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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-11 and 20 in the reply filed on 6/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all claims is related and that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one of the group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims, and that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the consideration of undue burden is one that must be made by the examiner. Applicant’s arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive insofar as the searches are not co-extensive, as shown in the restriction requirement, and additional search would be of necessity for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/5/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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, 7, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menicovich et al. (PG Pub U.S 2021/0339711).
Regarding claim 1, Menicovich teaches a method for controlling a cleaning assembly of an exterior sensor module for a roof of a vehicle (para 0050-0052), the method comprising:
receiving a contamination signal (para 0111-0112);
assessing whether a trigger threshold is triggered for initiating a cleaning cycle (para 0117-0118 and 0125), wherein assessing the trigger threshold includes assessing size of the contamination for satisfying a surface condition (para 0117-0118 and 0125); and on triggering of the trigger threshold, initiating a cleaning cycle comprising at least one cleaning action by providing an activation signal to a cleaning assembly (para 0125).
Regarding claim 2, Menicovich teaches generating a release signal, upon: completing the cleaning cycle (para 0112).
Regarding claim 3, Menicovich teaches wherein a cleaning action comprises: activating a nozzle assembly of a cleaning assembly, the nozzle assembly comprising at least one nozzle (para 0097-0107 and para 0125).
Regarding claim 7, Menicovich teaches prioritizing cleaning actions of a cleaning cycle for the cleaning assembly (para 0088-0093, 0098-0113, and 0117-0119 and 0125).
Regarding claim 11, Menicovich teaches zoning of the visor, based on zoning information, by dividing the visor into at least two zones; setting for each zone a respective trigger threshold; wherein the zoning depends on vehicle speed and/or vehicle surroundings (para 0088-0093).
Regarding claim 20, Menicovich a computer program product, comprising non-transitory, computer readable instructions which, when the instruction are executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1 (para 0048 and 0051).
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.
Claims 4-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menicovich et al. (PG Pub U.S 2021/0339711) and further in view of Ina et al. (PG Pub U.S 2020/0406861).
Regarding claim 4, Menicovich fails to teach wherein assessing the trigger threshold further includes: assessing a default clean condition for satisfying activation; and
performing a corresponding default cleaning action if the default clean condition is met.
However, Ina also teaches a vehicle sensor cleaning control method (abstract) wherein assessing the trigger threshold further includes: assessing a default clean condition for satisfying activation (para 0017); and performing a corresponding default cleaning action if the default clean condition is met (para 0030-0035) in order effectively clean the sensor with respect to the threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Menicovich such that it includes assessing a default clean condition for satisfying activation; and performing a corresponding default cleaning action if the default clean condition is met as taught by Ina in order effectively clean the sensor with respect to the threshold.
Regarding claim 5, Menicovich fails to teach determining whether an efficiency condition is satisfied, comprising: comparing the assessed size and/or position or zone prior to the cleaning action with the size and/or position or zone after the cleaning action against the efficiency condition; based on the comparison, terminating the cleaning cycle if the efficiency condition is satisfied or performing a further cleaning action if the efficiency condition is unsatisfied, wherein the efficiency condition comprises at least one of: a decrease in size; and/or a displacement from/out of a relevant position or zone; and/or an increase in spread.
However, Ina also teaches a vehicle sensor cleaning control method wherein it is known to include determining whether an efficiency condition is satisfied, comprising: comparing the assessed size and/or position or zone prior to the cleaning action with the size and/or position or zone after the cleaning action against the efficiency condition (para 0017-0019 and 0030-0035); based on the comparison, terminating the cleaning cycle if the efficiency condition is satisfied or performing a further cleaning action if the efficiency condition is unsatisfied (para 0019-0021 and 0030-0035), wherein the efficiency condition comprises at least one of: a decrease in size; and/or a displacement from/out of a relevant position or zone; and/or an increase in spread (para 0018-0023 and 0030-0035) in order to effectively clean the sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Menicovich such that it includes determining whether an efficiency condition is satisfied, comprising: comparing the assessed size and/or position or zone prior to the cleaning action with the size and/or position or zone after the cleaning action against the efficiency condition; based on the comparison, terminating the cleaning cycle if the efficiency condition is satisfied or performing a further cleaning action if the efficiency condition is unsatisfied, wherein the efficiency condition comprises at least one of: a decrease in size; and/or a displacement from/out of a relevant position or zone; and/or an increase in spread as taught by Ina in order to effectively clean the sensor.
Regarding claim 6, Menicovich fails to teach adapting the trigger threshold. However, Ina also teaches a vehicle sensor cleaning control method wherein it is known to adapt the trigger threshold in order to reset the threshold with respect to new data/information (para 0017-0021 and 0030-0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Menicovich such that it includes adapting the trigger threshold as taught by Ina in order to reset the threshold with respect to new data/information.
Regarding claim 8, the present combination of Menicovich and Ina teaches wherein adapting the trigger threshold comprises: upon performing cleaning action, adapting the surface condition, in dependence of vehicle speed (para 0017-0021 and 0030-0035 of Ina).
Regarding claim 9, the present combination of Menicovich and Ina teaches wherein adapting the trigger threshold comprises: upon expiry of a time delay following the cleaning action, decreasing the surface condition; and/or upon assessing an increase in vehicle speed, decreasing a minimum surface threshold; and/or upon assessing a decrease in vehicle speed, increasing the minimum surface threshold (para 0017-0021 and 0030-0035 of Ina).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Menicovich et al. (PG Pub U.S 2021/0339711) and Ina et al. (PG Pub U.S 2020/0406861).
The teachings of the prior art are detailed above.
The prior art fails to teach determining whether a prediction condition is satisfied, comprising: predicting and/or tracking a contamination path, wherein a prediction/ tracking threshold comprises: at a maximum low vehicle speed, a predicted downward path satisfies the prediction threshold; and/or at a minimum high vehicle speed, a predicted upward path satisfies the prediction threshold; and/or a minimum spreading satisfies the prediction threshold; and
based on the tracking path satisfying the prediction condition, halting or initiating the cleaning cycle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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 on 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights