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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/25/2025 has been entered.
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 1-20 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 1 and 11 recite the limitation “a second controller independent of the first controller”; however, within the same claims, the second controller is explicitly recited as receiving “the splash signal from the first controller” which is clearly and explicitly a limitation wherein the second controller must depend upon the first controller. Through prima facie interpretation, the second controller being independent of the first must mean that the second controller does not receive any control, signals, or other outside interference or manipulation from the first controller, but this is not the case. The claims as written provide a contradiction by introducing a second controller that is supposedly independent on the first controller but also must depend on the first controller sending a splash signal all the same. No definition, or even mention, of the term “independent” exists within the specification to remedy this contradiction. Therefore, the claims are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “independent” will be interpreted as only indicating that the two controllers have distinct output functions. That is, this limitation is but a repetition of what is written in the claims: that the two controllers have different output functions.
Claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1 and 11 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 (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 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(s) 1-3, 6, and 11-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase et al. US 11186259 B2 (hereinafter Hase) in view of Browne US 20060155445 A1 (hereinafter Browne) and Shoda et al. US 20170113655 (hereinafter Shoda).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Hase teaches a control method for controlling a vehicle (column 3 lines 12-13 disclose a vehicle comprising a method for controlling a wiper system) wherein the vehicle and method comprises:
a rain sensor configured to generate a splash signal in response to detecting an amount of rain (column 5 lines 13-16 discloses a rain sensor which outputs a signal corresponding to water on the windshield);
a switch (column 4 lines 48-51 disclose a wiper switch);
a wiper driver (column 5 lines 48-51 discloses a wiper driver); and
a first controller configured to transmit a first control signal corresponding to the splash signal to the wiper driver (column 5 lines 17-18 disclose that the rain sensor is connected to an ECU, i.e., an electronic control unit; column 5 lines 48-51 disclose that the ECU sends commands to the wiper device based on a signal from the rain sensor) based on the switch being in an automatic mode (column 4 lines 59-60 disclose an automatic mode wherein control of the wiper blades is performed according to detecting of rain from a rain sensor), wherein the wiper driver is configured to operate a wiper based on the first control signal (column 5 lines 48-51 disclose operating a wiper drive device based on signal from rain sensor; column 2 lines 55-58 disclose that the wiper drive device causes wiper blades to wipe a region when operated).
Hase does not teach a rain sensor configured to generate a splash signal in response to detecting an amount of rain greater than or equal to a predetermined amount and a second controller independent of the first controller configured to receive the splash signal via the first controller, generate a second control signal based on the splash signal, and operate at least one electronic device other than the wiper driver connected to the second controller based on second the control signal and based on the switch being in a power mode.
Browne teaches a rain sensor configured to generate a splash signal in response to detecting an amount of rain greater than or equal to a predetermined amount (paragraph 0017 discloses that moisture sensors send signals when moisture levels are above a predetermined threshold) and a second controller configured to: receive the splash signal, generate a second control signal based on the splash signal, and operate at least one electronic device other than the wiper driver connected to the second controller based on the second control signal (paragraph 0017 discloses having a controller perform lighting up an interior portion when moisture is detected; it is inherent that controlling a device would result in generation of a control signal) and based on the switch being in a power mode (paragraph 0026 discloses that the lighting controls are performed when an override switch is not activated; in such a situation that a switch is not turned to override the automatic lighting controls, lighting is performed which examiner interprets as equivalent to a switch being set in a position to allow control of an electronic device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hase to incorporate the teachings of Browne such that the controller based lighting controls in response to a detection of moisture according to Browne and the controller based wiper control in response to a detection of moisture according to Hase can be performed together. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for greater customizability of the sensitivity of the sensor based on individual preference as disclosed in Browne (paragraph 0022) and improve locating of interior controls in case operator action is needed as disclosed in Browne (paragraph 0006).
Regarding the two controllers and communication therebetween, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to split the controller of Hase and Browne into first and second controllers and create communication between the two to accomplish the tasks outlined within Hase with Browne since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
The modified Hase reference does not teach a power mode for reducing a wiping angle of the wiper, wherein the power mode is activatable when the splash signal indicates the amount of rain greater than or equal to the predetermined amount.
Shoda teaches a power mode for reducing a wiping angle of the wiper, wherein the power mode is activatable when the splash signal indicates the amount of rain greater than or equal to the predetermined amount (Abstract discloses entering a heavy rain mode with a narrower wiping range when a raindrop sensor detects rain above a predetermined amount; 0034 explicitly discloses that this narrowing is done by reducing a wiping angle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase to incorporate the teachings of Shoda such that, when a switch is set to a non-overriding mode as detailed in Browne, the vehicle may detect heavy rain and switch to a heavy rain mode wherein wiping range is reduced as taught in Shoda, and lighting systems within the vehicle can be activated in response to the detection of heavy rain as taught by Browne. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure faster removal of rain for minimum field of view needed for safe driving as disclosed in Shoda (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 12, and 13; the modified Hase reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Hase does not teach that the wiper driver is configured to operate the wiper according to the power mode based on detecting the splash signal.
Shoda teaches that the wiper driver is configured to operate the wiper according to the power mode based on detecting the splash signal (Abstract discloses entering a heavy rain mode with a narrower wiping range when a raindrop sensor detects rain above a predetermined amount; paragraph 0034 explicitly discloses that this narrowing is done by reducing a wiping angle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase to incorporate the teachings of Shoda with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure faster removal of rain for minimum field of view needed for safe driving as disclosed in Shoda (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claims 3 and 13; the modified Hase reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Hase does not teach that the wiper driver is configured to shorten a wiping cycle of the wiper in the power mode.
Shoda teaches the wiper driver is configured to shorten a wiping cycle of the wiper in the power mode (Abstract discloses entering a heavy rain mode with a narrower wiping range when a raindrop sensor detects rain above a predetermined amount; paragraph 0034 explicitly discloses that this narrowing is done by reducing a wiping angle; the reduction of an area to be traveled shortens cycle time since paragraph 0035 explicitly states that the heavy rain mode removes rain faster, which would indicate a decrease in cycle time; the utilization of maintaining a high speed while decreasing wiping angle as disclosed in the Abstract points to decreasing cycle time).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase to incorporate the teachings of Shoda with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure faster removal of rain for minimum field of view needed for safe driving as disclosed in Shoda (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the modified Hase reference teaches all of claims 2 and 12 as detailed above.
Hase does not teach that the at least one electronic device includes a lamp configured to blink in an emergency, and that the second controller is configured to control the lamp to blink in response to receiving the second control signal.
Browne further teaches that the at least one electronic device includes a lamp configured to blink in an emergency, and the second controller is configured to control the lamp to blink in response to receiving the second control signal (paragraph 0017 discloses having a controller perform lighting up an interior portion, potentially with flashing lights, of a vehicle in response to moisture readings; the term "emergency" is considered overtly and intentionally broad by the examiner, so the detection event which the lights respond to is applicable to an "emergency").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hase to incorporate the teachings of Browne with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the operator to rapidly address the sensed condition as disclosed in Browne (paragraph 0017).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase as modified by Browne and Shoda as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lee et al. KR 20200040320 A (hereinafter Lee; a partial translation has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the modified Hase reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above. Hase further teaches a camera mounted on a vehicle and configured to acquire image data including a front image or a rear image (column 5 lines 34-35 disclose using an in-vehicle camera to obtain forward images).
Hase does not teach that the second controller is configured to control a memory to store the image data based on the second control signal.
Lee teaches that the second controller is configured to control a memory to store the image data based on the second control signal (translated paragraph 0090 discloses storing images in memory in response to an event).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase as modified by Browne to couple the rain-based device activation of Browne with the event-based image storage method of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success to maintain a visual record in case of accident to improve record keeping.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase as modified by Browne, and Shoda as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Antonellis et al. US 5874892 (hereinafter Antonellis).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the modified Hase reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above.
Hase does not teach a communicator.
Antonellis teaches that the at least one electronic device includes a communicator configured to transmit and receive data with a nearby vehicle (Abstract discloses a vehicle equipped with a transceiver and receiver for communicating with another vehicle), and that the second controller is configured to control the communicator to transmit a warning signal to the nearby vehicle in response to receiving the second control signal (Abstract discloses transmitting a warning to nearby vehicles when a dangerous situation occurs in response to a steering wheel being clenched; the responsive signal from the clenched steering wheel is deemed as a control signal by the examiner).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase as modified by Browne to incorporate the communicator and warning communication using said communicator of Antonellis with the control signal responsive to detection of rain of Browne with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a sufficient amount of warning time when a dangerous situation arises to improve safety as disclosed in Antonellis (column 1 lines 30-37).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase as modified by Browne and Shoda as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kim KR 20070121133 A (hereinafter Kim; a translation has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the modified Hase reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Hase does not teach a power mode. Shoda does not teach that the power mode is automatically activated in the wiper driver when a nearby vehicle is detected within a predetermined distance from a rear of a vehicle.
Kim teaches teach that the power mode is automatically activated in the wiper driver when a nearby vehicle is detected within a predetermined distance from a rear of the vehicle (translated page 3 paragraph 3 discloses activating wipers at a high speed when a proximity vehicle is detected behind the main vehicle; a proximity detection would be obviously applicable to a predetermined distance detection by one of ordinary skill in the art; examiner understand the high-speed mode of Kim disclosed within the Abstract accomplishes the intent behind the power mode of the reference).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase as modified by Shoda to incorporate the vehicle detection based activation of a wiper operation mode of Kim into the limited wiping angle mode of Shoda with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by securing the driver's vision in the event of a rear vehicle potentially passing and thus splashing the vehicle as disclosed in Kim (translated page 2 paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase as modified by Browne, Shoda, and Kim as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Hage et al. EP 3153360 A1 (hereinafter Hage).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the modified Hase reference teaches all of claims 7 and 17 as detailed above.
Hase does not teach that the vehicle is configured to generate the splash signal in response to detection of the nearby vehicle.
Kim teaches that an approach sensor is configured to generate the splash signal in response to detection of the nearby vehicle (Abstract discloses activating wipers when an approaching vehicle is detected behind the main vehicle; it is inherent that activating the wipers would require a "splash signal"; translated page 3 paragraph 9 discloses an approach sensor to sense said approaching vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase to incorporate the teachings of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by securing the driver's vision in the event of a rear vehicle potentially passing and thus splashing the vehicle as disclosed in Kim (translated page 2 paragraph 5).
Kim does not teach that the approach sensor is at least one of a radar, a rear camera or a LIDAR.
Hage teaches that the approach sensor is at least one of a radar (paragraph 0036 discloses distance sensors may be radar sensors) or a rear camera (paragraph 0036 discloses distances sensors may be cameras; Figure 1 shows a distance sensor attached to the rear of a vehicle to sense distance between two vehicles).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase to incorporate the teachings of Hage. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the radar and/or camera of Hage for the approach sensor of Kim. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of sensing a nearby vehicle renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase as modified by Browne, Shoda, Kim, and Hage as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Antonellis et al. US 5874892 (hereinafter Antonellis).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the modified Hase reference teaches all of claims 8 and 18 as disclosed above. Kim teaches responding to detection of a nearby vehicle as disclosed above.
Hase does not teach a communicator. Kim does not teach a communicator to transmit a warning signal to the nearby vehicle in response to detection of a nearby vehicle.
Antonellis teaches that the at least one electronic device includes a communicator configured to transmit and receive data with a nearby vehicle (Abstract discloses a vehicle equipped with a transceiver and receiver for communicating with another vehicle); and the second controller is configured to control the communicator to transmit a warning signal to the nearby vehicle in response to the control signal (Abstract discloses transmitting a warning to nearby vehicles when a dangerous situation occurs in response to a steering wheel being clenched; the responsive signal from the clenched steering wheel is deemed as a control signal by the examiner).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase as modified by Kim to incorporate the communicator and warning communication using said communicator of Antonellis with the control signal responsive to detection of a vehicle of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a sufficient amount of warning time when a dangerous situation arises to improve safety as disclosed in Antonellis (column 1 lines 30-37).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase as modified by Browne and Shoda as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of De Filippis et al. EP 0484292 B1 (Hereinafter De; a translation has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the modified Hase reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Hase does not teach a power mode. Shoda does not that that the power mode is automatically activated in the wiper driver based on a speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to a predetermined speed.
De teaches the power mode is automatically activated in the wiper driver based on a speed of the vehicle being greater than or equal to a predetermined speed (column 1 lines 15-17 disclose reducing wiper angle when vehicle exceeds a given speed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hase to incorporate the teachings of De with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent a wiper blade from going beyond a limit position under wind pressure as disclosed in De (column 1 lines 17-18).
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 10/6/2025 have been received and fully considered and remove the term “includes” used in the claim interpretation of record detailed in the Office Action dated 6/25/2025. These/this claim interpretation have/has been withdrawn. This does not provide a meaningful change to the overall interpretation of the claims as “includes” has been replaced with “comprises” which is how “includes” was interpreted previously. Claim amendments further introduce the 112(b) issue detailed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 6-8 applicant merely states that the prior art of record (Hase, Browne, and Shoda) do not teach the amended subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the applicant to the rejection above which has been expanded, utilizing the same prior art of record in the Office Action dated 6/25/25, to include the newly added limitations. All citations to the prior art have been previously presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 4:30 pm PST Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669