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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/24/23 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heenan et al. (US 2012/0169877) in view of Faber et al. (US 2014/0233805).
Regarding claim 1, Heenan teaches a vehicle comprising (car; ¶¶ 0061-0064, Fig. 1):
a windshield (windscreen 16; ¶ 0061, Fig. 1);
a wiper configured to clean the windshield (wipers 18, ¶ 0061, Fig. 1);
a vehicle camera configured to capture a windshield image and a ground image (camera 10 views scene in front of the car and windscreen; ¶ 0008 and ¶¶ 0061-0064, Figs. 1 and 2); and
a processor communicatively coupled with the wiper and the vehicle camera (processor 12; ¶ 0061, Fig. 1), wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain the windshield image and the ground image from the vehicle camera (image 30 is split into a top part 32 focused on the outer surface of windscreen 16 and bottom part 34 focused on the road ahead; ¶ 0008 and ¶ 0065, Fig. 2) at a first predefined sampling frequency (periodically captures images N times a second; ¶ 0026 and ¶ 0066, Fig. 3 100);
determine that the windshield are wet based on the windshield (determining the amount of rain on the windscreen 16; ¶¶ 0067-0071, Fig. 3 and ¶¶ 0075-0079, Fig. 4); and
actuate the wiper at a first speed based on a determination that the windshield (wiper demand signal 220; p 0081, Fig. 6);
but does not explicitly teach determine that the ground are wet based on the ground image; and the ground are wet.
However, Faber teaches determine that the ground are wet based on the ground image; and the ground are wet (recognize road 300 is wet; ¶ 0039, Fig. 4).
Heenan and Faber are in the same field of endeavor of a system for detecting rain outside of a vehicle via imaging. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Heenan to include means for determining the ground is wet as taught by Faber. The combination improves the system by helping a driver of the vehicle to timely recognize weather related conditions on the road even in adverse weather conditions (¶¶ 0005-0011, Faber).
Claims 14 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1 thus, arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 14 and 20.
Claim(s) 2-4, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heenan and Faber as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Enhanced Automatic Windshield Wiper Control, Research Disclosure, ISSN 0374-4353, May 20, 2019, pages 1-3 (Disclosed anonymously; cited in IDS filed 5/24/23; hereinafter Anonymous).
Regarding claim 2, Heenan in view of Faber teach the vehicle of claim 1, but Heenan does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the vehicle is located outside a covered enclosure, wherein the processor actuates the wiper when the processor determines that the vehicle is located outside the covered enclosure.
However, Anonymous teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the vehicle is located outside a covered enclosure, wherein the processor actuates the wiper when the processor determines that the vehicle is located outside the covered enclosure (wipers deactivates/re-activates depending on location of vehicle; pages 2 and 3).
Heenan and Faber are in the same field of endeavor of a system for detecting rain outside of a vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Heenan to include means for determining that the vehicle is located outside a covered enclosure as taught by Faber. The combination improves the system by preventing accidental activation of the wipers by a driver.
Regarding claim 3, Heenan in view of Faber and Anonymous teach the vehicle of claim 2, but Heena does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle camera is further configured to capture a vehicle surrounding image, and wherein the processor determines that the vehicle is located outside the covered enclosure based on the vehicle surrounding image.
However, Anonymous teaches wherein the vehicle camera is further configured to capture a vehicle surrounding image, and wherein the processor determines that the vehicle is located outside the covered enclosure based on the vehicle surrounding image (front camera; page 2).
The motivation applied in claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Heenan in view of Faber and Anonymous teach the vehicle of claim 2 but Heenan does not explicitly teach further comprising a geolocation module configured to determine a real-time vehicle location, and wherein the processor determines that the vehicle is located outside the covered enclosure based on the real-time vehicle location.
However, Anonymous teaches further comprising a geolocation module configured to determine a real-time vehicle location, and wherein the processor determines that the vehicle is located outside the covered enclosure based on the real-time vehicle location (GPS; page 2).
The motivation applied in claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, Heenan in view of Faber and Anonymous teach the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to: decrease the first speed to a fourth speed (determine wiper speed; ¶ 0081, Heenan); and decrease the first predefined sampling frequency to a fourth predefined frequency (N may be in the range 15 to 40 times a second; ¶ 0066, Heenan),
but Heena does not explicitly teach determine that the vehicle is stationary for a time duration greater than a predefined threshold time duration based on the real-time vehicle location.
However, Anonymous teaches determine that the vehicle is stationary for a time duration greater than a predefined threshold time duration based on the real-time vehicle location (determine operation of vehicle; page 2).
The motivation applied in claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Claims 15 and 16 recite similar limitations as claims 2 and 4 thus, arguments similar to that presented above for claims 2 and 4 are equally applicable to claims 15 and 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heger et al. (US 2013/0332028) teaches a driver assistance system of a vehicle for detecting wetness on a road surface.
Krieft et al. (US 2023/0054646) teaches an apparatus for identifying a weather condition in surroundings of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 PM PST.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/KENT YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681