame around a sensor with a lens. As illustrated in Figure 5, the bottom-right (“bottom-right” when looking at Figure 5) tip of leftmost slit 14 is positioned such that the film can be between that bottom-right tip and a lens positioned at the bottom of the sensor 2.
With regard to claim 6, applicant’s limitation specifying that the positively-recited film is positioned relative to a lens with a field of view that extends through the film specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The guard system of Iwase is structurally capable of having a sensor with a lens arranged through the elastic lid (item 8 in Figure 5) of the guard system, wherein the lens has a field of view that extends through the film.
With regard to claim 7, as illustrated in Figure 5, the film can be moved by roller 5b while remaining at a constant distance from a sensor 2 in the guard system. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the positively-recited film is used to guard a sensor with a lens specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The apparatus of Iwase is structurally capable of having the film moved at a constant distance from a lens of sensor arranged through the elastic lid (item 8 in Figure 5) of the guard system.
With regard to claim 8, in the guard system of Iwase, the film includes a first portion through which the sensor can receive light and a second portion connected to the first portion and located outside a view of the sensor, and the roller 5B is configured to move the film so that the first portion is guided between the primary cleaning tool and the secondary cleaning tool and the second portion is moved so that the sensor can receive light through the second portion (pages 2-6 of translation).
With regard to claim 9, in the guard system of Iwase, the roller 5B is configured to translate the film along a plane that is located adjacent to and spaced apart from the bottom (“bottom” when looking at Figure 5) top of the sensor 2. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the sensor comprises a lens specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The guard system of Iwase is structurally capable of guarding a sensor with a lens on its bottom top, wherein the sensor is arranged through an elastic lid (item 8 in Figure 5) of the guard system.
With regard to claim 21, in the apparatus of Iwase, the cleaning roller 6A (in Figure 5) can be considered a first cleaning tool located on a first side of the sensor, wherein the cleaning roller 6A cleans the film when the film extends in a first direction (pages 2-6 of translation). The primary cleaning tool 6B (in Figure 5) is a second cleaning tool located on a second side of the sensor, wherein the primary cleaning tool 6B cleans the film when the film extends in a second direction that is opposite the first direction.
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 10, 13-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11173912 by Iwase in view of U.S. 4,061,570 to Fletcher.
With regard to claim 10, Iwase teaches a sensor system comprising a sensor 2 (in Figure 5) and a sensor guard that includes a transmissive film 1 adjacent to the sensor such that light received by the sensor passes through the transmissive film (pages 2-6 of translation). The lens guard includes a roller 5B operable to laterally move the film with respect to the sensor (pages 2-6 of translation and Figure 5). The lens guard includes a cleaning mechanism comprising a first cleaning tool 6B located on a first side of the sensor, wherein the first cleaning tool 6B (in Figure 5) is configured to clean the film when the film moves in a first direction (pages 2-6 of translation). The cleaning mechanism comprises a second cleaning tool 6A located on a second side of the sensor, wherein the second cleaning tool 6A is configured to clean the film when the film moves in a second direction, and wherein the second direction is opposite to the first direction (pages 2-6 of translation). In the apparatus of Iwase, the film is controlled to pass along the cleaning mechanism when the roller moves the film so that surfaces of the film are cleaned by the first and second cleaning tools (pages 2-6 of translation).
Iwase teaches that the sensor 2 has a detecting portion 4 (in Figure 5) and can receive to-be-sensed light through the film 1 (pages 2-6 of translation).
Iwase does not explicitly teach that the detecting portion uses a lens to receive the to-be-detected light.
Fletcher teaches that a light sensor comprising a lens 26 in a housing can successfully be used to collect light for sensing said light (Page 2, line 4 to Col. 3, line 15).
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 Iwase by having the light sensor 2 comprise a lens in a housing, wherein the to-be-sensed light passes through the lens. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Fletcher, who teaches that a light sensor comprising a lens 26 in a housing can successfully be used to collect light for sensing said light.
With regard to claim 13, the apparatus of Iwase in view of Fletcher comprises slits (one of which is labeled as 14 in Figure 5 of Iwase, the other of which is shown but not labeled in Figure 5) that extend into a space beyond the end of the sensor 2, and these slit structures are considered to form a bezel because they are structurally capable of serving as a frame around the lens. The bottom-right (“bottom-right” when looking at Figure 5) tip of leftmost slit 14 is positioned such that the film can be between that bottom-right tip and the lens within the housing of the sensor. In the combination of Iwase in view of Fletcher, the bezel is considered to be coupled to the housing of the sensor because an elastic lid (item 8 in Figure 5 of Iwase) couples the sensor to a structure comprising the slits.
With regard to claim 14, in the apparatus of Iwase in view of Fletcher, the film is configured to move through an opening of the slits in order to be cleaned by the first cleaning tool.
With regard to claim 15, in the apparatus of Iwase in view of Fletcher, the first cleaning tool 6B (in Figure 5 of Iwase) is a cleaning roller that rotates about a first rotation axis, and the second cleaning tool 6A is a cleaning roller that rotates about a second rotation axis (pages 2-6 of Iwase translation). The rotation axes of the first and second cleaning rollers are parallel to the axis of rotation of the roller 5B.
With regard to claim 16, in the apparatus of Iwase in view of Fletcher, a direction of the movement of the film is substantially perpendicular to the axes of rotation of the first cleaning tool 6B, the second cleaning tool 6A, and the roller 5B.
With regard to claim 22, in the apparatus of Iwase in view of Fletcher, the cleaning mechanism comprises a secondary cleaning tool (comprising brush 20 in Figure 6 of Iwase) located opposite the first cleaning tool 6B, and the film extends between the first cleaning tool 6B and the secondary cleaning tool (pages 2-6 of translation of Iwase.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11173912 by Iwase in view of U.S. 4,061,570 to Fletcher as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of CN217197943 by Deng.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Iwase in view of Fletcher fails to teach that the first cleaning tool is positioned between the lens and the roller 5B (in Figure 5 of Iwase).
Deng teaches that, when using a roller (the leftmost item 31 in Figure 1) to wind and unwind a light-transmissive film for an optical element 1 in order to clean the film, a cleaning device comprising an opposing pair of cleaning rollers (items 41 and 42 in Figure 1) can be positioned upstream of the roller and downstream of the optical element in order to successfully contact and clean opposing sides of the film (pages 2-5 of translation).
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 Iwase in view of Fletcher by having a cleaning device comprise an opposing pair of cleaning rollers positioned upstream of the roller 5B and downstream of the lens in order to contact and clean opposing sides of the film as the film is moved by the roller 5B. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Deng, who teaches that, when using a roller to wind and unwind a light-transmissive film for an optical element 1 in order to clean the film, a cleaning device comprising an opposing pair of cleaning rollers can be positioned upstream of the roller and downstream of the optical element in order to successfully contact and clean opposing sides of the film.
As discussed in the above 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 11, the examiner presumed that applicant intended to recite that “the first cleaning tool is positioned between the lens of the sensor and the roller” in claim 11 instead of “the cleaning mechanism is positioned between the lens of the sensor and the roller”. In the developed combination of Iwase in view of Fletcher in view of Deng, one of the cleaning rollers of the cleaning device positioned upstream of the roller 5B and downstream of the lens is what corresponds to applicant’s first cleaning tool in the examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
With regard to claim 12, in the developed combination of Iwase in view of Fletcher in view of Deng, the first cleaning tool and the second cleaning tool are cleaning rollers, and the film is guided along the first cleaning tool and the second cleaning tool to remove debris from surfaces of the film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: DE102020206826 by Freudigmann, published 12/02/2021.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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