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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending on the application, of which claim 1 is amended, claims 10-17 are withdrawn, and claims 18-20 are newly added.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new references utilized to meet the newly added limitations pertaining to the control assembly.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive with respect to the limitation of reciprocating movement. Specifically, applicant argues that Ghannam does not disclose a reciprocating motion. However, Ghannam both shows (see Figs.4D-4F) back and forth motion of the wiping member and also clearly indicates that multiple passes can be performed [0055-0056], thereby reading on a reciprocating motion. Thus, applicant’s argument is considered unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Ghannam does not teach “the cleaning member being able to remove grass clippings and dirt on a surface of the lens body, so as to an automatic navigation effect of the lawn mower is able to be guaranteed”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Specifically, the wiping member of Ghannam is capable of removing grass clippings and dirt, and thus would be capable of guaranteeing an automatic navigation effect that is based on such sensor information. The claim itself does not require the lawn mower or the ability to perform automatic navigation. It merely requires a lens device capable of being provided on a lawn mower and capable of being cleaned such that automatic navigation can be possible, but the automatic navigation is not required by the claim.
It is noted that applicant’s arguments are directed towards Ghannam being a cleaning device on a vehicle and not a lawn mower. However, the lawn mower is not a required limitation of the claim. Further, a self-propelled lawn mower with automatic navigation would be understood as a type of vehicle.
It is noted that applicant has made remarks regarding the references recited as pertinent prior art. However, as such references are not currently utilized in the rejection any arguments directed towards them is moot.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the linearly moving cleaning assembly which moves linearly on the mounting seat, as claimed in claim 19; and the stretchable rod as claimed in claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 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” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 & 19-20 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 1 recites “so as to an automatic navigation effect of the lawn mower is able to be guaranteed”. The grammatical construction of the limitation renders it unclear, as it is unclear as to whether a term should be present between “so as to” and “automatic navigation effect”. Similar issue is taken with the phrase “so as to the automatic lens cleaning device”.
In claim 1 applicant states “the control assembly is able to determine” it is unclear if applicant is reciting such a limitation as intended use or if applicant means the control assembly is configured to determine. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as configured to, as it is believed that it what applicant intended.
In claim 19, applicant states that the cleaning assembly moves linearly on the mounting seat. It is unclear as to how such a cleaning assembly which rotates (as required by claim 4 upon which claim 19 is dependent), is also capable of linearly moving on the mounting seat. Based on the disclosure, the embodiment to which such a limitation is drawn to is seen by Fig.4 of the published application. However, the cleaning assembly does not appear to be capable of moving linearly on the mounting seat, at best the cleaning assembly merely appears to be rotatable. Thus, it is unclear as to what structural configuration applicant is attempting to claim with such a limitation.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the same time" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what temporal event the linear movement should occur contemporaneously with. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as though “the same time” is not present. Clarification and correction are required.
With respect to claim 20, applicant utilizes the phrase “stretchable rod” it is unclear as to whether the rod is elastic in nature and capable of stretching, or if the rod is merely able to extend and retract. Based on the disclosure, it appears that applicant is referring to a rod that extends and retracts and will be interpreted as such for examination purposes.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghannam (US20170210351A1) in view of Brouwer (US20200180570A1) and Seubert (US20190084526A1).
As to claim 1, Ghannam discloses a lens cleaning device (abstract), comprising a lens body (Figs.4A, 5A, & 6C refs 405, 505, or 605); a drive assembly (Figs.4D-4F ref 485/486/488, [0057], or Fig.6C refs 610/615); and a cleaning assembly (Fig.4A ref 440 including refs 420 & 422, Fig.5B refs 520/522/540, or Fig.6C refs 630/640/645/660), wherein a side facing the lens body of the cleaning assembly is provided with a cleaning member (ref 440, 540, or 640) and the drive assembly is connected to the cleaning assembly to cause the cleaning member and lens body to rotate relative to one another (see Figs.4A-6G). Ghannam also discloses the presence of a controller (e.g., Fig.2 ref 210) that receives data from the sensor (see [0039]) and communicates with the drive system for the cleaning device [0013]. The limitation of the cleaning device being for a lawn mower is merely intended use, and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a lens cleaning device for a vehicle can also be applied to a vehicular lawn mower. The cleaning assembly has a reciprocating form of movement (see Figs.4D-4F showcasing the forward and reverse motion to clean the sensor, see also [0055-0056]). The limitation of the cleaning member being able to remove glass clippings and dirt on a surface of the lens body is merely intended use, and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the cleaning member is capable of performing such a function. The limitation of guaranteeing an automatic navigation of a lawn mower is not a required limitation of the lens cleaning device, and thus not required by the claim, as it is a limitation drawn to a lawn mower. At best such a limitation could be considered intended use, and since a sensor can be utilized for automatic navigation when it is clean it reads on the claim. Ghannam does not explicitly disclose the control assembly determining whether to control the drive assembly to drive the cleaning member based on the image signal. However, the operation of a cleaning device by a controller when a determination is made that the sensor is dirty, based on an image signal from the sensor, is well-known in the art as seen by Seubert. Further, assuming arguendo that Ghannam does not explicitly state “reciprocating” motion, such a feature is known in the art as seen by Brouwer.
Brouwer discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein a cleaning element which moves back and forth in order to clean a sensor surface is known to have a reciprocating motion [0053]. Thus, a back and forth motion of a cleaning element which conducts multiple passes is understood to be reciprocating.
