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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-17 and 21 are low resolution, dithered, and in grayscale/halftones, rendering them visually unclear. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l). Moreover, the clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k).
For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20230076152 A1, US 20230286103 A1, and US 20240009795 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as black and white (not color) vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap) and uploading them to USPTO Patent Center as “Drawings-other than black and white line drawings”, which should cause the filed image file to be stored in the SCORE database without any image conversion.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 18A-B, 19A-B, and 20A-B are black/white photographs and are visually unclear. In this instance, photographs are not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(b)(1). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the portion of the restrictor is flush with an outer surface of the structure surrounding the air inlet” (claim 6) must be shown or the “flush” feature should be canceled from the claim. For example, Fig. 6 does not appear to show the recited “flush” configuration, showing only a “recessed” configuration (Spec. ¶ 0029).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11-14, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a camera disposed at structure” (claim 1, line 2) should be changed to --a camera disposed on a structure--;
“determination” (claim 11, line 2) should be changed to --a determination--;
“determination” (claim 12, line 2) should be changed to --a determination--;
“presence” (claim 12, line 2) should be changed to --a presence--;
“determination” (claim 13, line 2) should be changed to --a determination--;
“absence” (claim 13, line 2) should be changed to --an absence--;
“determination” (claim 14, line 20) should be changed to --a determination--;
“a camera disposed at a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly” (claim 14, line 2) should be changed to --a camera disposed on a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly--;
“presence” (claim 14, line 21) should be changed to --a presence--;
“determination” (claim 17, line 2) should be changed to --a determination--;
“absence” (claim 17, line 2) should be changed to --an absence--;
“a camera disposed at a vehicular camera wing” (claim 18, line 2) should be changed to --a camera disposed on a vehicular camera wing--;
“determination” (claim 18, line 19) should be changed to --a determination--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Lundy
Claims 1-6, 11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220024421 A1 (“Lundy”).
Regarding claim 1, Lundy discloses a vehicular vision system (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, vehicular vision system 10 including camera 44),
the vehicular vision system comprising:
a camera disposed [on a] structure at a side of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular vision system (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, camera 44 is disposed on a structure 36 that is attached to the side of a vehicle (via mounting plate 20), which has the vehicular vision system);
wherein the structure extends outward from the side of the vehicle, and wherein, with the structure extended outward from the side of the vehicle, the camera views at least rearward of the vehicle (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, structure 36 extends outwards from the side of the vehicle, where camera 44 is capable of viewing rearward of the vehicle);
wherein the structure comprises an air conduit having an air inlet at a forward portion of the structure and an air outlet at a rearward portion of the structure (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, air conduit 100 has an inlet 72 at a forward portion of structure 36 and outlet 112 at a rear position of structure 36);
wherein the air conduit is adjustable between a closed state and an opened state (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0030-0036, air conduit 100 in open state (via restrictor/cover 76) shown in Fig. 2, closed state shown in Fig. 4);
an actuator that is electrically operable to adjust the air conduit between the closed state and the opened state (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0035, actuator 80 is electronically operable via controller 64 to adjust air conduit 100 via moving and closing restrictor/cover 76 to an open state and closed state);
wherein, as the vehicle moves in a forward direction of travel, and with the air conduit in the closed state, airflow does not flow from the air inlet through the air conduit to the air outlet (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0030-0036, when the air conduit 100 is in a closed state (Fig. 2) while the vehicle is moving forward, airflow does not flow as recited; this limitation is not interpreted as a method step (e.g., requiring the vehicle to actually move) but rather as describing the function of the air conduit when in a state where the vehicle is moving forward);
and wherein, as the vehicle moves in the forward direction of travel, and with the air conduit in the opened state, airflow flows into the air conduit through the air inlet and the airflow is directed from the air outlet toward a lens of the camera (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0030-0036, when the air conduit 100 is in an open state (Fig. 4) while the vehicle is moving forward, airflow flows as recited toward lens 48/68 of camera 44; this limitation is not interpreted as a method step (e.g., requiring the vehicle to actually move) but rather as describing the function of the air conduit when in a state where the vehicle is moving forward).
Regarding claim 2, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the structure comprises a vehicular camera wing (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, structure 36 has camera 44 and extends outwards from the side of the vehicle like a wing (via mounting plate 20)).
Regarding claim 3, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the structure comprises a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, structure 36 is a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly 36; Examiner notes that element 36 is considered a “mirror assembly” even though a camera has replaced a mirror (US 20220118912 A1 (“Kim”) Abstr.; Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0055-0057, camera mirror assembly 1 has camera 2 and does not have a mirror));
Regarding claim 4, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the actuator is electrically operable to move a restrictor within the air conduit to adjust the air conduit between the closed state and the opened state (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0035, actuator 80 is electronically operable via controller 64 to adjust air conduit 100 via moving restrictor/cover 76 (which is at least partially in air conduit 100) to an open state and closed state).
Regarding claim 5, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 4 as applied above and further discloses wherein, with the air conduit in the closed state, a portion of the restrictor is disposed within the air inlet to prevent airflow from entering the air inlet (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0035, when air conduit 100 is in a closed stated, the restrictor/cover 76 in within inlet 72 to prevent airflow from entering the inlet 72).
Regarding claim 6, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 5 as applied above and further discloses wherein the portion of the restrictor is flush with an outer surface of the structure surrounding the air inlet (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0035, when air conduit 100 is in a closed stated, at least a portion of the restrictor/cover 76 is flush with the outer surface of structure 32 at the inlet 72).
Regarding claim 11, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the vehicular vision system, at least partially in response to [a] determination that the vehicle is moving in the forward direction of travel at a speed greater than a threshold speed, electrically operates the actuator to adjust the air conduit from the closed state to the opened state (¶ 0028, “controller 64 may be configured to cause actuator 80 to move moveable vent cover 76 to an open position upon a determination that the vehicle speed is greater than a first predetermined threshold speed”).
Regarding claim 18, Lundy discloses a vehicular vision system (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, vehicular vision system 10 including camera 44),
the vehicular vision system comprising:
a camera disposed [on] a vehicular camera wing at a side of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular vision system (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, camera 44 is disposed on a wing structure 36 that is attached to the side of a vehicle (via mounting plate 20), which has the vehicular vision system);
wherein the vehicular camera wing extends outward from the side of the vehicle, and wherein, with the vehicular camera wing extended outward from the side of the vehicle, the camera views at least rearward of the vehicle (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, wing structure 36 extends outwards from the side of the vehicle like a wing (via mounting plate 20), where camera 44 is capable of viewing rearward of the vehicle);
wherein the vehicular camera wing comprises an air conduit having an air inlet at a forward portion of the vehicular camera wing and an air outlet at a rearward portion of the vehicular camera wing (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, air conduit 100 has an inlet 72 at a forward portion of wing structure 36 and outlet 112 at a rear position of wing structure 36);
wherein the air conduit is adjustable between a closed state and an opened state (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0030-0036, air conduit 100 in open state (via restrictor/cover 76) shown in Fig. 2, closed state shown in Fig. 4);
an actuator that is electrically operable to adjust the air conduit between the closed state and the opened state (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0035, actuator 80 is electronically operable via controller 64 to adjust air conduit 100 via moving and closing restrictor/cover 76 to an open state and closed state);
wherein, as the vehicle moves in a forward direction of travel, and with the air conduit in the closed state, airflow does not flow from the air inlet through the air conduit to the air outlet (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0030-0036, when the air conduit 100 is in a closed state (Fig. 2) while the vehicle is moving forward, airflow does not flow as recited; this limitation is not interpreted as a method step (e.g., requiring the vehicle to actually move) but rather as describing the function of the air conduit when in a state where the vehicle is moving forward);
wherein, as the vehicle moves in the forward direction of travel, and with the air conduit in the opened state, airflow flows into the air conduit through the air inlet and the airflow is directed from the air outlet toward a lens of the camera (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0030-0036, when the air conduit 100 is in an open state (Fig. 4) while the vehicle is moving forward, airflow flows as recited toward lens 48/68 of camera 44; this limitation is not interpreted as a method step (e.g., requiring the vehicle to actually move) but rather as describing the function of the air conduit when in a state where the vehicle is moving forward);
and wherein the vehicular vision system, at least partially in response to [a] determination that the vehicle is moving in the forward direction of travel at a speed greater than a threshold speed, electrically operates the actuator to adjust the air conduit from the closed state to the opened state (¶ 0028, “controller 64 may be configured to cause actuator 80 to move moveable vent cover 76 to an open position upon a determination that the vehicle speed is greater than a first predetermined threshold speed”).
Regarding claim 19, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 18 as applied above and further discloses wherein the actuator is electrically operable to move a restrictor within the air conduit to adjust the air conduit between the closed state and the opened state (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0035, actuator 80 is electronically operable via controller 64 to adjust air conduit 100 via moving restrictor/cover 76 (which is at least partially in air conduit 100) to an open state and closed state).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Lundy in view of Kubota
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220024421 A1 (“Lundy”) in view of US 20180167536 A1 (“Kubota”).
Lundy pertains to a vehicle mirror camera cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Kubota pertains to a vehicle camera cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-9B). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 7, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 4 as applied above. Lundy does not explicitly disclose wherein the restrictor comprises a compressible sealing element, and wherein, with the air conduit in the closed state, the compressible sealing element is at least partially compressed against an inner surface of the air conduit. However, the Lundy/Kubota combination makes obvious this claim.
Kubota discloses wherein the restrictor comprises a compressible sealing element, and wherein, with the air conduit in the closed state, the compressible sealing element is at least partially compressed against an inner surface of the air conduit (Figs. 3, 6A-7B; ¶¶ 0047-0049, compressible seal 61a of restrictor 61 is at least partially compressed against an inner surface of air conduit 65a when the air conduit (using restrictor 61) is in a closed state (as shown in Figs. 6A and 7B); ¶¶ 0055-0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kubota with Lundy by adding a compressible seal around the perimeter of and/or under the restrictor/cover 76, compressing the seal in the air conduit 100 when the restrictor/cover 76 is in the closed state. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the seal would help to prevent dirt and other contaminants from entering into the air conduit 100 (which may lead to a dirty camera lens 48/68) when the restrictor/cover 76 is in the closed state. For example, when the vehicle is subjected to rain, the rainwater may carry contaminants from around the outer surface of the restrictor/cover 76 into the air conduit 100 if there were no seal.
Lundy in view of Nguyen
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220024421 A1 (“Lundy”) in view of US 20170015247 A1 (“Nguyen”).
Lundy pertains to a vehicle mirror camera cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Nguyen pertains to a vehicle mirror cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 10, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 1 as applied above. Lundy does not explicitly disclose wherein the air conduit extends at least partially below the camera, and wherein the airflow is directed at least partially upward from the air outlet toward the lens of the camera. However, the Lundy/Nguyen combination makes obvious this claim.
Nguyen discloses wherein the air conduit extends at least partially below the camera, and wherein the airflow is directed at least partially upward from the air outlet toward the lens of the camera (Fig. 3B; ¶ 0053, air conduit (at reference 18 in Fig. 3B) extends below the mirror 88 and directs airflow 22 upwards from the air outlet 30 towards the mirror 88; see discussion below re “camera” and “lens”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Nguyen with Lundy by changing the configuration of the Lundy device such that the air conduit 100 and restrictor/cover 76 are on the bottom of structure 36, at least partially below camera 44, such that air is directed upwards to lens 48/68 of camera 44 when restrictor/cover 76 is open and the vehicle is moving forward. This is a relatively simple modification that is essentially an opposite configuration compared to Lundy Figs. 1-4. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is a design choice of where to place the air conduit 100 and restrictor/cover 76 relative to the camera 44. For example, Nguyen shows both alternatives, where the air conduit 100 and restrictor/cover 76 are above the mirror (Nguyen Fig. 3A) and below the mirror (Nguyen Fig. 3B), simply noting the “below” configuration as an “alternative” without any significant comment (Nguyen ¶¶ 0035, 0053). Further, placement below the mirror may mitigate damage to the restrictor/cover 76, such as damage caused by falling objects from above (which would not hit the restrictor/cover 76 if in the “below” configuration).
Applicant has not disclosed that the “below” configuration provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Lundy
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220024421 A1 (“Lundy”).
Lundy pertains to a vehicle mirror camera cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5) and is in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 12, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the vehicular vision system, at least partially in response to [a] determination of [a] presence of contaminants at the lens of the camera, electrically operates the actuator to adjust the air conduit from the closed state to the opened state (¶¶ 0026, 0034, 0027, “controller 64 may be in communication with a sensor (not shown) that indicates whether lens 48 or lens cover 68 is dirty. Controller 64 may be configured to, upon the receipt of an appropriate input from the at least one vehicle system, such as an input indicating that one of lens 48 and lens cover 68 is dirty, cause actuator 80 to move moveable vent cover 76 from the first position to the second position, for example, from the open position to the closed position. Controller 64 may further be configured to, upon the receipt of a second appropriate input from the at least one vehicle system, cause actuator 80 to move moveable vent cover 76 from the second position to one of a third position or back to the first position, for example, from a closed position to a partially open position or to a completely open position.”; Examiner takes the position that Lundy ¶ 0027 includes a typographical error, since it makes no sense (see Lundy ¶ 0034) for the controller to close cover 76 upon input that the lens 48/68 is dirty, when the entire purpose of Lundy is to clean any such contaminants from lens 48/68 using the airflow achieved via an open cover 76 (Lundy ¶ 0034, “When vehicle is moving in a forward direction and moveable vent cover 76 is in an open or partially open position, moveable vent cover 76 may direct a fluid such as air into inlet opening 72. Fluid may flow into inlet opening 72 and from there into first end 108 of channel 100, pass through channel 100, and exit through second end 112 of channel 100. Upon exiting through second end 112 of channel 100, fluid may be redirected by diverter 116 toward lens cover 68. Fluid may contact lens cover 68 with sufficient force to cause precipitation, dust, or dirt that has been deposited on lens cover 68 to be blown away and removed from lens cover 68. When moveable vent cover 76 is in the closed position, little or no fluid may flow through channel 100.”).
To the extent Lundy does not explicitly disclose this limitation (i.e., if Lundy ¶ 0027 does not actually contain a typographical error), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify Lundy so that upon a determination that there are contaminants at the lens 48/68, controller 64 moves actuator 80 to move restrictor/cover 76 from the closed state to the open state (instead of closing the restrictor/cover 76 upon the determination). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the entire purpose of Lundy is to clean any such contaminants from lens 48/68 using the airflow achieved via an open cover 76 (Lundy ¶ 0034, “When vehicle is moving in a forward direction and moveable vent cover 76 is in an open or partially open position, moveable vent cover 76 may direct a fluid such as air into inlet opening 72. Fluid may flow into inlet opening 72 and from there into first end 108 of channel 100, pass through channel 100, and exit through second end 112 of channel 100. Upon exiting through second end 112 of channel 100, fluid may be redirected by diverter 116 toward lens cover 68. Fluid may contact lens cover 68 with sufficient force to cause precipitation, dust, or dirt that has been deposited on lens cover 68 to be blown away and removed from lens cover 68. When moveable vent cover 76 is in the closed position, little or no fluid may flow through channel 100.”; Lundy cl. 19, “A method of cleaning a lens cover disposed on an exterior of a vehicle, comprising: moving a moveable vent cover disposed on a housing to an open position; allowing a fluid to flow through an opening defined in the housing and through a channel defined by the housing and a baffle disposed within the housing; and directing the fluid, by a diverter, toward the lens cover.”).
Regarding claim 14, Lundy discloses a vehicular vision system (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, vehicular vision system 10 including camera 44),
the vehicular vision system comprising:
a camera disposed [on] a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly at a side of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular vision system (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, camera 44 is disposed on a vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly 36 that is attached to the side of a vehicle (via mounting plate 20), which has the vehicular vision system; Examiner notes that element 36 is considered a “mirror assembly” even though a camera has replaced a mirror (US 20220118912 A1 (“Kim”) Abstr.; Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0055-0057, camera mirror assembly 1 has camera 2 and does not have a mirror));
wherein the vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly extends outward from the side of the vehicle, and wherein, with the vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly extended outward from the side of the vehicle, the camera views at least rearward of the vehicle (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly 36 extends outwards from the side of the vehicle, where camera 44 is capable of viewing rearward of the vehicle);
wherein the vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly comprises an air conduit having an air inlet at a forward portion of the vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly and an air outlet at a rearward portion of the vehicular exterior rearview mirror assembly (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0023, air conduit 100 has an inlet 72 at a forward portion of structure 36 and outlet 112 at a rear position of structure 36);
wherein the air conduit is adjustable between a closed state and an opened state (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0030-0036, air conduit 100 in open state (via 80) shown in Fig. 2, closed state shown in Fig. 4);
an actuator that is electrically operable to adjust the air conduit between the closed state and the opened state (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0035, actuator 80 is electronically operable via controller 64 to adjust air conduit 100 via moving and closing restrictor/cover 76 to an open state and closed state);
wherein, as the vehicle moves in a forward direction of travel, and with the air conduit in the closed state, airflow does not flow from the air inlet through the air conduit to the air outlet (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0030-0036, when the air conduit 100 is in a closed state (Fig. 2) while the vehicle is moving forward, airflow does not flow as recited; this limitation is not interpreted as a method step (e.g., requiring the vehicle to actually move) but rather as describing the function of the air conduit when in a state where the vehicle is moving forward);
wherein, as the vehicle moves in the forward direction of travel, and with the air conduit in the opened state, airflow flows into the air conduit through the air inlet and the airflow is directed from the air outlet toward a lens of the camera (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0025-0028, 0030-0036, when the air conduit 100 is in an open state (Fig. 4) while the vehicle is moving forward, airflow flows as recited toward lens 48/68 of camera 44; this limitation is not interpreted as a method step (e.g., requiring the vehicle to actually move) but rather as describing the function of the air conduit when in a state where the vehicle is moving forward);
and wherein the vehicular vision system, at least partially in response to [a] determination of [a] presence of contaminants at the lens of the camera, electrically operates the actuator to adjust the air conduit from the closed state to the opened state (¶¶ 0026, 0034, 0027, “controller 64 may be in communication with a sensor (not shown) that indicates whether lens 48 or lens cover 68 is dirty. Controller 64 may be configured to, upon the receipt of an appropriate input from the at least one vehicle system, such as an input indicating that one of lens 48 and lens cover 68 is dirty, cause actuator 80 to move moveable vent cover 76 from the first position to the second position, for example, from the open position to the closed position. Controller 64 may further be configured to, upon the receipt of a second appropriate input from the at least one vehicle system, cause actuator 80 to move moveable vent cover 76 from the second position to one of a third position or back to the first position, for example, from a closed position to a partially open position or to a completely open position.”; Examiner takes the position that Lundy ¶ 0027 includes a typographical error, since it makes no sense (see Lundy ¶ 0034) for the controller to close cover 76 upon input that the lens 48/68 is dirty, when the entire purpose of Lundy is to clean any such contaminants from lens 48/68 using the airflow achieved via an open cover 76 (Lundy ¶ 0034, “When vehicle is moving in a forward direction and moveable vent cover 76 is in an open or partially open position, moveable vent cover 76 may direct a fluid such as air into inlet opening 72. Fluid may flow into inlet opening 72 and from there into first end 108 of channel 100, pass through channel 100, and exit through second end 112 of channel 100. Upon exiting through second end 112 of channel 100, fluid may be redirected by diverter 116 toward lens cover 68. Fluid may contact lens cover 68 with sufficient force to cause precipitation, dust, or dirt that has been deposited on lens cover 68 to be blown away and removed from lens cover 68. When moveable vent cover 76 is in the closed position, little or no fluid may flow through channel 100.”).
To the extent Lundy does not explicitly disclose this limitation (i.e., if Lundy ¶ 0027 does not actually contain a typographical error), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify Lundy so that upon a determination that there are contaminants at the lens 48/68, controller 64 moves actuator 80 to move restrictor/cover 76 from the closed state to the open state (instead of closing the restrictor/cover 76 upon the determination).
The obviousness rationale for claim 14 is the same as for claim 12.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as claim 4, except as depending from claim 14.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as claim 5, except as depending from claim 15.
Lundy in view of Sakai
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220024421 A1 (“Lundy”) in view of US 20200406864 A1 (“Sakai”).
Lundy pertains to a vehicle mirror camera cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Sakai pertains to a vehicle sensor cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-18). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 13, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 1 as applied above. Lundy does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicular vision system, at least partially in response to [a] determination of [an] absence of contaminants at the lens of the camera, electrically operates the actuator to adjust the air conduit from the opened state to the closed state. However, the Lundy/Sakai combination makes obvious this claim.
Lundy discloses that the vehicular vision system, at least partially in response to [a] determination…electrically operates the actuator to adjust the air conduit from the opened state to the closed state (¶¶ 0026, 0034, 0027, “controller 64 may be in communication with a sensor (not shown) that indicates whether lens 48 or lens cover 68 is dirty. Controller 64 may be configured to, upon the receipt of an appropriate input from the at least one vehicle system, such as an input indicating that one of lens 48 and lens cover 68 is dirty, cause actuator 80 to move moveable vent cover 76 from the first position to the second position, for example, from the open position to the closed position. Controller 64 may further be configured to, upon the receipt of a second appropriate input from the at least one vehicle system, cause actuator 80 to move moveable vent cover 76 from the second position to one of a third position or back to the first position, for example, from a closed position to a partially open position or to a completely open position.”.
Sakai discloses that a vehicular cleaning system is able to determine the absence of contaminants on a sensor and send a signal accordingly (¶ 0173, “Since the cleaner control unit 1116 acquires signals from the plurality of sensor signal processing units 1122, it is easy to determine the presence or absence of the dirt by comparing the outputs of the plurality of external sensors 6. For example, if the same signal is obtained for the same area from the plurality of external sensors 6, it can be determined that it is some kind of object rather than the dirt.”; ¶ 0175, “ It is possible to detect dirt on each of the external sensors 6 and operate or not to operate the cleaner unit 110 depending on the presence or absence of the dirt.”; Figs. 10, 14, 17-18, showing an input of absence of contaminate causing an operation by the controller (S32, S103, S204)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Sakai with Lundy by modifying the controller 64 to operate actuator 80 to move restrictor/cover 76 from an open state and to a closed state based on a determination that there is an absence of contaminates at the lens 48/68 of camera 44, as taught by Sakai. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Lundy already teaches that the controller could be configured so that various inputs could open or close restrictor/cover 76, and closing restrictor/cover 76 when it is not needed (because the lens 48/68 does not have contaminates) would prevent damage of the restrictor/cover 76, prevent dirt/debris from entering into air conduit 100, and provide for less aerodynamic drag (due to the restrictor/cover 76).
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as claim 13, except as depending from claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, Lundy discloses the vehicular vision system of claim 4 as applied above. Lundy does not explicitly disclose “wherein the actuator comprises an electrically operable motor that, when electrically operated, axially drives a plunger to move the restrictor and adjust the air conduit between the closed state and the opened state.”
Accordingly, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of claim 8 in combination as claimed. Claim 9 is allowable for depending from claim 8. Claim 20 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 8, except as depending from claim 19.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 10-19 are rejected. Claims 8-9 and 20 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to cleaning devices for external vehicular mirrors, cameras, and sensors, including ones that use airflow for cleaning, that are similar to the configuration of the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: September 16, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
