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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, are 9-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/980701 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims and the claims of the copending application are different only in the recitation of the shape of the sensor, but it has been held that a particular shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected results achieved by the referenced shapes of the sensors. Moreover, it appears that the claimed systems are for cleaning conventional sensors of the vehicles.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/980701 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while claim 1 of the reference application does not specify that a recited reservoir, a recited conduit, and a recited nozzle are configured such that the velocity of the ejected fluid is “from about 10 meters per second to about 80 meters per second”. However, in the art of spray-cleaning a vehicle surface, it is well known that the velocity of sprayed fluid is a result-effective variable because it affects the level of force with which the fluid can impact to-be-removed contaminants. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 claim 1 of the reference application such that a recited reservoir, a recited conduit, and a recited nozzle are configured to eject the fluid at an optimized velocity, as that velocity is a result-effective variable that affects the force with which the fluid impacts contaminants.
Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/980701 (reference application) in view of U.S. 2024/0083389 by Maciel Castellanos (hereafter referred to as “Castellanos” for simplicity). Claim 1 of the reference application does not recite that the nozzle has a back rake angle of “between about five and about fifteen degrees”. However, Castellanos teaches that a fluid-ejecting nozzle (item 954 in Figure 10) with a back rake angle of between 5 and 20 degrees can successfully be used to clean a sensor surface on a vehicle (Par. 0051 and 0052). 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 claim 1 of the reference application such that a back rake angle of a recited nozzle is between 5 and 20 degrees, and this range of between 5 and 20 degrees is considered to render applicant’s range obvious due to overlap of ranges (see MPEP 2144.05). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Castellanos, who teaches that a fluid-ejecting nozzle (item 954 in Figure 10) with a back rake angle of between 5 and 20 degrees can successfully be used to clean a sensor surface on a vehicle.
Claim 8 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/980701 (reference application) in view of U.S. 2004/0188541 by Maruyama. Claim 1 of the reference application does not recite that the apparatus comprises a self-sealing element that is configured to selectively open upon being impinged by the fluid. Maruyama teaches that when using a nozzle (see Figure 2) to clean a vehicle surface, a check valve for the nozzle can advantageously comprise a self-sealing element 84 that is configured to only open when impinged by fluid with enough force, thus preventing wrong-direction flow of fluid through the check valve (Par. 0041-0043). 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 claim 1 of the reference application by having a recited nozzle supplied its fluid via check valve with a self-sealing element that only opens when impinged by fluid with enough force. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Maruyama, who teaches that such a self-sealing element permits fluid flow in the desired direction and prevents fluid flow in the reverse, undesired direction.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites “the reservoir”. However, claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites “at least one reservoir”. In the situation where the phrase “at least one reservoir” refers to a plurality of reservoirs, it is thus not clear which reservoir is referenced in claim 2 by the phrase “the reservoir”.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the reservoir, conduit, and at least one nozzle are…”. Since the word “conduit” is not directly preceded by a definite or indefinite article, it is presumed that applicant intended to have the word “the” before the word “reservoir” also apply to the word “conduit”. Thus, claim 2 is considered to tacitly recite “the conduit” where applicant simply wrote “conduit”. However, claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites “at least one conduit”. In the situation where the phrase “at least one conduit” refers to a plurality of conduits, it is thus not clear which conduit is referenced in claim 2 by the phrase “the…conduit”.
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, 3-5, 7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menicovich et al (US 2021/0339711).
Menicovich et al teach a system and a method.
As to claims 1, 16 and 19:
The system includes:
An autonomous vehicle 700 (at least [0108]), which inherently comprises a power train;
A sensor 320, 410, 510, 600, 710, 720, 730, 740, 750; wherein the sensor is configured to collect information from a surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle for using in controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle (Par.
A sensor cleaning system 100, 103, 200, 300, 400, 715, 725, 735, 745, 755;
A sensor lens 411 with a bottom, top, left side and right side (at least Figure 4);
A reservoir (at least [0035], [0040]);
A conduit 221;
A nozzle 201, 301, 401, 501, 602;
A processor, vehicle control system (controller, CECU) 102, 250, 705, 706 and (at least [0048-54]); and instructions as claimed (at least [0083-86]), the presence of the memory is inherent to enable functioning recited at the cited [0083-86] is inherent.
See at least Figures 1-5, 7-11 and the related description and the disclosure at Summary of the Invention and Detailed Description of the Exemplary Embodiments.
As to claim 3:
LIDAR is disclosed at least at [0007-8], [0012], [0015], [0032], [0042], [0045], [0050], [0066], [0108].
As to claim 4:
The claimed field of view is disclosed at least at [0062], [0104-107].
As to claim 5:
The fluid as claimed is disclosed and least at [0035].
As to claim 7:
The shape of the nozzles as claimed is shown at least on Figures 2-5.
As to claim 9:
The extension of the nozzle as claimed is shown at least on Figures 3-6.
As to claim 10:
A plurality of the nozzles is shown at least on Figures 4-6.
As to claim 11:
The nozzles as claimed are shown at least on Figure 5.
As to claims 12 and 13:
The reservoirs, the conduits the nozzles as claimed are disclosed at least at [0035-42].
As to claim 14:
A pump, and conduit and functioning of the processor as claimed are disclosed at least at [0035-42],
As to claim 15:
A valve, and conduit and functioning of the processor as claimed are disclosed at least at [0035-42].
As to claim 17:
The autonomous control system 702 is disclosed at least at [0107-108].
As to claim 20:
The repeating as claimed is disclosed at least at [0084-87].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0339711 by Menicovich.
With regard to claim 2, the teachings of Menicovich are discussed above in the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Menicovich does not teach that the reservoir, conduit, and nozzle are configured to eject the fluid at “from about 10 meters per second to about 80 meters per second”. However, in the art of spray-cleaning a vehicle surface, it is well known that the velocity of sprayed fluid is a result-effective variable because it affects the level of force with which the fluid can impact to-be-removed contaminants. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 Menicovich such that a combination of reservoir, conduit, and nozzle used to eject the fluid are configured to eject the fluid at an optimized velocity, as that velocity is a result-effective variable that affects the force with which the fluid impacts contaminants.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0339711 by Menicovich in view of in view of U.S. 2024/0083389 by Maciel Castellanos (hereafter referred to as “Castellanos” for simplicity).
The teachings of Menicovich are discussed above in the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Menicovich does not recite that the nozzle has a back rake angle of “between about five and about fifteen degrees”.
Castellanos teaches that a fluid-ejecting nozzle (item 954 in Figure 10) with a back rake angle of between 5 and 20 degrees can successfully be used to clean a sensor surface on a vehicle (Par. 0051 and 0052).
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 Menicovich such that a back rake angle of the nozzle is between 5 and 20 degrees, and this range of between 5 and 20 degrees is considered to render applicant’s range obvious due to overlap of ranges (see MPEP 2144.05). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Castellanos, who teaches that a fluid-ejecting nozzle (item 954 in Figure 10) with a back rake angle of between 5 and 20 degrees can successfully be used to clean a sensor surface on a vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0339711 by Menicovich in view of in view of U.S. 2004/0188541 by Maruyama
The teachings of Menicovich are discussed above in the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Menicovich does not recite that the apparatus comprises a self-sealing element that is configured to selectively open upon being impinged by the fluid.
Maruyama teaches that when using a nozzle (see Figure 2) to clean a vehicle surface, a check valve for the nozzle can advantageously comprise a self-sealing element 84 that is configured to only open when impinged by fluid with enough force, thus preventing wrong-direction flow of fluid through the check valve (Par. 0041-0043).
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 Menicovich by having a recited nozzle supplied its fluid via a check valve with a self-sealing element that only opens when impinged by fluid with enough force. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Maruyama, who teaches that such a self-sealing element permits fluid flow in the desired direction and prevents fluid flow in the reverse, undesired direction.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menicovich et al (US 2021/0339711).
The analysis of the teaching of Menicovich et al provided above is incorporated here.
As to claim 18:
Menicovich et al do not specifically exemplify the vehicle as a truck.
However, since Menicovich et al do not limit the disclosed vehicle to any specific vehicle, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide the disclosed system to any vehicle, including a truck, in order to provide the disclosed benefits of the system to any vehicle, including a truck.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the bottom of page 12 of applicant’s arguments, applicant points out that “the claimed system uses the same sensor signal for ‘controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle’ and for determine whether to ‘direct[ing] the fluid to be dispensed from the at least one reservoir through the at least one nozzle’.” Applicant continues the line of argument with the following:
Menicovich, by contrast, discloses a bifurcated, two-sensor architecture that separates these functions between two distinct and separate components. Menicovich expressly teaches: (a) “vision sensors” such as radar, LiDAR, and cameras that provide environmental data for vehicle operational purposes; and (b) a separate “sensor cleaning unit sensor” (SCUS) that is a dedicated cleaning-feedback sensor. Menicovich specifically describes the SCUS as comprising “a sensor such as a camera, precipitation sensor, airflow sensor, or the like,” and the SCUS provides cleaning-relevant data including “the size of area blocked by particles on transmission surface.” The SCUS’s sole function is to feed information to the cleaning electronic control unit (CECU) to modulate actuator waveform parameters. The SCUS has no role in controlling vehicle navigation or operation. Conversely, Menicovich’s vision sensors (LiDAR, radar, cameras) are disclosed as targets to be cleaned, not as feedback inputs that trigger the cleaning system.
This line of argument is not persuasive. It is true that Menicovich teaches what applicant has characterized as a “bifurcated, two-sensor architecture”. This “bifurcated, two-sensor architecture” embodiment is discussed, for example, in paragraph [0111] of Menicovich. However, this “bifurcated, two-sensor architecture” is not the only embodiment taught by Menicovich. For example, in paragraph [0112], Menicovich teaches the following:
In one embodiment (the “Tier 2 approach”), SCU 715, 725, 735, 745, 755 are controlled by VS 710, 720, 730, 740, 750 respectively which it is tasked to clean. Each SCU receives commands through the VS system which includes VSS 721 and VSECU 722. In accordance with this embodiment, VSS 721 or VS 720 provides data required for cleaning to VSECU 722. VSECU 722 commands the dedicated SCU 725. SCU 725 performs a cleaning action and can be stopped once the VSS 721 or VSS 720 provides input to the VSECU 722 that required vision level or associated performance associated with VS 720 has been attained.
As discussed in this paragraph [0112], the SCU (“sensor cleaning unit”) performs cleaning action and can be stopped once the VS (“vision sensor”) itself provides data indicating that the “required vision level or associated performance associated with VS 720 has been attained”.
Menicovich teaches the following in paragraph [0030]:
In embodiments, the actuator power amplitude, waveform and frequency is informed by environmental factors such as precipitation, water-based and dust-type particles and the interference caused to a transmission surface. In a preferred embodiment, when the vehicle or vision sensor identifies the transmission quality through the transmission surface to be insufficient, one or the other will activate the cleaning system to clean the transmission surface until the transmission signal quality increases above a predetermined threshold.
The “bifurcated, two-sensor architecture” is not the only embodiment taught by Menicovich. Paragraphs [0030] and [0112] are examples of paragraphs where Menicovich teaches using data quality from the vision sensor itself to control cleaning and/or the stopping of cleaning of the transmission surface.
On page 13 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that the “architectural bifurcation indicates that Menicovich could not have anticipated Applicant’s claims”. It’s true that the “bifurcated, two-sensor architecture” embodiment of Menicovich does not anticipate applicant’s invention. However, as discussed, this “bifurcated, two-sensor architecture” embodiment of Menicovich is not the only embodiment taught by Menicovich. As discussed, paragraphs [0030] and [0112] are examples of paragraphs where Menicovich teaches using data quality from the vision sensor itself to control cleaning and/or the stopping of cleaning of the transmission surface.
On page 13 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “the vision sensors [of Menicovich] provide vehicle operational control data but do not generate the signal used to trigger cleaning”. This is not persuasive. As discussed, this “bifurcated, two-sensor architecture” embodiment of Menicovich is not the only embodiment taught by Menicovich. As discussed, paragraphs [0030] and [0112] are examples of paragraphs where Menicovich teaches using data quality from the vision sensor itself to control cleaning and/or the stopping of cleaning of the transmission surface.
On page 14 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “the Examiner has not, an cannot, identify a single sensor in Menicovich that simultaneously (i) collects surrounding/environment information for vehicle operational control and (ii) generates the signal whose quality is compared against a nominal value to determine when to dispense fluid”. However, as discussed, paragraphs [0030] and [0112] are examples of paragraphs where Menicovich teaches using data quality from the vision sensor itself to control cleaning and/or the stopping of cleaning of the transmission surface.
On page 14 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “the Examiner’s citation to ‘sensors 320, 410, 510, 600, 710, 720, 730, 740, 750’ and ‘at least’ of Menicovich for this claim element conflates Menicovich’s vehicle vision sensors with the SCUS”. This line of argument is not persuasive. The rejections don’t describe SCUS (“sensor cleaning unit sensor”) 716 as a vision sensor for collecting information from the vehicle’s surrounding environment. Again, Menicovich teaches different embodiments. Menicovich chose to refer to a vision sensor (such as vision sensor 710) using the same terminology (such as saying “VS 710”) when discussing different embodiments (such as the different embodiments discussed in paragraphs [0111] and [0112]). There is not improper conflation in the rejections.
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