Seubert discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a processor to determine if a sensor requires cleaning based on the captured image (i.e., image signal), and actuate a cleaning device including a wiper when it is determined the cleaning is required [0029]. Accordingly, Seubert provides a manner of cleaning a sensor automatically when a determination is made that the sensor is dirty.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing, to modify Ghannam to provide a controller to determine if the lens is dirty based on the received sensor signal and actuate the drive assembly of the cleaning assembly when an image signal from the sensor indicates that the lens is dirty, so as to automatically clean the sensor when needed, as is known in the art (Seubert [0029]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to implement known control systems for automatically cleaning a sensor when one is not explicitly disclosed with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, as indicated by Ghannam (see [0055-0056]), the back and forth multiple passes reads on a reciprocating motion (Brouwer [0053]).
As to claim 2, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the lens body and cleaning assembly are arranged on a mounting seat (i.e., housing Fig.4A ref 410 and similar structure in Figs.4D-4F, Fig.5A ref 510, or Fig.6A left side portion of ref 600).
As to claim 3, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the cleaning assembly is moveably connected to the mounting seat (see Figs.4A-6G).
As to claim 4, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the drive assembly rotates that cleaning assembly relative to the mounting seat (Figs.4A-6G).
As to claim 5, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the drive assembly drives the cleaning assembly to move along a preset path and at least part of the cleaning assembly cleans different positions of the lens body (Figs.4A-6G).
As to claim 6, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claim 4, wherein a distance between a side, close to the lens body, of the cleaning member and the lens body is less than or equal to 5mm (i.e., wiping element contacts the lens body thus defining a distance less than 5mm).
As to claim 7, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the cleaning assembly comprises a base portion rotatably connected to the mounting seat (see Fig.4A-4F ref 422, Fig.5A ref 522, or Fig.6C ref 645), the base portion is rotatably connected to the mounting seat (i.e., via the track or the pivoting portion end), and the cleaning member is arranged at a side facing the lens body of the base portion and extends toward the lens body (Figs.4A-6G).
As to claim 8, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claim 1, wherein at least part of the cleaning assembly is arranged in a circumferential direction of the lens body and the cleaning member cleans a lens surface of the lens body (Figs.4A-6G).
As to claim 9, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a rotation angle of the cleaning assembly is greater than 120 degrees (Figs.4A-6G).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghannam (US20170210351A1) in view of Brouwer (US20200180570A1) and Seubert (US20190084526A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tonar (US20120243093A1), Schafer (US20200062220A1), and Kemege (US20140267715A1).
As to claim 18, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the cleaning member rotates relative to the mounting seat and along an outer surface of the lens body (see Ghannam Figs.4A-6G). However, Modified Ghannam but does not explicitly disclose the surface being hemispherical, but such surfaces for sensors are known in the art as seen by Tonar, Schafer, and Kemege.
Tonar discloses an art related lens cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that a lens can be flat or hemispherical [0083]. Further, Tonar showcases that an external lens cover which is to be cleaned can be in a hemispherical shape (Figs.2-4 ref 20).
Schafer discloses an art related wiping device for spherical optical surfaces (abstract) such as a camera [0015]. Kemege discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is shown that a camera surface to be cleaned by a wiping element is hemispherical in nature (Figs.11A-11B & [0037]).Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a camera lens which is cleaned by a wiping element can be hemispherical in nature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the lens shape of Ghannam to be hemispherical, as such is a known shape for a camera lens (Tonar [0083] Schafer [0015], and Kemege [0037]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known lens surface shape when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghannam (US20170210351A1) in view of Brouwer (US20200180570A1) and Seubert (US20190084526A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Xiao (US20250050820A1), Condron (US20220263990A1), and Wachter (US20180134259A1).
As to claims 19-20, Modified Ghannam teaches the device of claims 3-4, wherein the cleaning member rotates relative to the lens body and passing through different portion of the surface of the lens body (see Ghannam Figs.4A-6G). The drive assembly comprises a motor (see Ghannam Figs.4D-4F ref 465). Modified Ghannam does not disclose the cleaning assembly moving linearly on the mounting seat or the presence of a stretchable rod to retract and extend the cleaning assembly to slide on the mounting seat. However, such features are known in the art, as seen by Xiao, Condron, and Wachter.
Xiao discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract, [0022-0023, & 0028-0029]), wherein it is known that a manner of cleaning a sensor with a wiping element is through the use of a telescopic element provided on the sensor housing (Fig.15 & [0158]). The telescopic element includes a telescopic rod driven by a motor [0158-0159].
Condron discloses an art related camera cleaning device (abstract) wherein a telescopic element reciprocates to move a wiper back and forth to clean the sensor (see Fig.6 & [0021]).
Wacheter discloses an art related wiping system for a sensor (abstract), wherein is indicates that a telescoping member provided on the sensor housing can move wiper into and out of position [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ghannam to utilize a telescopic rod on the sensor housing in order to move and reciprocate the wiper for cleaning of the sensor, as such is a known mechanism in the art (Xia [0158-0159], Condron [0021], and Wachter [0016]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known wiper movement mechanism in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jo (US20190361227A1; Figs.1 & 5), Kotani (US20160315564A1; Figs.9-10), Alexander (US20130209079A1; Figs.2A-12B), Kotani (US20170158173A1; Figs.1a-1c), Seedall (US20150246660A1; Figs.1-4), Tanaka (US20080072393A1; Figs.1-4), Raphael (US9602703B1; Figs.1-5), Davies (US20170313287A1; Figs.1-5b), Okazawa (US20110141562A1; Figs.1-10), Herse (US20240042966A1; Figs.2-3), and Wijntjes (US20230358869A1; Figs.4-9) all showcase a rotating sensor lens cleaning assembly.
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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm 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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights