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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a notification device configured to indicate wear information in response to the signal” in claims 14 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1-20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement because one of ordinary skill would not have been able to determine if the disclosure actually describes the limitation from independent claims 1, 15, and 20 of “control circuitry configured to...determine a wear condition during manual operation of the wiper and based on classification of the obstruction as debris” with sufficient detail to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 15, and 20 to recite, in part, “control circuitry configured to...determine wear information during manual operation of the wiper and based on the classification of the obstruction as debris”. The only references to “wear information” in the original disclosure are original claim 3, and paragraphs [0004] and [0052], each of which recite that “the control circuitry includes a memory configured to store the wear information including a time of use of the wiper”. There is no disclosure of the claimed “control circuitry configured to...determine wear information during manual operation of the wiper and based on the classification of the obstruction as debris”.
Furthermore, although the term “wear information” could be broadly interpreted to include any information relating to wear, it does not resolve the fundamental ambiguities described in the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement set forth in pages 5-9 of the Office Action mailed 21 April, 2026. If one of ordinary skill cannot define the claimed wear condition or wear information being determined by the control circuitry based on the classification of the obstruction, they cannot know the actual scope of the claimed subject matter well enough to determine if applicant actually had possession. Consequently, claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshipeddy (US PGPub 2022/0396242), incorporating May et al. (US PGPub 2014/0232869, "May") by reference, and in view of Schmid et al. (DE 102013010639, "Schmid") and Qi et al. (CN 108528395, "Qi").
1. Keshipeddy teaches a vehicle (10), comprising:
a camera (14) configured to capture images through a window of the vehicle (sensor 14 may be a camera that captures data representative of a view through a windshield, see Keshipeddy [0013]);
a window clearing system (22) operable between a clearing operation and a cleaning operation and including:
a wiper (24a,24b) configured to move along the window in the clearing operation and the cleaning operation; and
an interface for manually activating the clearing operation (operations may be activated by a manual input, which requires the presence of some sort of interface for providing such an input, Keshipeddy [0021]); and
control circuitry (control system 12, Keshipeddy [0013]) configured to:
detect an obstruction on the window based on the images (determine the presence of a substance based on the captured sensor data representative of a view through a windshield, Keshipeddy [0013]); and
detect manual operation of the wiper (system may be activated by manual input or a rain sensor, which means it must be able to distinguish between automatic and user input, Keshipeddy [0021]).
Keshipeddy further teaches that its control circuitry and camera may use a system described in May, which it incorporates by reference (Keshipeddy [0034]). May teaches a vehicle vision system comprising a camera (14b) that captures images and is located at a windshield of a vehicle (May [0016]), the images being processed to classify the obstruction as water or debris (May fig. 7, [0005], and [0062]). Because Keshipeddy incorporates the system of May by reference, it teaches the presence of control circuitry configured to detect an obstruction on the window based on the images and classify the obstruction as water or debris.
Keshipeddy recognizes the problem of wiper wear and that wiper blades must be replaced if worn (Keshipeddy [0014] and [0018]), but does not teach that the control circuitry is configured to determine wear information during manual operation of the wiper and based on classification of the obstruction as debris; and communicate a signal to indicate the wear information.
However, Schmid teaches a wiper system configured to determine wear information (specifically a wear state between an unworn condition and a wear limit when replacement is necessary, see Schmid Translation [0009]-[0010]) during all operation of the wiper system and based on environmental conditions such as whether the operation involves wet conditions or removing dry debris, and communicate a signal to a user indicate the wear information (Schmid Translation [0013]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle of Keshipeddy according to the wear measurement teachings of Schmid such that the control circuitry was configured to determine a wear information during a manual or automatic operation of the wiper and based on classification of the obstruction as debris; and communicate a signal to indicate the wear information, as doing so would assist a user in determining the proper time to replace a worn wiper blade (Schmid Translation [0014]).
Keshipeddy as modified does not teach that the control circuitry is configured to detect an obstruction on the window based on the images, wherein input data based on the images is passed through a series of convolution layers to extract relevant features for the classification of the obstruction; and classify the obstruction as water or debris, based on the extracted relevant features.
However, Qi teaches control circuitry for an automatic wiper system using image-based classification (Qi Translation [0023]-[0029]) and a convolutional neural network to detect and classify obstructions as water and/or debris (Qi Translation [0058]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the convolutional neural network architecture disclosed by Qi in the vehicle of Keshipeddy as modified such that it included control circuitry configured to detect an obstruction on the window based on the images, wherein input data based on the images is passed through a series of convolution layers to extract relevant features for the classification of the obstruction; and classify the obstruction as water or debris, based on the extracted relevant features, as doing so would improve the accuracy of classification. (Qi translation [0031]).
2. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the window clearing system includes a sprayer configured to apply cleaning fluid to the window in the cleaning operation (system may include a sprayer, see Keshipeddy [0025]).
3. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry includes a memory configured to store the wear information including a time of use of the wiper (Schmid teaches that control circuitry should record the number of wiping cycles and include a database for storing wear information, which one of ordinary skill would understand as including a teaching of memory configured to store wear information including a time of use of the wiper, see Schmid Translation [0012]).
4. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the time of use includes a duration of the manual operation (Schmid teaches that incorporating environmental conditions into a wear calculation is in terms of both the environmental conditions and the corresponding wiping cycles, i.e. the length of time in which the wiper was used in a particular set of environmental conditions, see Schmid Translation [0013]-[0014]).
5. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the window clearing system is operable in an automatic mode in which the cleaning and clearing operations are automatically activated in response to detection of the obstruction (system automatically determines which tool to engage based on the identified conditions, Keshipeddy [0016], tools include sprayers, see Keshipeddy [0021]-[0025]).
7. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 6, wherein selection between the cleaning operation and the clearing operation in the automatic mode is determined based on the classification of the obstruction as water or debris (system automatically determines which tool to engage based on the identified conditions such as the nature of the detected obstruction as water, ice, or solid debris like insect remains, see Keshipeddy [0016] and [0021]-[0025]).
8. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 7, wherein the window clearing system is configured to operate the wiper in response to classification of the obstruction as water and operate the sprayer in response to classification of the obstruction as debris (system automatically determines which tool to engage based on the identified conditions such as the nature of the detected obstruction, sprayer is only operated if the foreign substance is something solid not removed by normal wiping, see Keshipeddy [0016] and [0021]-[0025]).
9. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the window clearing system to adjust from the clearing operation to the cleaning operation in response to the wear information (system will change operation based on a detected change in condition at the windshield, see Keshipeddy [0022] and [0025], such changes may include using a non-wiper blade tool or applying fluid when the windshield is covered in a substance that might damage the wiper, see Keshipeddy [0014] and [0021]-[0025).
11. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to: capture a subsequent image of the window following the manual operation (the wiper system may adjust operation based on conditions detected by a rain sensor after manual activation, Keshipeddy [0021]); and
classify a wear classification with a modifier based on the subsequent image (wear data may be modified based on detected environmental parameters, Schmid Translation [0013]-[0014], environmental parameters in the modified system would be determined at least partly based on the image sensor, see Keshipeddy [0013]).
13. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is configured to communicate a signal to apply cleaning fluid to the window in response to the wear classification with the modifier (system will change operation based on a detected change in condition at the windshield, such a change may involve the application of washer fluid and would correspond to a classification with a modifier in the modified vehicle, see Keshipeddy [0022] and [0025]).
14. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising: a notification device configured to indicate the wear information in response to the signal (signal transmission includes user notification via an output device, see Schmid Translation [0013]-[0014] and [0009] describing relevant forms of output).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshipeddy (incorporating May by reference), Schmid, and Qi, as evidenced by Pujol et al. (US PGPub 2004/0188343, "Pujol").
Regarding claim 6, Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 5, but does not explicitly teach that the window clearing system includes a pump for pressurizing the cleaning fluid to apply to the window in the cleaning operation.
However, the use of a pump to pressurize cleaning fluid in a washer system is well known in the art (Pujol [0002]), and it would consequently have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use such a mechanism in the vehicle of Keshipeddy.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshipeddy (incorporating May by reference), Schmid, and Qi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franz (US 7609857).
10. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the control circuitry is configured to classify the obstruction with a level of optical distortion, wherein classification of the obstruction as water or debris is based on the level of optical distortion.
However, Franz teaches a method for classifying an obstruction based on a level of optical distortion (Franz 3:8-25), wherein classification of the obstruction as water or debris is based on the level of optical distortion (Franz 5:4-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle of Keshipeddy to use the obstruction classification method of Franz such that its control circuitry was configured to classify the obstruction with a level of optical distortion, wherein classification of the obstruction as water or debris is based on the level of optical distortion, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of image classification technique for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshipeddy (incorporating May by reference), Schmid, and Qi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Feinstein et al. (DE 102019218660, "Feinstein").
12. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 11, but although Schmid teaches that environmental conditions may be incorporated into a wear determination, it does not teach specific details regarding such an incorporation and consequently does not teach that the modifier is a multiplier of a calculation for the wear information, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to select the multiplier from a plurality of modifiers corresponding to environmental conditions.
However, Feinstein teaches a method for incorporating environmental parameters (see, e.g. Feinstein Translation [0041]-[0042]) comprising steps of determining parameters during a wiping operation (Feinstein Translation [0080]), determining weighting factors from stored data based on those parameters (see, e.g. Feinstein Translation [0056]-[0061]), and multiplying a measured number of wiping operations by those weighting factors to determine the actual level of wear (Feinstein Translation [0092]-[0093]), which is used to indicate whether a wiper needs replacement (Feinstein Translation [0095]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the vehicle of Keshipeddy to incorporate the teachings of Feinstein regarding the use of environmental weighting factors such that the modifier was a multiplier of a calculation for the wear information, and the control circuitry was configured to select the multiplier from a plurality of modifiers corresponding to environmental conditions, as Schmid teaches the desirability of incorporating environmental factors into a wear limit determination without providing a specific method (Schmid Translation [0013]), which one of ordinary skill would understand as a suggestion to seek out a suitable method for incorporation, such as that taught by Feinstein.
Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshipeddy (incorporating May by reference) in view of Schmid.
15. Keshipeddy teaches a vehicle (10), comprising:
a camera (14) configured to capture images through a window of the vehicle (sensor 14 may be a camera that captures data representative of a view through a windshield, see Keshipeddy [0013]);
a window clearing system (22) operable between a clearing operation and a cleaning operation and including:
a sprayer configured to apply cleaning fluid to the window in the cleaning operation (system may include a sprayer, see Keshipeddy [0025])
a wiper (24a,24b) configured to move along the window in the clearing operation and the cleaning operation; and
an interface for manually activating the clearing operation (operations may be activated by a manual input, which requires the presence of some sort of interface for providing such an input, Keshipeddy [0021]); and
control circuitry (control system 12, Keshipeddy [0013]) configured to:
detect an obstruction on the window based on the images (determine the presence of a substance based on the captured sensor data representative of a view through a windshield, Keshipeddy [0013]); and
detect manual operation of the wiper (system may be activated by manual input or a rain sensor, which means it must be able to distinguish between automatic and user input, Keshipeddy [0021]).
Keshipeddy further teaches that its control circuitry and camera may use a system described in May, which it incorporates by reference (Keshipeddy [0034]). May teaches a vehicle vision system comprising a camera (14b) that captures images and is located at a windshield of a vehicle (May [0016]), the images being processed to classify the obstruction as water or debris (May fig. 7, [0005], and [0062]). Because Keshipeddy incorporates the system of May by reference, it teaches the presence of control circuitry configured to detect an obstruction on the window based on the images and classify the obstruction as water or debris.
Similarly, Keshipeddy teaches that the operation of the wiping may be modified based on sensor data regarding operating conditions (Keshipeddy [0021]-[0022]); that when manually operated, the actual performance may be modified based on observed conditions (operating wipers at a different speed than input by operator, Keshipeddy [0021]); and that the operation may involve changing the nature of a cleaning operation to a clearing operation based on the observed conditions (adjusting the cleaning tool based on substance determination, Keshipeddy [0023]-[0030]).
Consequently, Keshipeddy teaches that the control circuitry is configured to trigger an automatic response to the obstruction, wherein the automatic response is the clearing operation or the cleaning operation; and monitor the manual operation of the wiper and change the automatic response based on the manual operation.
Furthermore, although Keshipeddy recognizes the problem of wiper wear and that wiper blades must be replaced if worn (Keshipeddy [0014] and [0018]), it does not teach that the control circuitry is configured to determine wear information during manual operation of the wiper and based on classification of the obstruction as debris; and communicate a signal to indicate the wear information.
However, Schmid teaches a wiper system configured to determine wear information (specifically a wear state between an unworn condition and a wear limit when replacement is necessary, see Schmid Translation [0009]-[0010]) during all operation of the wiper system and based on environmental conditions such as whether the operation involves wet conditions or removing dry debris, and communicate a signal to a user indicate the wear information (Schmid Translation [0013]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle of Keshipeddy according to the wear measurement teachings of Schmid such that the control circuitry was configured to determine wear information during a manual or automatic operation of the wiper and based on classification of the obstruction as debris; and communicate a signal to indicate the wear information, as doing so would assist a user in determining the proper time to replace a worn wiper blade (Schmid Translation [0014]).
16. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the window clearing system is operable in an automatic mode in which the cleaning and clearing operations are automatically activated in response to detection of the obstruction (system automatically determines which tool to engage based on the identified conditions, Keshipeddy [0016], tools include sprayers, see Keshipeddy [0021]-[0025]).
18. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 17, wherein selection between the cleaning operation and the clearing operation in the automatic mode is determined based on the classification of the obstruction as water or debris (system automatically determines which tool to engage based on the identified conditions such as the nature of the detected obstruction as water, ice, or solid debris like insect remains, see Keshipeddy [0016] and [0021]-[0025]).
19. Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 18, wherein the window clearing system is configured to operate the wiper in response to classification of the obstruction as water and operate the sprayer in response to classification of the obstruction as debris (system automatically determines which tool to engage based on the identified conditions such as the nature of the detected obstruction, sprayer is only operated if the foreign substance is something solid not removed by normal wiping, see Keshipeddy [0016] and [0021]-[0025]).
20. Keshipeddy teaches a vehicle (10), comprising:
a camera (14) configured to capture images through a window of the vehicle (sensor 14 may be a camera that captures data representative of a view through a windshield, see Keshipeddy [0013]);
a window clearing system (22) operable between a clearing operation and a cleaning operation and including:
a sprayer configured to apply cleaning fluid to the window in the cleaning operation (system may include a sprayer, see Keshipeddy [0025])
a wiper (24a,24b) configured to move along the window in the clearing operation and the cleaning operation; and
an interface for manually activating the clearing operation (operations may be activated by a manual input, which requires the presence of some sort of interface for providing such an input, Keshipeddy [0021]); and
control circuitry (control system 12, Keshipeddy [0013]) configured to:
detect an obstruction on the window based on the images (determine the presence of a substance based on the captured sensor data representative of a view through a windshield, Keshipeddy [0013]); and
detect manual operation of the wiper (system may be activated by manual input or a rain sensor, which means it must be able to distinguish between automatic and user input, Keshipeddy [0021]).
Keshipeddy further teaches that its control circuitry and camera may use a system described in May, which it incorporates by reference (Keshipeddy [0034]). May teaches a vehicle vision system comprising a camera (14b) that captures images and is located at a windshield of a vehicle (May [0016]), the images being processed to classify the obstruction as water or debris (May fig. 7, [0005], and [0062]) based on a level of optical distortion (blobs in image data represent distortions due to foreign material, May [0025]-[0029]), wherein the optical distortion is based on at least one of a level of opacity, light transmittance, and light distortion (optical distortion is due to levels of opacity and light distortion from foreign material, May [0025]-[0029]). Because Keshipeddy incorporates the system of May by reference, it teaches the presence of control circuitry configured to detect an obstruction on the window based on the images and classify the obstruction as water or debris with a level of optical distortion, wherein the optical distortion is based on at least one of a level of opacity, light transmittance, and light distortion.
Keshipeddy recognizes the problem of wiper wear and that wiper blades must be replaced if worn (Keshipeddy [0014] and [0018]), but does not teach that the control circuitry is configured to determine wear information during manual operation of the wiper and based on classification of the obstruction as debris; and communicate a signal to indicate the wear information. Keshipeddy also does not teach the presence of a notification device configured to indicate the wear information in response to the signal.
However, Schmid teaches a wiper system configured to determine wear information (specifically a wear state between an unworn condition and a wear limit when replacement is necessary, see Schmid Translation [0009]-[0010]) during all operation of the wiper system and based on environmental conditions such as whether the operation involves wet conditions or removing dry debris, and communicate a signal to a user indicate the wear information via an output device (Schmid Translation [0013]-[0014] and [0009] describing relevant forms of output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle of Keshipeddy according to the wear measurement teachings of Schmid such that the vehicle included a notification device configured to indicate the wear information in response to the signal and the control circuitry was configured to determine wear information during a manual or automatic operation of the wiper and based on classification of the obstruction as debris; and communicate a signal to indicate the wear information, as doing so would assist a user in determining the proper time to replace a worn wiper blade (Schmid Translation [0014]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshipeddy (incorporating May by reference) and Schmid, as evidenced by Pujol.
Regarding claim 17, Keshipeddy as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 16, but does not explicitly teach that the window clearing system includes a pump for pressurizing the cleaning fluid to apply to the window in the cleaning operation.
However, the use of a pump to pressurize cleaning fluid in a washer system is well known in the art (Pujol [0002]), and it would consequently have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use such a mechanism in the vehicle of Keshipeddy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 15, applicant argues that Keshipeddy does not teach the amended claim. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 15 above, because Keshipeddy teaches automatic adjustment of wiper operations in response to detected conditions on a windshield including the presence of obstructions during both automatic and manual wiper operations, it teaches the amended claim. The new limitations do not require a change in the response based on classification, only that the control circuitry be configured to trigger an automatic response.
Regarding independent claim 20, applicant’s interpretation of May disregards that reference’s disclosures regarding the image processing being based on detections in optical distortions due to the presence of debris interfering with the ability of light to reach the image sensor of the camera. The claim requires that the optical distortion be “based” on at least one of the claimed properties, not that it be classified based on the property. Because the optical distortions described by May result from the opacity or light transmittance of an obstruction, they would be based on opacity.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights