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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/11/2025, regarding claims 20 and 21, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to claim 20, the applicant argues that the previously cited prior art does not teach the limitation “responsive to an imbalance between an expected wheel excursions based on the surface profile and actual wheel excursions measured by the ride height sensors, the controller triggers the actuation of the flow controller”. In regards to claim 21, the applicant argues that the previously cited prior art does not teach “the braking request and notification to the operator” which is “only sent after explicit detection of snow and ice accumulation”.
However, the combination of Kowalk in view of Wilkinson, and further in view of Schmalzrieth and Stein teaches the limitations of claim 20. Specifically, Schmalzrieth teaches “a ride height sensor” (Schmalzrieth, Para. 0010) used for determining “that there is snow/ice and/or by checking the presence of an imbalance using the wheel speed sensors, whereby if there is an imbalance, it is concluded that there is snow/ice” and based on the conclusion, apply “an air stream heated by the frictional heat of the friction brake device to the chassis/axle components of the vehicle” to remove snow/ice (Schmalzrieth, Para. 0008-0010), such that the previously cited portions of Schmalzrieth teach “responsive to an imbalance between an expected wheel excursions and actual wheel excursions measured by the ride height sensors, the controller triggers the actuation of the flow controller”. Schmalzrieth does not teach wheel excursions based on the surface profile, however, Stein, as previously cited, teaches a system including “one, two, or more cameras mountable in a vehicle and an associated processor that monitor the environment of the vehicle”, where the system computes “a profile of a road along one or more predicted paths of the user vehicle” based on “images of an environment” captured by the cameras (Stein, Para. 0024).
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Kowalk in view of Wilkinson, and further in view of Schmalzrieth and Lerner teaches the limitations of claim 21. Specifically, Schmalzrieth teaches applying “an air stream heated by the frictional heat of the friction brake device to the chassis/axle components of the vehicle” in response to a “check” which “reveals that snow/ice has entered the vehicle” (Schmalzrieth, Para. 0008), such that activation, or automatic request, of the braking device occurs after the check identifying “snow/ice”. Schmalzrieth does not teach a “notification to the operator” after detection of snow and ice, however, Lerner teaches “upon detecting ice on the roadway”, the vehicle can “present a notification a notification in its dashboard display” to allow “time for the driver to press the brake pedal and decelerate the vehicle” (Lerner, Para. 0036), such that the combination of the cited prior arts teaches the full limitation claimed.
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) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalk (U.S. Patent No. 10,106,201) in view of Wilkinson (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0182982), and further in view of Schmalzrieth, et al., hereinafter Schmalzrieth (German Patent App. No. DE 10 2018 222 330 A1) and Stein, et al., hereinafter Stein (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0162408).
Regarding Claim 20, Kowalk teaches: A fluid dispensing assembly for cleaning a wheel assembly of a vehicle (Kowalk, Col. 1 Line 35-Col. 2 Line 2 – a “system for removing frozen precipitate or debris from a vehicle wheel well”), the fluid dispensing assembly comprising:
a reservoir of fluid (Kowalk, Col. 4 Lines 30-42, Col.5 Lines 44-58, and Col. 6 Lines 30-47 – where the removal element may be a “dispenser of pressurized or high velocity fluid, such as a cleaning solution”, such that the dispenser contains the fluid);
a pump operably coupled to the reservoir to provide motive force for application of the fluid (Kowalk, Col. 4 Lines 30-42, Col.5 Lines 44-58, and Col. 6 Lines 30-47 – where the removal element may be a “dispenser of pressurized or high velocity fluid, such as a cleaning solution”, such that the dispenser contains the fluid and provides a motive force, as the fluid is moving at a “high velocity”);
and a flow controller operably coupled to a controller of the vehicle to direct the fluid to the inside of a wheel assembly of the vehicle responsive to a sensor network disposed proximate to the wheel assembly detecting fouling inside the wheel assembly (Kowalk, Col. 4 Lines 30-42, Col.5 Lines 25-58, and Col. 6 Lines 30-47 – where the removal element may be a “dispenser of pressurized or high velocity fluid, such as a cleaning solution” where the “controller can be further configured to transmit instructions directing activation of a removal element” in response to detection of “accumulated frozen precipitate”) and the controller determining a trigger condition associated with detection of the fouling inside the wheel assembly (Kowalk, Col. 5 Lines 25-58 – where the snow sensors detect “accumulated frozen precipitate within the detection radius of a snow sensor”, or a trigger condition, which is communicated to “a controller” and the “controller can be further configured to transmit instructions directing activation of a removal element 40 that is located in the detection/removal zone 20 of the snow sensor 30 from which the data were received”),
wherein the sensor network comprises ride height sensors and a camera,
wherein the controller determines a surface profile for a surface on which the vehicle is operating based on images data from the camera, and
wherein, responsive to an imbalance between an expected wheel excursions based on the surface profile and actual wheel excursions measured by the ride height sensors, the controller triggers actuation of the flow controller.
While Kowalk teaches a flow controller operably coupled to a controller of the vehicle to apply the fluid to the inside of a wheel assembly of the vehicle responsive to a sensor network disposed proximate to the wheel assembly detecting fouling inside the wheel assembly, Kowalk does not teach a flow controller to direct the fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly. Furthermore, Kowalk does not teach wherein the sensor network comprises ride height sensors and a camera, wherein the controller determines a surface profile for a surface on which the vehicle is operating based on images data from the camera, and wherein, responsive to an imbalance between an expected wheel excursions based on the surface profile and actual wheel excursions measured by the ride height sensors, the controller triggers actuation of the flow controller.
However, Wilkinson teaches a flow controller to direct the fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly (Wilkinson, Para. 0014 – a system including air jets within a housing including “vents which are located directly over a motorized vehicles tires wherein the direction of the vents is adjustable” and where the system includes software which can “control the direction of the plurality of air vents”) and wherein the sensor network comprises a camera (Wilkinson, Para. 0013-0017 – where the system includes “a plurality of cameras”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of Kowalk to include a flow controller to direct the fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly and wherein the sensor network comprises a camera, as taught by Wilkinson, in order to provide a method to direct the fluid for cleaning to the area having the debris that requires cleaning.
Kowalk in view of Wilkinson does not teach wherein the sensor network comprises ride height sensors, wherein the controller determines a surface profile for a surface on which the vehicle is operating based on images data from the camera, and wherein, responsive to an imbalance between an expected wheel excursions based on the surface profile and actual wheel excursions measured by the ride height sensors, the controller triggers actuation of the flow controller.
However, Schmalzrieth teaches wherein the sensor network comprises ride height sensors (Schmalzrieth, Para. 0010 – where the system includes “a ride height sensor”), and wherein, responsive to an imbalance between the expected wheel excursions and actual wheel excursions measured by the ride height sensors, the controller triggers actuation of the flow controller (Schmalzrieth, Para. 0008-0010 – where “it is concluded that there is snow/ice and/or by checking the presence of an imbalance using the wheel speed sensors, whereby if there is an imbalance, it is concluded that there is snow/ice”, where the imbalance can be determined by “a ride height sensor”; and where based on determination that there is snow/ice, apply “an air stream heated by the frictional heat of the friction brake device to the chassis/axle components of the vehicle” to remove snow/ice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kowalk in view of Wilkinson to further include wherein the sensor network comprises ride height sensors, and wherein, responsive to an imbalance between the expected wheel excursions and actual wheel excursions measured by the ride height sensors, the controller triggers actuation of the flow controller, as taught by Schmalzrieth, in order to remove debris in a vehicle wheel assembly when there is an imbalance caused by debris.
Kowalk in view of Wilkinson and Schmalzrieth does not teach wherein the controller determines a surface profile for a surface on which the vehicle is operating based on image data from the camera.
However, Stein teaches wherein the controller determines a surface profile for a surface on which the vehicle is operating based on image data from the camera (Stein, Para. 0024 – where the system includes “one, two, or more cameras mountable in a vehicle and an associated processor that monitor the environment of the vehicle”, where the system computes “a profile of a road along one or more predicted paths of the user vehicle” based on “images of an environment” captured by the cameras).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kowalk in view of Wilkinson and Schmalzrieth to further include wherein the controller determines a surface profile for a surface on which the vehicle is operating based on image data from the camera, as taught by Stein, in order to utilize camera sensors to determine a road surface profile where the vehicle is located to determine an imbalance caused by debris in the wheel assembly.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalk in view of Wilkinson, and further in view of Schmalzrieth and Lerner, et al., hereinafter Lerner (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0349833).
Regarding Claim 21, Kowalk teaches: A wheel assembly cleaning system (Kowalk, Col. 1 Line 35-Col. 2 Line 2 – a “system for removing frozen precipitate or debris from a vehicle wheel well”) comprising:
a sensor network disposed proximate to the wheel assembly to detect fouling of the wheel assembly (Kowalk, Col. 1 Line 35-Col. 2 Line 2 and Col. 3 Line 25-Col. 4 Line 3 – where “a plurality of detection/removal zones” include vehicle wheels, and each “detection/removal zone includes a frozen precipitate detection sensor (or “snow sensor”) configured to detect the presence of accumulated frozen precipitate that is located in the detection/removal zone”; where the sensor is a plurality of sensors (for example 30a-30e) and are located within each “detection/removal zone” including the vehicle wheels);
a controller operably coupled to the sensor network to determine a trigger condition associated with detection of the fouling inside the wheel assembly (Kowalk, Col. 5 Lines 25-58 – where the snow sensors detect “accumulated frozen precipitate within the detection radius of a snow sensor”, or a trigger condition, which is communicated to “a controller” and the “controller can be further configured to transmit instructions directing activation of a removal element 40 that is located in the detection/removal zone 20 of the snow sensor 30 from which the data were received”); and
a fluid dispensing assembly disposed proximate to an internal side of the wheel assembly to apply a fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly under control of the controller responsive to the trigger condition (Kowalk, Col. 4 Lines 15-42, Col. 5 Lines 25-58, and Col. 6 Lines 30-47 – where the snow sensors detect “accumulated frozen precipitate”, or a trigger condition, which is communicated to “a controller” and the “controller can be further configured to transmit instructions directing activation of a removal element 40 that is located in the detection/removal zone 20 of the snow sensor 30 from which the data were received”; where the “removal element” may be “a sprayer similar to a windshield wash fluid sprayer” to cause melting, or removal, or the “removal element” may be “a dispenser of pressurized or high velocity fluid, such as a cleaning solution”), the fluid dispensing assembly comprising a reservoir of the fluid, a pump providing motive force for application of the fluid, and a flow controller (Kowalk, Col. 4 Lines 30-42, Col.5 Lines 44-58, and Col. 6 Lines 30-47 – where the removal element may be a “dispenser of pressurized or high velocity fluid, such as a cleaning solution”, such that the dispenser contains the fluid and provides a motive force, as the fluid is moving at a “high velocity”; where the “controller can be further configured to transmit instructions directing activation of a removal element”)
wherein the controller determines a trigger event associated with accumulation of snow or ice (Kowalk, Col. 5 Lines 25-58 – where the snow sensors detect “accumulated frozen precipitate within the detection radius of a snow sensor”, or a trigger condition),
While Kowalk teaches a flow controller operably coupled to a controller of the vehicle to apply the fluid to the inside of a wheel assembly of the vehicle responsive to a sensor network disposed proximate to the wheel assembly detecting fouling inside the wheel assembly, Kowalk does not teach a flow controller to direct the fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly. Furthermore, Kowalk does not teach wherein the controller further provides a notification to an operator of the vehicle to request braking to generate heat responsive to the trigger event.
However, Wilkinson teaches a flow controller to direct the fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly (Wilkinson, Para. 0014 – a system including air jets within a housing including “vents which are located directly over a motorized vehicles tires wherein the direction of the vents is adjustable” and where the system includes software which can “control the direction of the plurality of air vents”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of Kowalk to include a flow controller to direct the fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly, as taught by Wilkinson, in order to provide a method to direct the fluid for cleaning to the area having the debris that requires cleaning.
Kowalk in view of Wilkinson does not teach wherein the controller further provides a notification to an operator of the vehicle to request braking to generate heat responsive to the trigger event
However, Schmalzrieth teaches braking to generate heat responsive to the trigger event (Schmalzrieth, Para. 0008 – applying “an air stream heated by the frictional heat of the friction brake device to the chassis/axle components of the vehicle” in response to a check which “reveals that snow/ice has entered the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kowalk in view of Wilkinson to further include braking to generate heat responsive to the trigger event, as taught by Schmalzrieth, in order to provide a method of melting debris from the vehicle if, for example, the debris is snow or ice.
Kowalk in view of Wilkinson and Schmalzrieth does not teach wherein the controller further provides a notification to an operator of the vehicle to request braking responsive to the trigger event.
However, Lerner teaches wherein the controller further provides a notification to an operator of the vehicle to request braking responsive to the trigger event (Lerner, Para. 0036 – where upon “detecting ice on the roadway”, the vehicle can “present a notification” to allow “time for the driver to press the brake pedal and decelerate the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kowalk in view of Wilkinson and Schmalzrieth to further include wherein the controller further provides a notification to an operator of the vehicle to request braking responsive to the trigger event, as taught by Lerner, in order to provide a brake request to the operator of the vehicle, to allow them to actuate the braking themselves to prevent jolting or discomfort when braking occurs.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to neither disclose or sufficiently suggest the combination of features as claimed and arranged by applicant when read in light of the specification.
Regarding Claim 1, Kowalk (U.S. Patent No. 10,106,201) teaches: A wheel assembly cleaning system (Kowalk, Col. 1 Line 35-Col. 2 Line 2 – a “system for removing frozen precipitate or debris from a vehicle wheel well”) comprising:
a sensor network disposed proximate to the wheel assembly to detect fouling of the wheel assembly (Kowalk, Col. 1 Line 35-Col. 2 Line 2 and Col. 3 Line 25-Col. 4 Line 3 – where “a plurality of detection/removal zones” include vehicle wheels, and each “detection/removal zone includes a frozen precipitate detection sensor (or “snow sensor”) configured to detect the presence of accumulated frozen precipitate that is located in the detection/removal zone”; where the sensor is a plurality of sensors (for example 30a-30e) and are located within each “detection/removal zone” including the vehicle wheels);
a controller operably coupled to the sensor network to determine a trigger condition associated with detection of the fouling inside the wheel assembly (Kowalk, Col. 5 Lines 25-58 – where the snow sensors detect “accumulated frozen precipitate within the detection radius of a snow sensor”, or a trigger condition, which is communicated to “a controller” and the “controller can be further configured to transmit instructions directing activation of a removal element 40 that is located in the detection/removal zone 20 of the snow sensor 30 from which the data were received”); and
a fluid dispensing assembly disposed proximate to an internal side of the wheel assembly to apply a fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly under control of the controller responsive to the trigger condition (Kowalk, Col. 4 Lines 15-42, Col. 5 Lines 25-58, and Col. 6 Lines 30-47 – where the snow sensors detect “accumulated frozen precipitate”, or a trigger condition, which is communicated to “a controller” and the “controller can be further configured to transmit instructions directing activation of a removal element 40 that is located in the detection/removal zone 20 of the snow sensor 30 from which the data were received”; where the “removal element” may be “a sprayer similar to a windshield wash fluid sprayer” to cause melting, or removal, or the “removal element” may be “a dispenser of pressurized or high velocity fluid, such as a cleaning solution”), the fluid dispensing assembly comprising a reservoir of the fluid, a pump providing motive force for application of the fluid, and a flow controller (Kowalk, Col. 4 Lines 30-42, Col.5 Lines 44-58, and Col. 6 Lines 30-47 – where the removal element may be a “dispenser of pressurized or high velocity fluid, such as a cleaning solution”, such that the dispenser contains the fluid and provides a motive force, as the fluid is moving at a “high velocity”; where the “controller can be further configured to transmit instructions directing activation of a removal element”)
While Kowalk teaches the fluid dispending assembly a reservoir of the fluid, a pump providing motive force for application of the fluid, and a flow controller, Kowalk does not teach a flow controller to direct the fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly, nor does Kowalk teach wherein the flow controller comprises a movable nozzle having a target direction that is changed based on electronic commands from the controller to enable the movable nozzle to be directed at different components of the wheel assembly. Additionally, Kowalk does not teach wherein the movable nozzle is movable about a central axis, and wherein the central axis is in line with and extends along a same direction as a wheel axis of the wheel assembly.
Wilkinson (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0182982) teaches a flow controller to direct the fluid to the inside of the wheel assembly (Wilkinson, Para. 0014 – a system including air jets within a housing including “vents which are located directly over a motorized vehicles tires wherein the direction of the vents is adjustable” and where the system includes software which can “control the direction of the plurality of air vents”), and wherein the flow controller comprises a movable nozzle having a target direction that is changed based on electronic commands from the controller to enable the movable nozzle to be directed at different components of the wheel assembly (Wilkinson, Para. 0013-0014 and 0027 – where the system having “software to control” comprises a plurality of “air jets” encased in a “plurality of housings” having vents, wherein “the direction of the vents is adjustable” and the software can “control the direction of the plurality of air vents” in “the direction of the snow and ice that may be over and above a car tires”). However, while Wilkinson teaches wherein the movable nozzle is movable about a central axis (Wilkinson, Fig. 2 and Para. 0014 – where the “air vents” having “air jets”, or nozzles, are “adjustable” and “located directly over a motorized vehicles tires”; where as seen on Fig. 2, are aligned centered above the wheel axis of the vehicle wheels), Wilkinson does not teach wherein the movable nozzle is movable about a central axis, and wherein the central axis is in line with and extends along a same direction as a wheel axis of the wheel assembly, as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
413
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wilkinson, Fig. 2
Mejia (U.S. Patent No. 9,096,983) teaches “a plurality of dispenser nozzles” disposed “within each of a respective wheel well 34 of the existing vehicle 20”, which “are configured to dispense the deicer fluid 26 proximal a wheel 36 of the existing vehicle 20”, both “onto a road 38 surrounding the wheel 36, as well as directly onto the wheel 36” (Mejia, Col. 3 Line 65-Col. 4 Line 30), but Mejia does not teach wherein the movable nozzle is movable about a central axis, and wherein the central axis is in line with and extends along a same direction as a wheel axis of the wheel assembly, as claimed in the pending limitations.
PNG
media_image2.png
419
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mejia, Fig. 4
Hernandez (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0162580) teaches a “motion wheel washing system” which provides a “spray 14a directed from a position ahead of the front wheel12, toward an outside surface of the front wheel 12, when the front wheel 12 is turned away from the direction the spray 14a is arriving from”, but Hernandez does not teach wherein the movable nozzle is movable about a central axis, and wherein the central axis is in line with and extends along a same direction as a wheel axis of the wheel assembly, as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
317
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hernandez, Fig. 2
Claims 1, 4-19, and 22 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ahern (U.S. Patent No. 7,976,076) teaches a “traction material dispensing apparatus mounts within the wheel well of a fender of a vehicle” for dispensing “traction material both in front of and behind a vehicle tire”.
Borges, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0283647) teaches a “vehicle skid recovery system, which is able to accelerate skid recovery, when an automotive vehicle begins to skid as a result of ice accumulation on the road surface”.
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 HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665