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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 11 are also 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "ensure that any" refers to the complete deicing of a windshield of a vehicle, but the specification and claims fail to convey any algorithm that specifies or predicts what the measured threshold is for activating the de-icing functions, how long the de-icing function will take to complete, as well as what is considered complete de-icing, and how complete de-icing is achieved or ensured. Many of the measures suggested by the disclosure are predictive and not methods of absolutely determining the amount of ice present and no discussion is provided that relates how the algorithm then ensures based on these predictive measures that all ice has been melted. Because of this the scope of the claim is also unclear.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, the claims add the limitation of using either a timer or calendar to link to determine the scheduled departure time. Neither claim provides any further context into how the time required for deicing is calculated to ensure that the windshield is completely deiced at the scheduled departure time. Because of this the scope of each claim is also unclear.
With regards to Claims 3, the use of machine learning further fails to provide any indication as to what the model will be trained against to ensure that de-icing is complete. Additionally, Claim 10 also incorporates the use of machine learning, but goes on to further limit the claim by incorporating that the model is trained to predict the need to activate the de-icing functions, however, the claim still fails to provide what the threshold for activating the de-icing functions and what the predictive model would consider complete de-icing as required in Claim 1. Furthermore, Claims 3 and 10 both fail to demonstrate how the machine learning model will learn, as well as how an algorithm used to predict icing conditions is taught. Because of this the scope of each claim is also unclear.
Regarding Claims 5-9, the claims fail to determine how the time required to deice a windshield is determined, as well as what is measured to ensure complete deicing of the windshield. Claim 5 measures the temperature and humidity, Claim 6 measures the mechanical resistance of the windshield wiper, Claims 7 and 8 measure the change in electrical resistance over the windows, and Claim 9 uses the camera to check the front windshield. None of the aforementioned claims specify how the addition of their respective limitation determines how long the length of time required to deice the windshield is measured or determined. Specifically, as ice accumulates on the windshield, the data provided by each of the limitations expressed in the claims will reach a plateau point, wherein the claims fail to relate how the measured data correlates to predicting amount of icing present on the windshield or the time required to deice the windshield. Because of this the scope of each claim is also unclear.
With regards to claim 11, the claim incorporates the use of meteorological data that is captured by the vehicle. The specification and claims fail to point out how the measured meteorological data is utilized in a predicative algorithm to predict icing on the windshield. Because of this the scope of the claim is also unclear.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN-114523934-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a defrosting method (Claim 10 and Figure 1) for the front and/or rear windshield (10) of a vehicle, that includes but is not limited to electric, hybrid, and internal combustion vehicles ([0040]). The defrosting method includes obtaining the vehicles scheduled departure time, determining whether the windshield requires defrosting by estimating the likelihood and severity of frost formation, then estimating the amount of time required for defrosting relative to the scheduled departure time ([0008] & [0016]). At the determined defrost activation time, the defrosting control device (30) turns on the defrost device to defrost the windshield ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches that a trained machine learning model can be used to identify travel over a period of time and then predict the scheduled departure time ([0045]).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang further teaches that current external meteorological conditions at the vehicle’s geographical location as well as weather conditions for the next 12 hours can be used in predicting the icing conditions on the windshield along with the required defrost time prior to the scheduled departure time ([0053]).
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Limbacher (WO-2021152056-A1).
Regarding claim 2 and 4, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the method as stated above except the departure time is either set by a departure timer or a user’s existing electronic calendar.
Limbacher teaches a method for planning the departure of a vehicle where the departure date signal can be obtained from a departure timer or calendar data input from the user’s mobile device ([0015]). Additionally, Limbacher teaches that the defrosting device can be turned on prior to the departure if ice has been detected ([0049]). Limbacher’s method is advantageous as it allows for defrosting to be scheduled in time of the planned departure time ([0050]).
Zhang and Limbacher are analogous because both inventions teach methods that prepare a vehicle for an upcoming departure. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Zhang to incorporate the method taught in Limbacher to provide a vehicle that can utilize a departure timer or a user’s electronic calendar to prepare a vehicle for drive by de-icing the windows in anticipation of the scheduled departure time.
Furthermore, an artisan having ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify Zhang’s method of checking the windows for ice and deicing the windows in appropriate time before the scheduled drive to incorporate the method of Limbacher where the departure time is set by a departure timer or user’s existing calendar to provide a method where the departure time is set by a user’s calendar or a preset departure timer, and the amount of time required to defrost the windshield is based off this requirement, and the windshield is scheduled to be defrosted in anticipation of this departure time.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Sandhu (US-20210094386-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the method as stated above except the use of temperature and humidity sensors to check for icing on the windows.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the method as stated above except the use of a front camera to check for icing on the front window.
Sandhu teaches a (Figure 1) defroster assembly (24) for a vehicle which includes at least one humidity sensor (26), a first and second temperature sensor (28 and 30), and the lens (34) of a camera (32) pointed at the windshield to determine the status of the windshield ([0034-0035]). Sandhu further discloses that the data taken from the sensors and camera can be analyzed by the body controller (36) to determine if predetermined temperature and moisture thresholds have been met in deciding whether to activate the defroster assembly (0035]), the body controller can further be connected to a telecommunications device (34) via a telecommunications system (40) to active or prearrange activation of the defrost assembly ([0038]).
Zhang and Sandhu are analogous because both inventions teach methods on how to automatically activate the defroster in a vehicle. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Zhang to incorporate the method taught by Sandhu to incorporate a camera, along with humidity and temperature sensors, to determine the current status of the windshield in order to determine whether the defroster requires activation prior to the vehicle’s scheduled departure time.
Furthermore, the artisan of ordinary skill would be able to modify the method taught by Zhang of defrosting a windshield prior to an anticipated drive, to include the method of automatic defrosting based on various temperature and humidity sensors, as well as a camera, to develop a method where the decision to defrost a windshield prior to a scheduled drive is determined by the status of the windshield as measured by various sensors and cameras.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Boss (US-20200156593-A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the method as stated above except that the icing can be checked by sensing mechanical resistance of the windshield wiper as well as using a machine learning model trained to predict need for de-icing of the windshield based on prior user inputs in similar prior ambient conditions.
Boss teaches a method for de-icing vehicles (Figure 2) wherein a windshield wiper (160) utilizes a sensor (165) connected to the wiper to measure the deflection of the wiper via movement across the windshield or the difference in spring tension within the wiper to determine the thickness of ice that has accumulated on the windshield ([0078]). The computer (140) utilizes predefined calibration to equate amount of deflection to a thickness of ice on the windshield ([0079]). Additionally, Boss teaches that the system utilizes machine learning to develop a personalized proactive response for the user by analyzing data patterns for the vehicle on factors such as upcoming vehicle usage, outside air temp, and weather data ([0021]). Boss further teaches that the invention can be incorporated into the automated activation of the deicing system, where the computer can be configured to start the deicing based on input received from the input of the user’s device (196) or machine learning to turn on the deicing system prior to the predicted time the user will start driving ([0080]).
Zhang and Boss are analogous because both inventions teach methods on how to deice vehicles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Zhang to incorporate the method taught by Boss in a vehicle defrosting device where the deflection caused by the resistance of a wiper over an icy windshield, along with machine learning on similar weather patterns, are used to determine the amount of ice on a windshield and subsequently deice the windshield prior to a scheduled drive.
Furthermore, it would be well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the scheduled departure method of Zhang, including checking for and subsequently deicing the windshield prior to departure, to further incorporate the method taught by Boss of determining thickness of ice by measuring the mechanical resistance of the wiper either by deflection of by the tension in a spring, or by also incorporating a machine learning system to analyze how a user utilizes the defrosting unit in prior comparable conditions to develop a system the proactively activates the defrosting system in preparation of an anticipated drive to develop a method where the amount of time required to defrost the windshield prior to a scheduled departure is determined by the measured mechanical resistance of the wipers over the ice on the windshield or by incorporating machine learning to compare with how the defroster unit handled prior similar conditions.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Delorme (US-20120047929-A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the method as stated above except utilizing the change of resistance in the electrical heating elements of the front and rear window to check for icing on the window.
Delorme teaches a method for controlling (Figure 1) the defrost unit of a vehicle where the defrost unit (102) includes an electric grid (105) used to heat the surface (101) of the windshield (106) or rear glass (104) ([0012]). Delorme further teaches that drivers may not realize the need for defrosting and may not activate or deactivate the defrost unit at optimal times, causing increased energy consumption and wear on the unit ([0059]). The method taught by Delorme additionally provides for the automatic activation of the defrost unit once condensation has been predicted to have formed and then automatic deactivation once the condensation has been deemed to have dissipated ([0059]). To do this, electrical resistance across the electric grid is obtained by the sensors and/or receivers (114), where data is then provided to the processor (127) to determine the temperature of the electric grid ([0045-0046]). The electric grid temperature is then used to determine surface temperature, which in turn is then used to predict whether condensation has formed on the windshield ([0042] & [0050]). If condensation has been predicted to form, then the defrost unit can be configured to apply heat to the surface of the vehicle ([0049]).
Zhang and Delorme are analogous because both inventions teach methods on how to control the defrosting of a front or rear window. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Zhang to incorporate the method taught by Delorme to check the level of icing on a vehicle window by measuring the electrical resistance of the heating elements within the window and automatically activating the defrosting device prior to a planned departure time of the vehicle.
Furthermore, it is well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the method provided by Zhang of scheduling a departure time, and checking to see if icing has occurred on the front windshield prior to departure, to incorporate the method of Delorme by also checking the electrical resistance across the front or rear windows into a method where the scheduled departure time is determined by how much resistance is determined by the electrical changes within the windshield elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schlittenbauer (DE-102016006925-B3) teaches a heating device for at least one window pane of a vehicle, where the probability of the pane freezing is determined by data from humidity and temperature sensors around the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights