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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-11 are 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 is indefinite because it fails to positively recite a step of cleaning a surface of a lens system or lens cover of a camera device. Claim 1 is further indefinite because the claim recites determining dirt via a mass resonance measurement method. Specifically, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what steps are being performed to carry out the mass resonance measurement method. What are the steps? What does applicant mean by determining a result of the dirt removing? What is being measured, the dirt removed or the dirt remaining? How does the skilled artisan determine how much dirt is being removed by a mass resonance measurement? In steps c1 and c2, "the determined mass" lacks positive antecedent basis. Is the "determined mass" the same as the dirt on the lens system or lens cover? In step c1, "the sequence" lacks positive antecedent basis. In step c2, applicant recites "stopping the method", what method is applicant referring to? Does the limitation of "the method" refer to the method of removing dirt with the transducer or the method of detecting by mass resonance? In step c3a, "the mass determined" lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 1, step3a, an "optical blockage detection" is indefinite because it is unclear what steps are being performed by an optical blockage detection method. What would the skilled artisan consider as an optical blockage? What is being measured? Additionally, in steps c1,c2,c3a, does the mass determined refer to the dirt remaining or the dirt removed? What would the skilled artisan consider as "an optical blockage in steps c3b? Additionally, "the field of view" lacks positive antecedent basis. In step c3b, what method is being stopped? Does the method refer to the method of removing dirt by the transducer or the method of detecting by the optical blockage? Re claim 2, "the conduction of the mass resonance measurement method" lacks positive antecedent basis. Furthermore, it's unclear what this means. Claim 2 also recites for migration and/or burst of particles of dirt, but there is no citation in claim 1, and it's unclear how the limitations of claim 2 correlate to the method steps of claim 1. Re claim 3 should recite "the at least one piezo transducer…" . Re claims 3 and 6, "the drive signal frequency" and "the frequency" lack positive antecedent basis. Claim 4 is indefinite because "the clean surface" and "the frequency, and "the determining the mass" lack positive antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by "mass change of dirt. Claim 5 is indefinite because "the conduction of the optical blockage detection method" lacks positive antecedent basis. It is unclear what applicant means by this phrase. What would the skilled artisan consider as "a movement of an optical blockage". The claim recites an unchanged background, what is the background and what would the skilled artisan consider as "an unchanged background"? The limitations of "in particular", as recited in claims 5 and 8, are indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as "low frequency" and "high frequency". Claim 5 is further indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as a "change in shape of an optical blockage". Specifically, what is an optical blockage, what is being measured? Is the dirt being measured and does a change in shape of an optical blockage refer to a change in shape of the dirt? Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant means by "when approaching a vehicle with the camera device with a key". Specifically, it is unclear what is meant by the last phrase "with a key". Additionally, it is unclear what applicant means by "when starting a vehicle with the camera device". Specifically, is the camera device starting the vehicle or does applicant intend to recite "when starting a vehicle with a key, the vehicle further comprising the camera device"? Re claim 7, "the expiration" lacks positive antecedent basis. Additionally, applicant recites "a pre-set time interval", what is the time interval measuring? Re claims 8-9, line 1, should be amended to "countermeasure" instead of "countermeasures". Line 2 of claim 8 should recited "in a form of". Re claim 8, how is the air valve or water valve related to the method steps of claim 1? Claim 8, line 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "provided by a key". What is provided by a key, the wiper, the cleaning device, or the countermeasure? Claim 9 is indefinite because "the kind", "the amount of countermeasures", "the amount of visible dirt", the sequence", "the blocked optical flow", "the amount of blocked pixels", "the resolution" lack positive antecedent basis. Claim 9 is further indefinite because applicant recites "the mass and/or mass change", it is unclear whether this phrase refers to the dirt remaining or the dirt that has been removed. Claim 10 is indefinite because "the activation" lacks positive antecedent basis. In summary, the claims are replete with 112, second paragraph issues, and applicant is kindly requested to amend the claims in order to have a better understanding of what steps are being performed for the the mass resonance measurement and the optical blockage method with respect to the dirt present on the lens system or lens cover of a camera device. It is further unclear how the mass resonance measurement method and the optical blockage correlate to cleaning the surface of the lens. Clarification is requested.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Babcock et al. teach measuring particle characteristics through mass detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights