DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election of Species Requirement
Applicant’s response received 10/23/25 has been accepted and entered. In response to an election of species requirement, applicant elected, without traverse, Species I, corresponding to Fig. 1-3 and claims 1-3. Although Applicants election included the phrase “reconsideration of the election requirement is requested”, no arguments were presented. Accordingly, per 818.01(a), “applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which he or she bases his or her conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus, the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction”. Accordingly, claims 4-6 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-3 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 20230234551 to Kang et al. (Kang) in view of US 20160244029 to Weston et al. (Weston) and further in view of US 20250326399 to Bachar et al. (Bachar)
With respect to claim 1, Kang discloses a vehicle comprising:
an object sensor configured to detect an object around the vehicle and a warning device configured to alert a driver when an object is detected by the object sensor at a position at which a distance from the vehicle is less than or equal to a threshold; (121, 123, 124, FIG. 5; ¶¶ 74-78, 81-87 detection information of the obstacles located in the front, rear, left and right sides of the host vehicle 1 . . . based on the detection information output from the distance sensor 122, may recognize the presence of an obstacle in a forward direction and the position of the obstacle. Herein, the position of the obstacle may include distance and direction thereof; 104 safety devices for a vehicle may include a collision warning device that notifies the existence of obstacles and obstacle information regarding the location of the obstacles to prevent collisions with obstacles around the host vehicle)
a receiver; and
(173, FIG. 5)
a controller configured to receive a signal transmitted from a vehicle washer.
(171, FIG. 5; ¶ 182 The processor 171 may communicate with a server of a vehicle wash via the communicator 173, and upon determining that communication with the server is available, determine the current location as the vehicle wash).
However, Kang fails to explicitly disclose the controller reduces the threshold, i.e., reducing sensitivity of object detection warnings such as collision warnings.
Weston, from the same field of endeavor, also discloses a vehicle carwash system and method wherein upon entering or being in proximity to a car wash, a controller enters a car wash mode, reducing an object warning threshold by temporarily disabling at least one vehicle safety system (abstract, activate a car wash mode . . . includes temporarily disabling at least one vehicle safety system) namely, a collision avoidance system (¶¶ 9 temporarily disabled collision avoidance system, 13, 16, 19, 29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to reduce the threshold of the collision avoidance system of Kang, as taught by Weston above in order to eliminate unnecessary results of vehicle safety system detections which could damage the vehicle or the carwash facility (Weston, ¶ 6).
Although Kang in view of Weston disclose reducing a threshold sensitivity for object detection warnings as cited above, Kang in view of Weston fail to specifically disclose the threshold distance for an alert is reduced to a second non-zero distance.
Bachar, from the same field of endeavor, discloses an autonomous vehicle (100, FIG. 100; ¶ 14) including a warning system that alerts a driver when an object is detected by an object sensor at a position at which a distance from the vehicle is less than or equal to a threshold
(safety system FIG. 2; ¶¶ 50-51 environmental data measurements may be used to identify a longitudinal and/or lateral distance between the vehicle 100 and other vehicles, the presence of objects in the road, the location of hazards, etc. image acquisition devices 104, the one or more sensors 105, one or more radar sensors 110, the one or more LIDAR sensors 112)
(¶¶ 55-57 ADAS parameters that trigger a warning can be time based or distance based metrics . . . ADAS parameters may comprise alert threshold distances identified with various types of detected ADAS alert events
Wherein Bachar teaches the alert threshold distance (i.e., sensitivity) can be changed to be increase or decrease depending on the scenario, surroundings or conditions present (¶ 56 When this alert threshold distance is adjusted in accordance with an increased sensitivity configuration, such that the alert threshold distance is decreased, the LDW alert will be displayed earlier to the driver, thereby enhancing safety; 58 smart ADAS unit 290 as discussed herein facilitates a dynamic adjustment of various ADAS parameters . . . each vehicle may then selectively perform a dynamic adjustment of the ADAS alert sensitivity settings . . . ADAS unit 290 determines whether ADAS alerts are to be presented . . . before the vehicle reaches a particular warning area; ¶ 62-65 remote server 150 can communicate to vehicles 302 they are approaching a particular area, i.e., a construction zone, that requires an adjustment of alert threshold distance for object detection sensors, FIG. 3; FIG. 6 “construction zone”, i.e., as in ¶ 58, a “warning area” ¶ 70 current ADAS sensitivity settings . . . respective vehicle's sensitivity configuration, which may indicate the current distance-based thresholds identified with corresponding alert-based conditions, when met, result in the ADAS alert being issued . . . ADAS configuration messages received via the remote computing device 150 cause the ADAS unit 290 to selectively adjust its ADAS parameters in accordance with the adjusted ADAS alert sensitivity configuration. This may cause subsequent ADAS alerts to be issued by the vehicle's ADAS unit 290 using the updated ADAS alert sensitivity configuration, e.g. if further conditions are met, as further discussed herein.; 74 provides that vehicle with instructions regarding if, when, and how the ADAS configuration settings should be adjusted; 77 recipient vehicle should increase the ADAS sensitivity configuration to present the pedestrian warning earlier than the default scenario; 80 alert sensitivity changed, alternative rules used to adjust parameters of ADAS settings; 82 alert threshold distance changes depending on speed of area, i.e., relatively higher speed increases threshold distance, relatively lower speed decreases threshold distance) The threshold time or distance may thus represent an example of the ADAS parameter used in accordance with the vehicle's current ADAS configuration settings. This parameter may be adjusted (e.g. by being increased) in accordance with the adjusted alert sensitivity of the ADAS, thereby causing the ADAS alert to be issued earlier when the ADAS alert sensitivity is increased; 84-85; 97 increasing the threshold distance for triggering a Headway Monitoring and Warning (HMW) ADAS alert, reducing the threshold deviation distances for triggering a lane departure warning (LDW) ADAS alert, etc.; 99)
(communication to adjust alert distance thresholds is based on proximity to a physical region similar to instant carwash communication signal to vehicle -- ¶ 76 ADAS alert event having a location that is within a threshold distance from the vehicle . . . transmitted ADAS configuration message may indicate an ADAS sensitivity configuration to be potentially used by the ADAS unit 290 of a vehicle based upon the location of the vehicle . . . messages may identify an ADAS alert sensitivity configuration and the corresponding conditions (i.e. the rule parameters to be met) for the vehicle ADAS unit 290 to adjust its ADAS alert sensitivity configuration per each ADAS alert event within the threshold distance of the vehicle receiving the ADA configuration message)
Accordingly, in view of the combined teachings of Kang, Weston and Bachar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement a reduced, non-zero distance alert threshold as taught by Bachar, in the system of Kang in view of Weston in order to provide a dynamically adaptable alert system that depends on a geographic location and/or condition in proximity to the vehicle (Bachar, ¶ 3 “dynamically adapt”). For example, as cited above, the alert threshold distance can be adjusted based on vehicle speed such that higher speeds may result in relatively longer alert threshold distances and lower speeds may result in relatively shorter alert threshold distances since a higher speed requires gives a shorter time period for human and/or cpu processing to avoid an oncoming object. Accordingly, an adjustment to increase the alert threshold distance can improve safety while an adjustment to decrease the alert threshold distance can lessen user annoyance with unnecessary alarms. In the context of a carwash, the speed of the vehicle is extremely slow but non-zero such that it would have been obvious to reduce the alert distance threshold in view of the teachings above since the countermeasure time for human and/or cpu processing is relatively large.
With respect to claim 2, Kang in view of Weston and further in view of Bachar disclose
a window that is openable; and
a door mirror that is foldable,
wherein the controller is configured to perform a process of closing the window and folding the door mirror when the receiver receives the signal.
(Kang, FIG. 4A v. 4B and corresponding description “mirrors folded in”, “windows closed”; ¶¶ 27, 98-99, 140-152; 178, 220, 228, claim 15; Fig. 8-9)
(Weston, ¶¶ 28-30 car wash mode confirm windows are closed)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 20230234551 to Kang et al. (Kang) in view of US 20160244029 to Weston et al. (Weston) and further in view of Bachar and further in view of US 20150360565 to Goto et al. (Goto)
With respect to claim 3, Kang in view of Weston and further in view of Bachar disclose
wherein the object sensor comprises a right object sensor configured to detect an object on a right side of the vehicle and a left object sensor configured to detect an object on a left side of the vehicle,
(Kang, 121, 123, 124, FIG. 5; ¶¶ 74-78, 81-87 detection information of the obstacles located in the front, rear, left and right sides of the host vehicle 1 . . . based on the detection information output from the distance sensor 122, may recognize the presence of an obstacle in a forward direction and the position of the obstacle. Herein, the position of the obstacle may include distance and direction thereof; 104 safety devices for a vehicle may include a collision warning device that notifies the existence of obstacles and obstacle information regarding the location of the obstacles to prevent collisions with obstacles around the host vehicle)
Kang in view of Weston and further in view of Bachar fail to explicitly disclose the warning device comprises a display device configured to display, when an object is detected by the object sensor, whether the detected object is present on the left side or the right side of the vehicle.
Goto, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a warning device comprises a display device configured to display, when an object is detected by the object sensor, whether the detected object is present on the left side or the right side of the vehicle
(claim 1 display sections activated differentiated based on whether the object is present on left or right side; FIG. 2-3 and corresponding description)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the directionally differentiated warning disclosed by Goto, in the system of Kang in view of Weston and further in view of Bachar in order to improve safety while increasing comfort of the driver (Goto, ¶ 5 and 7-9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667