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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has elected to cancel all withdrawn claims.
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 1-12 & 15-16 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.
In re claim 1, applicant claims a window cover cleaning system. However, the claim has no element or limitation pertaining to the cleaning of a sensor window. The claim merely provides a moveable cover with means and manners for controlling of the moveable cover. It is unclear as to how such elements can be considered a cleaning system without having any functionality to perform cleaning. Claims 2-6 also suffer from such a deficiency as they also lack any elements which would allow the system to be considered a cleaning system.
In re claim 7, applicant states “the at least one nozzle… hen the window is being cleaned”. The phrasing of “when the window is being cleaned” appears to indicate that cleaning is being performed prior to the cleaning of the nozzle rather than the cleaning being due to the spraying via the nozzle. If such is not a typographical error, it is unclear as to what cleaning is occurring beyond the spraying of the nozzle. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as “during a cleaning operation” rather than “when the window is being cleaned”.
In re claim 9, applicant states “supply the air to the fluid nozzle”. It is unclear if applicant truly meant the air is supplied to the fluid nozzle and not the pneumatic nozzle, as the pneumatic nozzle is intended for the spraying of air. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as the pneumatic nozzle. Similar issue is taken with claim 15.
In re claim 9, applicant states “the fluid nozzle” in lines 3 & 5, it is unclear if applicant is referring to the at least one fluid or pneumatic nozzle, a different nozzle, or a specific one of the at least one nozzle. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as the at least one corresponding fluid or pneumatic nozzle. Similar issue is taken with claims 12 & 15.
In re claim 11, applicant states “wherein at least one of… that includes the window cover cleaning system”. The current phrasing of the claim appears to indicate that the vehicle contains the cover cleaning system. Thus, it is unclear as to how elements located outside the vehicle are considered part of the cleaning system. Examiner suggests revision of the claim language to clarify and correct the matter. Similar issue is taken with claim 16.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buss (US20170341597A1).
As to claim 1, Buss discloses a window cover cleaning system for an optical head comprising: a cover (ref 7) configured to selectively cover a window to the optical head (see Figs.2-3 & [0029-0031]); an actuator configured to move the cover to selectively cover and uncover the window [0036]; a controller configured to control the actuator to selectively position the cover to cover the window during cleaning [0016, 0029-0031, & 0036]. The limitations directed towards an air-data system are not positively required limitations, as the claim is directed towards a window cover cleaning system and not an air-data system with such. Since the cover cleaning system is capable of being applied to an air-data system it would read on the claims.
As to claims 2 & 6, Buss teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller inherently has memory and performs control over the actuator based on instructions within the memory and a detected event (e.g., the window being dirty or a command from a user).
As to claim 3, Buss teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the event is an optional limitation not required when the instructions are provided in a memory.
As to claim 4, Buss teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to position the cover to cover the window to the optical head when a vehicle (see Fig.1) that includes the window cover cleaning system is on a surface (i.e., an ground based automobile is always on a surface, thus when the cleaning is performed by operation of the controller it meets the limitation).
As to claim 7, Buss teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one fluid nozzle (ref 30) between the cover and the window positioned to direct a flow of cleaning solution on an outside surface of the window when the window is being cleaned.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buss (US20170341597A1) in view of Giraud (US20210221336A1).
As to claim 3, Buss teaches the system of claim 2 but does not explicitly disclose the event being provided by a sensor which sensed an aspect of the vehicle with cover cleaning system. However, it is known in the art to utilize a sensor to determine when to provide cleaning, as seen by Giraud.
Giraud discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that a sensor on a vehicle may be utilized to determine when cleaning of a sensor to be cleaned is to be initiated [0089] and corresponding movement of an actuator is performed in order to perform said cleaning [0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Buss to configure the controller to control the actuator based on a sensor which detects an aspect associated with a vehicle to provide automatic cleaning (Giraud [0089 & 0097]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buss (US20170341597A1) in view of Kozlenko (US20210107682A1), Suchezky (US20180079533A1), Ensslin (US20230331376A1) and evidentiary reference Rice (US20180290632A1).The following is an alternative rejection to claim 4 which has been present above assuming arguendo that the limitations indicate the vehicle is an aerial vehicle.
As to claims 4-5, Buss teaches the system of claim 1 but does not disclose the vehicle being an aerial vehicle and the controller making determinations based on the aerial vehicle being on the ground. However, it is known in the art that sensor cleaning systems can be applied to ground, air, and other types of vehicles (see Rice [0025 & 0057]). Thus, although Buss showcases the sensor cleaning system applied to a ground based vehicle, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate such a sensor cleaning system into a drone or UAV, as is well-known in the field. A skilled artisan understands that cleaning events for an aerial vehicle and a ground based vehicle can differ and thus would look towards other aerial vehicle sensor systems to determine when such cleaning should take place. To this extent, a skilled artisan would look towards Kozlenko, Suchezky, and Ensslin.
Kozlenko discloses an art related aerial vehicle (abstract), wherein it is known that cleaning should take place after landing [0078 & 0092].
Suchezky discloses an art related aerial vehicle (abstract), wherein a known manner of detecting whether a vehicle is airborne or on ground is through the use of a weight-on-wheel sensor [0009].
Ensslin discloses an art related aerial vehicle (abstract), wherein a known manner of detecting whether a vehicle is airborne or on ground is through the use of a weight-on-wheel sensor [0054, 0139, & 0202-0203].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Buss to implement sensor(s) to detect when an aerial vehicle has landed and perform sensor cleaning of said vehicle (Kozlenko [0078 & 0092], Suchezky [0009], Ensslin [0054, 0139, & 0202-0203]), when such cleaning systems are implemented for an aerial vehicle.
Claim(s) 8 & 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buss (US20170341597A1) in view of Hoetzer (US20030155001A1).
As to claim 8, Buss teaches the system of claim 7 but does not explicitly disclose a pneumatic nozzle with the claimed configuration. However, providing an air nozzle with an opposing configuration to a liquid nozzle is known in the art for the purposes of drying, as seen by Hoetzer.
Hoetzer discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a pneumatic nozzle (ref 3) in transverse and opposing relation to the liquid nozzle (see Fig.7) in order to clean and dry the sensor [0029-0032]. The configuration of the air nozzle relative to the liquid nozzle allows for removal of water droplets from the sensor window [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Buss to implement a pneumatic nozzle, as seen by Hoetzer in order to remove remaining water droplets present after washing of the sensor window (Hoetzer [0029]). In such a modification, the liquid and air nozzle would have a transversely opposing configuration in order to provide the benefit of removing remaining liquid from the sensor window after cleaning. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known drying configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 13, Buss discloses a window cover cleaning system for an optical head comprising: a cover (ref 7) configured to selectively cover a window to the optical head (see Figs.2-3 & [0029-0031]); an actuator configured to move the cover to selectively cover and uncover the window [0036]; a controller configured to control the actuator to selectively position the cover to cover the window during cleaning [0016, 0029-0031, & 0036]; at least one fluid nozzle (ref 30) between the cover and the window positioned to direct a flow of cleaning solution on an outside surface of the window when the window is being cleaned. The limitations directed towards an air-data system are not positively required limitations, as the claim is directed towards a window cover cleaning system and not an air-data system with such. Since the cover cleaning system is capable of being applied to an air-data system it would read on the claims.
Buss does not explicitly disclose a pneumatic nozzle with the claimed configuration. However, providing an air nozzle with an opposing configuration to a liquid nozzle is known in the art for the purposes of drying, as seen by Hoetzer.
Hoetzer discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a pneumatic nozzle (ref 3) in transverse and opposing relation to the liquid nozzle (see Fig.7) in order to clean and dry the sensor [0029-0032]. The configuration of the air nozzle relative to the liquid nozzle allows for removal of water droplets from the sensor window [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Buss to implement a pneumatic nozzle, as seen by Hoetzer in order to remove remaining water droplets present after washing of the sensor window (Hoetzer [0029]). In such a modification, the liquid and air nozzle would have a transversely opposing configuration in order to provide the benefit of removing remaining liquid from the sensor window after cleaning. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known drying configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 14, Modified Buss teaches the system of claim 13, wherein cleaning functions are performed while the cover is in the cleaning position to prevent uncontrolled fluid from reaching a surrounding area (Buss [0029]). Further, it is noted that drying is also considered as part of a cleaning function so as to prevent liquid droplets from impairing the sensor (Buss [0018 & 0033-0034] & Hoetzer [0003 & 0031]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that the controller continues to cover the sensor window while the air is being supplied, as it is part of the cleaning process. However, if such a feature is not reasonably expected it would be obvious in order to prevent blown away droplets from reaching a surrounding area.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buss (US20170341597A1) and Hoetzer (US20030155001A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Krishnan (US20240151833A1).
As to claims 9-10, Modified Buss teaches the system of claim 8, further comprising a pneumatic pump (Hoetzer ref 76 & [0029]) in communication with the air nozzle supply air to the nozzle and a fluid reservoir to hold cleaning solution (Hoetzer [0029]). Although not explicitly stated, a fluid pump is in communication with the fluid nozzle in order to provide high pressure fluid (Buss [0014-0015 & 0032]). However, assuming arguendo that a fluid pump is not recited by either of Buss or Hoetzer, it is well-known to utilize a pump to feed fluid from a reservoir as seen by Krishnan.
Krishnan discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that pressurized cleaning fluid is fed from a reservoir (ref 62) to a nozzle (ref 70) via a pump (ref 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Buss to provide a fluid pump in order to provide the desired high pressure fluid from the reservoir to the nozzle in order to clean the sensor window as desired. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known manner of providing pressurized fluid when one is not explicitly disclosed.
As to claim 15, Modified Buss teaches the system of claim 13, further comprising a pneumatic pump (Hoetzer ref 76 & [0029]) in communication with the air nozzle supply air to the nozzle and a fluid reservoir to hold cleaning solution (Hoetzer [0029]). Although not explicitly stated, a fluid pump is in communication with the fluid nozzle in order to provide high pressure fluid (Buss [0014-0015 & 0032]). However, assuming arguendo that a fluid pump is not recited by either of Buss or Hoetzer, it is well-known to utilize a pump to feed fluid from a reservoir as seen by Krishnan.
Krishnan discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that pressurized cleaning fluid is fed from a reservoir (ref 62) to a nozzle (ref 70) via a pump (ref 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Buss to provide a fluid pump in order to provide the desired high pressure fluid from the reservoir to the nozzle in order to clean the sensor window as desired. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known manner of providing pressurized fluid when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buss (US20170341597A1), Hoetzer (US20030155001A1), and Krishnan (US20240151833A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Katsumura (US20220204160A1), Rainville (US20200180774A1), Thompson (US20190366375A1) and evidentiary reference Rice (US20180290632A1).
As to claims 11-12, Modified Buss teaches the system of claim 10, but does not disclose the presence of ports on the vehicle and the pump(s) and/or reservoir being located outside the vehicle. However, such configurations of fluid sources separate from the vehicle are known when the vehicle is an aerial vehicle. Further, it is known in the art that sensor cleaning systems can be applied to ground, air, and other types of vehicles (see Rice [0025 & 0057]). Thus, although Buss showcases the sensor cleaning system applied to a ground-based vehicle, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate such a sensor cleaning system into a drone or UAV, as is well-known in the field. A skilled artisan understands that some considerations for an aerial vehicle and a ground-based vehicle can differ and thus would look towards other aerial vehicle systems when implementing features. To this extent, a skilled artisan would look towards Katsumura, Rainville, and Thompson when attempting to optimize fluid source location.
Katsumura discloses an art related vehicle (abstract), wherein it is shown that spraying -elements can be provided from sources (see Fig.5 refs 204-207) located outside of the aerial vehicle via fluid ports (refs 107-110) located on the vehicle [0041].
Rainville discloses an art related vehicle (abstract), wherein it is known that inclusion of a tank on the vehicle increases weight and reduce range and performance [0008].
Thompson discloses an art related vehicle with spraying elements (abstract), wherein it is known to provide ports on a UAV in order to receive fluid for the spraying elements from an outside area allows for elimination of a reservoir thereby reducing size and weight of the UAV [0169].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Buss to implement the pump(s) and/or reservoirs outside of the vehicle having the cleaning system and provide ports on the vehicle to couple with such pump(s) and/or reservoirs in order to reduce weight while increasing range and performance (Rainville [0008], Thompson [0169], and Katsumura [0041]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buss (US20170341597A1) and Hoetzer (US20030155001A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rainville (US20200180774A1), Thompson (US20190366375A1) and evidentiary reference Rice (US20180290632A1).
As to claims 16, Modified Buss teaches the system of claim 13, but does not disclose the pump(s) and/or reservoir being located outside the vehicle. However, such configurations of fluid sources separate from the vehicle are known when the vehicle is an aerial vehicle. Further, it is known in the art that sensor cleaning systems can be applied to ground, air, and other types of vehicles (see Rice [0025 & 0057]). Thus, although Buss showcases the sensor cleaning system applied to a ground-based vehicle, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate such a sensor cleaning system into a drone or UAV, as is well-known in the field. A skilled artisan understands that some considerations for an aerial vehicle and a ground-based vehicle can differ and thus would look towards other aerial vehicle systems when implementing features. To this extent, a skilled artisan would look towards Rainville, and Thompson when attempting to optimize fluid source location.
Rainville discloses an art related vehicle (abstract), wherein it is known that inclusion of a tank on the vehicle increases weight and reduce range and performance [0008].
Thompson discloses an art related vehicle with spraying elements (abstract), wherein it is known to provide ports on a UAV in order to receive fluid for the spraying elements from an outside area allows for elimination of a reservoir thereby reducing size and weight of the UAV [0169].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Buss to implement the pump(s) and/or reservoirs outside of the vehicle having the cleaning system and provide ports on the vehicle to couple with such pump(s) and/or reservoirs in order to reduce weight while increasing range and performance (Rainville [0008] and Thompson [0169]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references all showcase moving cover/cleaning assemblies for sensors (see all figures).
Poton (US20210253067A1)
Park (US20200047719A1)
Trebouet (US20180086316A1)
Chung (US20210048532A1)
Velasco (US20200216034A1)
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