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
Amendment filed 9/10/2026 has been entered. Pending claims 1-17 are addressed below.
Previous Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Figs. 1-3) in the reply filed on 5/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Hester does not teach two curved surfaces as claimed. This is found not persuasive, the walls of the interaction chamber 398 has curved regions extending from the two opposing side of the flat surface (lateral regions adjacent the outlet 400), the curved regions converging inward toward each other in direction of the annotated upper side. Additional evidence of the shared technical features are not special technical feature can be seen in the rejections below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Limitation reciting “the center plane consists of at least two partial planes” should be correct to recite “the center plane consists of transitional phrase “consist of” exclude any element not specified in the claim (see MPEP 2111.03 (II).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3 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.
Claims 2-3 recite "the two curved surfaces are connected via a center plane" and "the center plane consists of at least two partial planes". A "plane" is understood via its plain meaning as "a flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie". It is not understood how a center plane 16 (see annotation of applicant’s figured 2-3 shown below) consisting of two partial planes 18 (in figs. 2-3) would still be considered a plane, when it is not flat. Viewing item 16 shown in fig. 3, a straight line cannot be reasonably drawn to wholly lie on “plane 16”. The claims are indefinite for the metes and bound of the claimed term “center plane” is not understood, not consistent with applicant’s disclosure via illustration shown in figs. 2-3. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
1030
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasday (US 20190143345).
Regarding claim 1, Hasday discloses a nozzle (180) for the automatic cleaning of a sensor (“for automatic cleaning…” is a limitation of intended use; as the claimed structure(s), defined in the claim body, required to be used for cleaning is structural details of the nozzle and Hasday reference teaches all the claimed structures as presented below, the prior art would appear to be fully capable of being used as a nozzle for automatic cleaning), the nozzle comprising:
an outlet (190, 194) for dispensing the fluid, and
a flat surface (187, see fig. 2), wherein the flat surface is arranged on an inner surface of the nozzle (187 is on the inner side of 180, see fig. 2),
wherein the outlet is arranged in the flat surface (187; see fig. 2),
wherein the flat surface comprises two opposing sides (sides of the flat surface adjacent 318 and 319 as shown in fig. 2),
wherein the flat surface comprises an upper side (side of the flat surface adjacent 320 as shown in fig. 2),
wherein the upper side is arranged between the two opposing sides (see annotation below),
wherein the nozzle comprises two curved surfaces (see annotation below) on the inner surface,
wherein each of the curved surfaces is arranged on one of the two opposing sides of the flat surface (see annotation below),
wherein the curved surfaces are configured to converge towards one another in the direction of the upper side (see annotation below).
PNG
media_image2.png
635
1143
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hasday discloses the two curved surfaces are connected via a center plane (plane of the annotated upper side, see above),
wherein the center plane (plane of the annotated upper side, see above) is arranged on the upper side.
Regarding claim 5, Hasday discloses the outlet is rectangular (the outlet opening defined by straight edges at 318, 319, 320, 321 form a rectangular shaped opening), oval or crescent-shaped.
Regarding claim 7, Hasday discloses the nozzle extends along a center axis (fig. 3: central axis 210), wherein the two curved surfaces (see annotation above) are arranged in a mirror-symmetrical manner with respect to a mirror plane (plane extending along the central axis 210, shown in fig. 3, directly in between the two annotated curved surface),
wherein the mirror plane contains the center axis (210) and the mirror plane runs through the outlet (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Hasday discloses the nozzle comprises a protrusion (200) on an outer surface (206; see fig. 3),
wherein the protrusion is arranged on an area of the outlet facing the upper side.
Regarding claim 13, Hasday discloses the outlet is arranged at one end (right end when view as shown in fig. 3) of the nozzle.
Regarding claim 17, Hasday discloses the mirror plane runs through a center of the outlet (fig. 3 shows the axis 210 extends through outlet 194; and annotated figure 2 below shows the arbitrary mirror plane that would include the center axis 210).
PNG
media_image3.png
508
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (US20230010574).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a nozzle (24) for the automatic cleaning (intended use) of a sensor, in particular a sensor of a motor vehicle (par. 37: “for use in exterior surface cleaning systems, especially in vehicles…found to clean camera lenses efficiently”), the nozzle (24) comprising:
an outlet (upstream opening of 50; see annotation) for dispensing the fluid, and
a flat surface (see annotation below), wherein the flat surface is arranged on the inner surface of the nozzle (inner surface defines the interaction region 60; see fig. 2),
wherein the outlet is arranged in the flat surface (upstream opening of 50 is in the flat surface),
wherein the flat surface comprises two opposing sides (left and right sides of the annotated flat surface),
wherein the flat surface comprises an upper side (upper flat side of the annotated flat surface; see annotation),
wherein the upper side is arranged between the two opposing sides (see annotation below),
wherein the nozzle comprises two curved surfaces (curve surfaces on the left and right side of the annotated upper side) on the inner surface,
wherein each of the curved surfaces is arranged on one of the two opposing sides of the flat surface (see annotation below),
wherein the curved surfaces are configured to converge towards one another in the direction of the upper side (see curved arrows as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
827
1098
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses the two curved surfaces are connected via a center plane (plane of the annotated upper side/flat surface, see above),
Regarding claim 4, Zhao discloses the curved surfaces (see curved arrows annotated above) start at the flat surface in the area where the outlet is arranged in the flat surface (see annotated outlet and flat surface area at annotated upper side).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao discloses the nozzle extends along a center axis (axis through the center of the interaction region 60),
wherein the two curved surfaces are arranged in a mirror-symmetrical manner with respect to a mirror plane (see fig. 2 and annotated fig. 3 below),
wherein the mirror plane contains the center axis and the mirror plane runs through the outlet.
PNG
media_image5.png
499
438
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Zhao discloses the outlet (upstream opening of 50) is arranged at one end (front end) of the nozzle.
Regarding claim 14, Zhao discloses a device comprising a sensor (par. 37: “camera”), and a nozzle (24; fig. 2, par. 39) according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle is configured for cleaning the sensor (par. 3, 8-9, 37).
Regarding claim 15, Zhao discloses a vehicle (par. 2: “automotive system”; par. 6; see Hester (US20170036650) incorporated into Zhao by reference, figs. 1-2), having a nozzle according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Zhao discloses a vehicle (par. 2: “automotive system”; par. 6; see Hester (US20170036650) incorporated into Zhao by reference, figs. 1-2), having a device according to claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Zhao discloses the mirror plane runs through a center of the outlet.
PNG
media_image6.png
541
867
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20230010574).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses the Nozzle according to claim 1 but is silent regarding a point of each of the two curved surfaces respectively is at spaced apart a maximum of 0.5 mm from the outlet (par. 52 describes various dimensions of other regions in the range between 0.6mm to 7.5mm, but there is no mention of the claimed spacing specifically. Paragraph 52 does indicate that the nozzle is intended to have a smaller size).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to utilize any spacing from above 0 to 0.5mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the micro sizing of the nozzle assembly (par. 3) which achieves the recognized result of providing a compact nozzle (par. 52), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-12 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks on page 8 against teaching from Hasday:
Applicant argues that Hasday does not disclose an automatic sensor cleaning nozzle. Applicant’s argument is directed to claim 1’s preamble language defining “nozzle for the automatic cleaning of a sensor”.
This is found not persuasive. The examiner’s rejection above states “(“for automatic cleaning…” is a limitation of intended use; as the claimed structure(s), defined in the claim body, required to be used for cleaning is structural details of the nozzle and Hasday reference teaches all the claimed structures as presented below, the prior art would appear to be fully capable of being used as a nozzle for automatic cleaning)”. Hasday discloses that the nozzle can be used in various applications. (paragraph 46: “the spray from a nozzle assembly made in accordance with the present invention can be adapted or customized for various applications while still retaining the simple and economical construction characteristics of a “swirl” cup”, and in paragraph 74: “The nozzle assembly is adapted for commercial aerosol sprays like paints, oils, and lotions, and in use generates an even flat fan spray with more uniform and smaller droplets than similar prior art nozzles can generate”). Since all the structures defined in the claim body is disclosed in Hasday, the nozzle has the physical structure capable of being used in an automatic sensor cleaning. See MPEP 2114 (II): “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”.
Applicant argues that the annotated curved surfaces do not converge toward the upper side marked by applicant’s annotated figure 2 of Hasday (shown on Remarks page 9).
This is found not persuasive. The current claim language does not define any boundary or relative reference point for the term “upper side”; therefore the “upper side” is not restricted to only the marked dot annotated by applicant. The examiner illustrates the “upper side” region in area with hatching shown below for clarity of the interpreted “upper side” addressed in the rejection of claim 1 by Hasday. See annotated figure below. The curved arrow indicates the curve of the claimed “curved surfaces” inwardly toward one another in the direction of the “upper side” region as claimed.
PNG
media_image7.png
635
1143
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner maintains that the cited teachings in Hasday anticipates all limitations of claim 1 as presented above.
Remarks on page 9-11 against teaching from Zhao:
Applicant argues that the curved surfaces in Zhao converge toward the lateral side of the flat surface rather than the upper side.
This is found not persuasive. The claim requires the flat surface to have an upper side. Zhao has that (see annotation below) and the top portion of the curved surfaces curve inwardly toward each other, wherein the annotated upper side is directly in between the curving direction. It is not relevant that other portions of the curved surfaces are also converging toward the lateral portions of the flat surface since the claim does not exclude those structural feature.
PNG
media_image8.png
584
855
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The examiner maintains that Zhao meet this limitation of the claim.
In light of the responses above, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
