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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/06/2026. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 9 - 14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
5. With respect to the Applicant' s remarks, see pages 6 - 9, filed on 02/06/2026; Applicant' s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
6. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. The argument that claim 1 is not taught by Caillot is not persuasive. Caillot does disclose “data measurements” and “the state of the vehicle”. Caillot discloses an electronic box (60) that intakes data from the sensor (50) and analyzing the data received. Any type of sensor that is receiving data is considered as intaking data measurements. Although no explicitly “state of the vehicle” is mentioned, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the sensor (50) intaking data related to the vehicle would constitute as a state of the vehicle because the sensor (50) is intaking data that pertains to the outside environment of the vehicle [0042].
The argument that claim 1 is not taught by Caillot is not persuasive. Caillot does disclose “a surrounding brightness of the vehicle”. Caillot discloses a light sensor as being the sensor (50). Sensor (50) is a light sensor, by definition is a device that measures the ambient light level or illuminance of its environment and surrounding brightness. Accordingly, even if Caillot uses the light sensor for a glare reduction detection, the underlying sensed quantity is still ambient brightness information from the vehicle’s environment. The claimed “surrounding brightness of the vehicle” is satisfied by the sensor (50) that detects external light conditions around the vehicle, regardless of how the system later uses the brightness signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 1 – 3, 9, 12 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO Pub. No. 2019011576A1 (hereinafter, “Caillot”).
9. Regarding claims 1 & 14, Caillot discloses a method for controlling a treatment device for a windshield of a vehicle, comprising
(see [0019]) Uses vehicle equipment to spray hydrophobic liquid onto a window of the vehicle.
a wiping system (see [0038] Fig. 1) Washing device (1) comprises of at least one wiper blade (30). Fig. 1 also displays the wiping system for the windshield (10) of the vehicle.
including a spraying device having at least one orifice (see [0037] – [0038] Fig. 1), Washing device comprises of at least one wiper blade, said wiper blade(s) (30) contain orifices (15) throughout the wiper blade(s) (30). The spraying device being the wiper blade(s) (30).
through which a hydrophobic liquid can be sprayed onto the windshield (see [0037]), Second fluid (hydrophobic fluid) gets ejected onto windshield (10) via through the orifices (15) in wiper blade (30).
such that the method periodically initiates a processing cycle by the following:
- retrieving the data measurement that is retrieved representing a state of the vehicle, (see [0042], [0044]); Caillot teaches showing the state of the vehicle because it shows whether the vehicle is in a state of being in a light place or a dark place (surrounding brightness value) or the state of hydrophobicity of the windshield or how opaque the windshield currently is due to the sensor (50) on the vehicle. The electronic box (60) is what is receiving these states of the vehicle. All can be representative of a state of the vehicle.
- processing the retrieved data measurement that is retrieved representing the state of the vehicle (see [0042], [0044]); The sensor (50) output is retrieved and analyzed by the electric box (60). It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the electric box (60) then processes that output data from the sensor (50) which represents the state of the vehicle.
- checking the fulfilment of a criterion for spraying device activation as a function of a processed data measurement representing the state of the vehicle; and (see [0042]) Electric box (60) analyzes data from sensor (50) and will activate the pump system (20) based off of data analysis in determining if conditions are met which can be considered checking the fulfilment of at least one criterion representing the state of the vehicle.
- activating the spraying device if at least one criterion for the spraying device activation is fulfilled (see [0042]); Electric box (60) analyzes data from sensor (50) and will activate the pump system (20) which in turn will activate the spraying device (30) based off of data analyzation on whether hydrophobicity conditions or light conditions are met.
wherein the data measurement or the plurality of the data measurements being processed that represents the state of the vehicle is selected from among:
a surrounding brightness of the vehicle [0042], a position of the vehicle, an operation of the vehicle, a presence of a person in a vicinity of the vehicle or inside the vehicle or a current time, and
wherein the position of the vehicle is located by means of a position sensor present on the vehicle. Caillot teaches “a surrounding brightness of the vehicle” through its disclosure that sensor (50) may be implemented as a light sensor. A person of ordinary skill would in the art would understand that a light sensor is configured to detect ambient illumination or surrounding environmental brightness conditions around the vehicle. Light sensors are commonly used in automative systems to detect external brightness levels, such as daytime, nighttime, or low-light conditions. , by sensing the amount of surrounding light on the vehicle. Therefore, Caillot teaches “a surrounding brightness of the vehicle”.
10. Regarding claim 2, Caillot discloses the control method of claim 1, wherein the processing cycle includes:
- retrieving a plurality of data measurements representing a state of the vehicle (see [0018] – [0019], [0042], [0044], [0046]); When the system retrieves data then this constitutes as the system is retrieving a plurality of data at once in order to satisfy specific conditions of the state of the vehicle. The state of the vehicle conditions being the windshields state of hydrophobicity, a light sensor in order to sense whether it is daytime or nighttime or even just in a dark or bright area, or activating spraying of hydrophobic liquid if the vehicle is stationary.
- processing a plurality of retrieved data measurements representing the state of the vehicle (see [0018] – [0019], [0042], [0044], [0046]); When the cleaning system retrieves the plurality of data from the variety of sensors that it is being processed by, this constitutes as the cleaning system processing the plurality of data retrieved in order to come to a determination on whether the spraying device (30) should be activated or not depending on if the state of the vehicle conditions have been met or not.
- checking a fulfilment of a plurality of criteria for the spraying device activation as a function of the plurality of the retrieved data that processed representing the state of the vehicle; and (see [0042]) Electric box (60) analyzes data from sensor (50) and will activate the pump system (20) which in turn will activate the spraying device (30) based off of data analyzation which can be considered checking the fulfilment of a plurality of criteria representing the state of the vehicle.
- activating the spraying device if each criterion from among the plurality of criteria for the spraying device activation is fulfilled (see [0042]). Electric box (60) analyzes data from sensor (50) and will activate the pump system (20) which in turn will activate the spraying device (30) based off of data analyzation on whether the plurality of criterion are met.
11. Regarding claim 3, Caillot discloses the control method of claim 1, wherein the retrieved data measurement representing the state of the vehicle or the plurality of data measurements representing the state of the vehicle is carried out continuously during the processing cycle until the criterion for the spraying device activation or each criterion from among the plurality of criteria for the spraying device activation is fulfilled (see [0042]). It is inherent that at least one datum or plurality of data representing the state of the vehicle is carried out continuously through the processing cycle during the analyzation the electronic box (60) performs on the data provided by sensor (50) to be sure that that criterion is fulfilled as it proceeds through the analysis of data.
12. Regarding claim 9, Caillot discloses the control method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is operating when at least one of these conditions is met:
accessories of the vehicle are powered on; an engine of the vehicle is running (see [0046], [0048]). The vehicle having to be powered on is inherent in order to operate the system to clean the windshield of the vehicle due to the cleaning system requiring power. This is implied in the fact that power consumption or output torque of the engine (40) is being measured and the only logical power source would be from the vehicle itself which in order to get power from the vehicle, the vehicle needs to be powered on.
13. Regarding claim 12, Caillot discloses the control method of claim 1, wherein the current time is determined by a means of a clock inside the motor vehicle (see [0044]). The system can be programmed to operate at night or whenever the user wishes. In order for the system to be programmed at night or at a specific time in the day the user chooses, it is inherent that an internal clock is active because there is no mention of network communications to another source of the clock so an assumption is made that there is an internal clock handling this calculation to be able to let the user choose a specific time of the day and operate at that set specific time of the day repeatedly.
14. Regarding claim 13, Caillot discloses the control method of claim 1, wherein the treatment device further comprises:
a drive motor for the wiping system, (see [0041] – [0042] Fig. 1) Washing device (1) comprises of a motor (40) which is intended to drive the wiper blades (30).
a pipe system connected to the spraying device of the wiping system and to a reservoir, and (see [0037] Fig. 1) Washing device (1) comprises of a pipe system (5) which is connected to a first reservoir (2) and a second reservoir (3). Pipe system (5) is also connected to the spraying device which is the wiper blade (30) which ejects through the orifices (15).
a pump configured to cause the hydrophobic liquid to circulate in the pipe system up to the spraying device, and
activating the treatment device in order to spray said hydrophobic liquid onto the windshield includes:
- activating the pump so as to cause the hydrophobic liquid to circulate in the pipe system up to an orifice of the spraying device of the wiping system; and, simultaneously (see [0037]) Washing device (1) comprises of a pump system (20) which pumps up the first fluid or second fluid (hydrophobic liquid) up into the pipe system (5) until it is ejected through the orifices (15) located on wiper blade(s) (30).
- controlling the drive motor so as to cause the wiping system to move on the windshield (see [0046]). In the case that the wiper blades (30) aren’t stationary and the brushes are moving, hydrophobic liquid is projected downstream. It is inherent here that the motor (40) is operating simultaneously to drive the wiper blades (30) as the pump system (20) is operating to pump the second fluid (hydrophobic fluid) through to the wiper blade (30) to be sprayed through the orifices (15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
16. Claim(s) 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Pub. No. 2019011576A1 (hereinafter, “Caillot”), and further in view of DE Pub. No. 102010032858B4 (hereinafter, “Herold”).
17. Regarding claim 5, Caillot discloses the control method of claim 1, wherein the at least one criterion for the spraying device activation is fulfilled when…or when the position of the vehicle is located or when the vehicle is not operating (see [0046] – [0047]) or when a person is not present in the vicinity of the vehicle or inside said vehicle or when the current time is within a primary time range (see [0044]). System will spray hydrophobic liquid onto windshield of vehicle when vehicle is stationary which is considered not operating. System can be programmed or operated whenever the user wishes which is representative of a primary time range due to the fact that if the user wants the system to be programmed to operate at a specific portion of the day, a primary time range is a required input.
Caillot does not explicitly teach …the surrounding brightness of the vehicle is above a threshold…
However, Herold in the same field of endeavor teaches …the surrounding brightness of the vehicle is above a threshold… (see [0016], [0023]) According to the brightness level picked up by the brightness sensor (4), windshield wiper will be actuated dependent on selected brightness.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caillot with the teachings of Herold, to implement a brightness sensor onto a vehicle to have the spraying device acuate according to whatever brightness level is selected (see [0016], [0023]).
18. Regarding claim 6, Caillot discloses the control method of claim 1, wherein the criterion from among the plurality of criteria for the spraying device activation is fulfilled when…or when the position of the vehicle is located or when the vehicle is not operating (see [0046] – [0047]) or when a person is not present in the vicinity of the vehicle or inside said vehicle or when the current time is within a primary time range (see [0044]). System is fulfilled to activate spraying device (30) when sensor (50) detects light or brightness at a specific programmed threshold is reached. System is fulfilled vehicle is stationary which is considered not operating and will spray hydrophobic liquid onto windshield. System is fulfilled when a primary time range is programmed to the system and that primary time range is met. System will then activate the pump system (20) which in turn will activate the spraying device (30).
Caillot does not explicitly teach …the surrounding brightness of the vehicle is above a brightness threshold…
However, Herold in the same field of endeavor, teaches …the surrounding brightness of the vehicle is above a brightness threshold… (see [0016], [0023]) Actuating the windshield wiper is fulfilled when the selected brightness is detected outside of the vehicle by the brightness sensor (4).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caillot with the teachings of Herold, to implement a brightness sensor onto a vehicle to have the spraying device acuate according to whatever brightness level is selected (see [0016], [0023]).
19. Regarding claim 7, Caillot does not explicitly teach the control method of claim 1, wherein the surrounding brightness of the vehicle is measured by means of a brightness sensor present on the vehicle.
However, Herold in the same field of endeavor, teaches the control method of claim 1, wherein the surrounding brightness of the vehicle is measured by means of a brightness sensor present on the vehicle (see [0016], [0023]). Brightness sensor (4) for sensing ambient brightness around the vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caillot with the teachings of Herold, to implement a brightness sensor onto a vehicle to have the spraying device acuate according to whatever brightness level is selected (see [0016], [0023]).
20. Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Pub. No. 2019011576A1 (hereinafter, “Caillot”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20210308300A1 (hereinafter, “Geng”).
21. Regarding claim 10, Caillot does not explicitly teach the control method of claim 1, wherein a presence of a person in the vicinity of the vehicle is detected by a person activating an opening of the vehicle.
Geng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the control method of claim 1, wherein a presence of a person in the vicinity of the vehicle is detected by a person activating an opening of the vehicle (see [0060]). Vehicle may not be disinfected if it senses a compartment opening and when it senses an individual is standing nearby to the vehicle. Although it may seem counterintuitive that the vehicle in Geng will only disinfect when a person isn’t nearby which is why it senses if an individual is nearby to begin with. The sensing of an individual is what is important based off of an opening of a vehicle. Incorporating Geng’s sensing of an individual based off of an opening of the vehicle with Caillot’s teachings would fulfill one of Caillot’s criterion in order to activate the spraying device to clean the windshield of the vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caillot with the teachings of Geng, to incorporate the sensing capabilities of Geng with Caillot to be able to have the vehicle detect the presence of person nearby by them activating an opening of a vehicle in order to spray the vehicle windshield with hydrophobic liquid in order to have the windshield clean before operation of the vehicle (see [0060]).
22. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Pub. No. 2019011576A1 (hereinafter, “Caillot”), and further in view of CN Pub. No. 112298106A (hereinafter, “Yu”).
23. Regarding claim 11, Caillot does not explicitly teach the control method as claimed of claim 1, wherein a presence of a person inside the vehicle is detected by a means of a presence sensor inside a passenger compartment of the vehicle.
Yu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the control method as claimed of claim 1, wherein a presence of a person inside the vehicle is detected by a means of a presence sensor inside a passenger compartment of the vehicle (see [Pg. 4 Para. 3]). Yu mentions that it is identified that there is no driver in the vehicle based on the HUD and/or speed sensor in the car. A Head Up Display (HUD) or speed sensor aren’t necessarily presence sensor’s but are capable of doing the same purpose of detecting whether a presence of a person is inside of said vehicle. Both type of sensors are fulfilling the same purpose of detecting a presence of a person so it would’ve been obvious for Yu to incorporate a presence sensor within the passenger compartment of said vehicle because presence sensors are widely available.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Caillot with the teachings of Yu, to be able to detect the presence of a person inside of the vehicle as one of the criteria in order for the system to activate the spraying device of the hydrophobic liquid onto the windshield of the vehicle (see [Pg. 4 Para. 3]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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 on (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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights