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 .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of September 3 2025. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claim 11 is canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to claim 3 and 18 have been fully considered and objection to claim 3 and 18 has been withdrawn. Amendments to claims 1, 16 and 20 have been fully considered and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claims 1, 16 and 20 has been withdrawn. Amendments to claim 3 and 18 have been fully considered and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claim 3 and 18 has been withdrawn. Amendments to claims 1, 16 and 20 regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection have been fully considered and is persuasive. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1, 16 and 20 is withdrawn. Applicant has amendment to claims 1, 16 and 20 overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 set forth in office action of 2 July 2025 but is moot in view of new obviousness objection required by amendments. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection for claims 1, 16 and 20 and reformulates rejection as a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of applicant’s amendment.
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 first detection unit in claim 1
A second detection unit in claim 1
A detection unit in claims 16 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.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for A first detection unit:
" the vehicle detection unit may include vehicle exterior cameras (e.g., a first detection unit) that may be configured to capture images of a geographical area outside the vehicle 102" [¶23]
" In some aspects, the unit may determine the vehicle position based on the inputs obtained from the vehicle detection unit. In an exemplary aspect, the vehicle detection unit may include, along with the first detection unit (vehicle exterior cameras described above) described above, a second detection unit that may include sensors such as radio detecting and ranging (radar) sensors, light detection and ranging (lidar) sensors, and/or the like. The unit may estimate a distance between the vehicle 102 and the track 106 (and hence the vehicle position relative to the track 106) based on the inputs obtained from the vehicle exterior cameras (i.e., the first detection unit) and radar, lidar sensors (i.e., the second detection unit)." [¶25]
"In some aspects, the vehicle sensory system 232 may include the first detection unit and the second detection unit described above in conjunction with FIG. 1. The first detection unit may include vehicle exterior cameras (e.g., vehicle forward-windshield camera, vehicle rear view camera, vehicle side view camera, vehicle 360 degree cameras, etc.), which may be configured to capture images of a geographical area outside the vehicle 202 (and/or detect the vehicle position relative to the track 106). The second detection unit may include one or more of a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, ultrasonic sensors, and/or other proximity sensors configured to detect the vehicle position relative to the track 106." [¶41]
"the processor 242 may use the images obtained from the first detection unit/vehicle cameras (such as a forward-windshield camera (FWC) 302, shown in FIG. 3)"[¶53]
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for A second detection unit:
" In some aspects, the unit may determine the vehicle position based on the inputs obtained from the vehicle detection unit. In an exemplary aspect, the vehicle detection unit may include, along with the first detection unit (vehicle exterior cameras described above) described above, a second detection unit that may include sensors such as radio detecting and ranging (radar) sensors, light detection and ranging (lidar) sensors, and/or the like. The unit may estimate a distance between the vehicle 102 and the track 106 (and hence the vehicle position relative to the track 106) based on the inputs obtained from the vehicle exterior cameras (i.e., the first detection unit) and radar, lidar sensors (i.e., the second detection unit)." [¶25]
"In some aspects, the vehicle sensory system 232 may include the first detection unit and the second detection unit described above in conjunction with FIG. 1. The first detection unit may include vehicle exterior cameras (e.g., vehicle forward-windshield camera, vehicle rear view camera, vehicle side view camera, vehicle 360 degree cameras, etc.), which may be configured to capture images of a geographical area outside the vehicle 202 (and/or detect the vehicle position relative to the track 106). The second detection unit may include one or more of a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, ultrasonic sensors, and/or other proximity sensors configured to detect the vehicle position relative to the track 106." [¶41]
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for A detection unit:
" In some aspects, the unit may determine the vehicle position based on the inputs obtained from the vehicle detection unit. In an exemplary aspect, the vehicle detection unit may include, along with the first detection unit (vehicle exterior cameras described above) described above, a second detection unit that may include sensors such as radio detecting and ranging (radar) sensors, light detection and ranging (lidar) sensors, and/or the like. The unit may estimate a distance between the vehicle 102 and the track 106 (and hence the vehicle position relative to the track 106) based on the inputs obtained from the vehicle exterior cameras (i.e., the first detection unit) and radar, lidar sensors (i.e., the second detection unit)." [¶25]
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrl (DE 102016009552 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 20230234551 A1) and Gorsick (US 20020140387 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ehrl teaches, A vehicle comprising: a first detection unit configured to capture images outside the vehicle (vehicle-mounted front camera or multipurpose camera (MPC), see at least, ¶17, Ehrl); a body control module; a vehicle control unit (control unit, see at least, ¶17, Ehrl); and a processor communicatively coupled to the first detection unit, the body control module, and the vehicle control unit (control unit must have a processor to control the vehicle and the multipurpose camera communicates with the vehicle’s control unit, see at least, ¶17, Ehrl), wherein the processor is configured to: obtain one or more images from the first detection unit; determine, by comparing the one or more images with prestored images of a car wash station, that the vehicle is at an entry to the car wash station (multi-purpose camera cant detect the entrance to the car wash and detect it using image recognition algorithms which must compare the current image to previously identified images of car washes in order to perform image recognition, see at least, ¶17, Ehrl); determine, based on the vehicle being at a car wash, a first action to be performed (after car wash entrance has been detected, car wash mode is automatically activated, see at least, ¶9-10, Ehrl) wherein the first action comprises a plurality of steps (closing side windows and roof openings, fold in side mirrors, deactivate parking aid, deactivate rain sensor, see at least, ¶18, Ehrl); autonomously perform, using the body control module, a first step of the plurality of steps; autonomously perform, using the vehicle control unit a second step of the plurality of steps (car wash mode is activated fully automatically by the vehicle’s control unit, see at least, ¶17, Ehrl) determine that the vehicle has exited the car wash station based on the inputs from the first detection unit (vehicle exit is detected via environmental detection system, see at least, ¶7, Ehrl); and autonomously perform, using the body control module, a third action, wherein the third action is a reverse of the first action (procedures are reversed when car wash mode is automatically deactivated, see at least, ¶ 2 and 7, Ehrl).
Ehrl does not explicitly teach, determine, by comparing the one or more images with prestored images of a car wash station, that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of an entry to the car wash station; determine, based on the vehicle being within the predefined distance, a first action to be performed; responsive to a determination that the first step is completed; output a third notification indicating that the first action is completed based on the determination that the first step and the second step are completed;
Kang, directed to a control device for controlling the state of vehicle through a car wash teaches, that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of an entry to the car wash station (determine whether a distance to the entrance to the vehicle wash is a reference distance d in fig. 7, see at least, ¶174, Kang); determine, based on the vehicle being within the predefined distance, a first action to be performed (upon determining that the distance to the entrance to the vehicle wash is the reference distance, transmit the generated change control signal, see at least, ¶174, 27, Kang);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl’s method of recognizing a car wash entrance to incorporate the teachings of Kang which teaches , that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of an entry to the car wash station; determine, based on the vehicle being within the predefined distance, a first action to be performed since they are both related to controlling a vehicle through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Kang would increase improve user convenience by automatically restoring the operating state of the electronic device whose operating state is changed before washing the vehicle after washing the vehicle (¶232-233, Kang).
Gorsick, directed to a car-wash ready system teaches responsive to a determination that the first step is completed; output a third notification indicating that the first action is completed based on the determination that the first step and the second step are completed (see when the vehicle parts have been placed in their car-wash ready states, the processor switches a “car-wash ready” indicator to an “on” state, see at least, ¶15-16, Fig. 2, Gorsick).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl and Kang’s method of preparing a vehicle to enter a car wash to incorporate the teachings of Gorsick which teaches responsive to a determination that the first step is completed; output a third notification indicating that the first action is completed based on the determination that the first step and the second step are completed since they are both related to controlling a vehicle through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Gorsick would prepare and protect the vehicle from being damaged by the car wash.
Regarding Claim 4, Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick teaches, the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a second action to be performed when the vehicle is within the predefined distance, wherein the second action comprises disabling vehicle wipers (car wash mode deactivates a rain sensor to prevent windshield wipers from operating during vehicle wash, see at least, ¶15, Ehrl).
Regarding Claim 5, Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick teaches, The vehicle of claim 4.
Kang, directed to a control device for controlling the state of vehicle through a car wash teaches, wherein the processor is further configured to output a fourth notification to disable operation of vehicle wipers when the vehicle is within the predefined distance (control signal to change the operating state of at least one electronic device upon determining the distance to the entrance to the car wash is the reference distance where at least one electronic device may include a wiper. Fig. 4a and 4b depict user selected options screen including “rain sensor off” option which is interpreted as a notification to disable the vehicle wipers, ¶ 19, 174 and 96-97, Kang).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick to further incorporate the teachings of Kang which teaches, wherein the processor is further configured to output a control instruction to disable operation of vehicle wipers when the vehicle is within the predefined distance since they are both related to vehicles in car washes and incorporation of the teachings of Kang would improve user convenience by automatically restoring the operating state of the electronic device whose operating state is changed before washing the vehicle after washing the vehicle (¶232-233, Kang).
Regarding Claim 16, Ehrl teaches, a method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, inputs from a detection unit, wherein the detection unit is configured to capture images outside a vehicle (vehicle-mounted front camera or multipurpose camera (MPC) takes images outside a vehicle, see at least, ¶17, Ehrl); determining, by the processor, that the vehicle at a car wash station entry point associated with a car wash station based on the inputs (multi-purpose camera detects the vehicle is outside the entrance to the car, see at least, ¶17, Ehrl); determining, by the processor, a first action to be performed when the vehicle is at a car wash (after car wash entrance has been detected, car wash mode is automatically activated, see at least, ¶9-10, Ehrl), wherein the first action comprises a plurality of steps (closing side windows and roof openings, fold in side mirrors, deactivate parking aid, deactivate rain sensor, see at least, ¶18, Ehrl); autonomously performing, by a body control module of the vehicle, a first step of the plurality of steps; autonomously performing, by a vehicle control unit of the vehicle, a second step of the plurality of steps (car wash mode is activated fully automatically by the vehicle’s control unit, see at least, ¶17, Ehrl); determining, by the processor, that the vehicle has exited the car wash station based on the inputs from the first detection unit (vehicle exit is detected via environmental detection system, see at least, ¶7, Ehrl); and autonomously performing, by the body control module, a third action, wherein the third action is a reverse of the first action (procedures are reversed when car wash mode is automatically deactivated, see at least, ¶ 2 and 7, Ehrl).
Ehrl does not explicitly teach determining, by the processor, that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of a car wash station entry point associated with a car wash station based on the inputs; determining, by the processor, that the first step is completed; a second step of the plurality of steps responsive to a determination that the first step is completed; determining, by the processor, that the second step is completed;
Kang, directed to a control device for controlling the state of vehicle through a car wash teaches, determining, by the processor, that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of a car wash station entry point associated with a car wash station based on the inputs (upon determining that the distance to the entrance to the vehicle wash is the reference distance, transmit the generated change control signal, see at least, ¶174, 27, Kang).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl’s method of preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash to incorporate the teachings of Kang which teaches determining, by the processor, that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of a car wash station entry point associated with a car wash station based on the inputs since they are both related to vehicles in car washes and incorporation of the teachings of Kang would improve user convenience by automatically restoring the operating state of the electronic device whose operating state is changed before washing the vehicle after washing the vehicle (¶232-233, Kang).
Gorsick, directed to a car-wash ready system determining, by the processor, that the first step is completed; a second step of the plurality of steps responsive to a determination that the first step is completed; determining, by the processor, that the second step is completed (Fig. 2 depicts the processor checking that a first step is completed (each window closed 104) and performs a second step (close sun roof 110) and check if the second step is completed (sun roof closed? 108), see at least, ¶15-16, Fig. 2, Gorsick).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl and Kang’s method of preparing a vehicle to enter a car wash to incorporate the teachings of Gorsick which teaches determining, by the processor, that the first step is completed; a second step of the plurality of steps responsive to a determination that the first step is completed; determining, by the processor, that the second step is completed since they are both related to controlling a vehicle through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Gorsick would prepare and protect the vehicle from being damaged by the car wash.
Regarding Claim 19, Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick teaches, the vehicle of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a fourth action to be performed when the vehicle is within the predefined distance, wherein the fourth acton comprises disabling vehicle wipers (car wash mode deactivates a rain sensor to prevent windshield wipers from operating during vehicle wash, see at least, ¶15, Ehrl).
Regarding Claim 20, Ehrl teaches, control unit programmed to: obtain inputs from a detection unit, wherein the detection unit is configured to capture images outside a vehicle; determine that the vehicle is at a car wash station entry point associated with a car wash station based on the inputs (multi-purpose camera detects the vehicle is outside the entrance to the car, see at least, ¶17, Ehrl); autonomously perform, using a body control module of the vehicle, a first action when the vehicle at a car wash (after car wash entrance has been detected, car wash mode is automatically activated, see at least, ¶9-10, Ehrl), wherein the first action comprises a plurality of steps (closing side windows and roof openings, fold in side mirrors, deactivate parking aid, deactivate rain sensor, see at least, ¶18, Ehrl); autonomously perform a second step of the plurality of steps (car wash mode is activated fully automatically by the vehicle’s control unit, see at least, ¶17, Ehrl); determine that the vehicle has exited the car wash station based on the inputs from the first detection unit (vehicle exit is detected via environmental detection system, see at least, ¶7, Ehrl); and autonomously perform, using the body control module, a third action, wherein the third action is a reverse of the first action (procedures are reversed when car wash mode is automatically deactivated, see at least, ¶ 2 and 7, Ehrl).
Ehrl does not explicitly teach , a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: determine that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of a car wash station entry point; a first action when the vehicle is within the predefined distance; determine that the first step is completed; autonomously perform a second step of the plurality of steps responsive to a determination that the first step is completed; determine that the second step is completed.
Kang, directed to a control device for controlling the state of vehicle through a car wash teaches, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (Fig. 5 memory 172, ¶240, Kang): determine that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of a car wash station entry point; a first action when the vehicle is within the predefined distance; (upon determining that the distance to the entrance to the vehicle wash is the reference distance, transmit the generated change control signal, see at least, ¶174, 27, Kang).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl’s method of preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash to incorporate the teachings of Kang which teaches , a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: determine that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of a car wash station entry point; a first action when the vehicle is within the predefined distance since they are both related to vehicles in car washes and incorporation of the teachings of Kang would improve user convenience by automatically restoring the operating state of the electronic device whose operating state is changed before washing the vehicle after washing the vehicle (¶232-233, Kang).
Gorsick, directed to a car-wash ready system teaches determine that the first step is completed; autonomously perform a second step of the plurality of steps responsive to a determination that the first step is completed; determine that the second step is completed (Fig. 2 depicts the processor checking that a first step is completed (each window closed 104) and performs a second step (close sun roof 110) and check if the second step is completed (sun roof closed? 108), see at least, ¶15-16, Fig. 2, Gorsick).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl and Kang’s method of preparing a vehicle to enter a car wash to incorporate the teachings of Gorsick which determine that the first step is completed; autonomously perform a second step of the plurality of steps responsive to a determination that the first step is completed; determine that the second step is completed since they are both related to controlling a vehicle through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Gorsick would prepare and protect the vehicle from being damaged by the car wash.
Claims 2, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrl (DE 102016009552 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 20230234551 A1) and Gorsick (US 20020140387 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 16, and 19-20 and further in view of Maurer (WO 2023084074 A1) (English translation attached).
Regarding Claim 2 and 17, Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick teaches, The vehicle of claim 1 and 16,
Maurer, directed to a method for operating a vehicle when driving through a car wash teaches, wherein the first action comprises positioning the vehicle in a neutral mode (the automatic transmission of the vehicle 1 in the car wash 10 is switched to the transmission stage “N” for neutral, ¶89, Maurer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the invention Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick to incorporate the teachings of Maurer which teaches wherein the first action comprises positioning the vehicle in a neutral mode since they are both related to preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Korngold would reduce the risk of damage caused by collision between cars in a car wash.
Regarding Claim 14, Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick teaches, The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the third action comprises re-enabling vehicle wipers and/or positioning the vehicle out of a neutral mode (rain sensor, which activates the wipers is deactivated in car wash mode and is reversed after the driver leave the car wash, see at least, ¶ 2, 7, 15, Ehrl).
Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick does not explicitly teach, positioning the vehicle out of a neutral mode.
Maurer, directed to a method for operating a vehicle when driving through a car wash teaches, positioning the vehicle out of a neutral mode (the driver can drive out of the car wash where the gear is switched from neutral to drive, see at least, ¶11, Maurer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the invention Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick to incorporate the teachings of Maurer which teaches positioning the vehicle out of a neutral mode since they are both related to preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Maurer ld reduce the risk of damage caused by collision between cars in a car wash.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrl (DE 102016009552 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 20230234551 A1), Gorsick (US 20020140387 A1) and Maurer (WO 2023084074 A1) (english translation attached) as applied to claims 2, 14 and 17 and further in view of Ben the EV guy (https://youtu.be/beQI7u9dgHY) and Subaru Outback Forums (https://www.subaruoutback.org/threads/automated-car-wash-worries.521467/)
Regarding Claim 3 and 18, Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick teaches, The vehicle of claim 1 and 16.
Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of steps comprise: press and hold vehicle speed reduction pedal, shift the vehicle in neutral, press low button, release the vehicle speed reduction pedal, turn-off the vehicle, and deactivate stop- start functionality.
Maurer, directed to a method for operating a vehicle when driving through a car wash teaches, wherein the plurality of steps comprise: press and hold vehicle speed reduction pedal, shift the vehicle in neutral (manually changing the vehicle’s automatic transmission will be switched to gear position “N” in the car wash requires one to press the brake before changing the gear, see at least, ¶5, Maurer), press low button, release the vehicle speed reduction pedal (the brake should not be applied in the car wash, see at least, ¶6, Maurer), turn-off the vehicle (vehicle engine is switched off at the beginning of the car wash, see at least, ¶7, Maurer), and deactivate stop- start functionality.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the invention Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick to incorporate the teachings of Maurer which wherein the plurality of steps comprise: press and hold vehicle speed reduction pedal, shift the vehicle in neutral, release the vehicle speed reduction pedal, turn-off the vehicle since they are both related to preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Korngold would reduce the risk of damage caused by collision between cars in a car wash.
Ben the EV Guy, directed to switching a Ford Mustang to car wash mode teaches, press low button (temporary neutral mode is accessed by switching the vehicle gear to neutral then press the “L” button to enable 30 minuet neutral mode designed for car washes, see at least, YouTube Video Attachment, Ben the EV Guy).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick and Maurer to incorporate the teachings of Ben the EV Guy which teaches press low button since they are both related to preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Ben the EV Guy would increase the success of preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash.
Subaru Outback Forums, directed to Car wash shut off instructions for Subarus teaches, deactivate stop-start functionality (Car Wash Shut Off instructions, step 3: Slide Auto Start/Stop Tab to OFF, see at least, Website Print Out Attachment, Subaru Outback Forums).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick, Maurer and Ben the EV Guy to incorporate the teachings of Subaru Outback Forums which teaches deactivate stop-start functionality since they are both related to preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Subaru Outback Forums would increase the success of preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash by deactivating undesired automatic functions.
Claims 6-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrl (DE 102016009552 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 20230234551 A1) and Gorsick (US 20020140387 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 16, and 19-20 and further in view of Korngold et al. (US 20220092996 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick teaches, The vehicle of claim 1.
Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick does not explicitly teach further comprising a second detection unit configured to detect a position of the vehicle relative to a track associated with the car wash station.
Korngold, directed to A system is configured to assist a driver in self-loading a vehicle on a car wash conveyor at a loading point located at an entrance to the car wash conveyor further teaches a second detection unit configured to detect a position of the vehicle relative to a track associated with the car wash station (Fig. 6 depicts the process 600 where block 662 and 665 detects the position of the vehicle relative to the ideal loading path/track ,see at least, ¶57, Fig. 6, Korngold).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick to incorporate the teachings of Korngold which teaches a second detection unit configured to detect a position of the vehicle relative to a track associated with the car wash station since they are both related to preparing a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Korngold would increase the accuracy and success of properly loading the vehicle onto the car wash conveyor.
Regarding Claim 7, Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick, and Korngold teaches, The vehicle of claim 6,
Korngold, directed to A system is configured to assist a driver in self-loading a vehicle on a car wash conveyor at a loading point located at an entrance to the car wash conveyor further teaches, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain inputs from the second detection unit; and estimate a distance between the vehicle and the track based on the inputs from the second detection unit (Fig. 6 depicts the process 600 where block 676, Calculate distance and show it on the screen, see at least, ¶58, Fig. 6, Korngold).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified , Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick, and Korngold to further incorporate the teachings of Korngold which teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain inputs from the second detection unit; and estimate a distance between the vehicle and the track based on the inputs from the second detection unit, since they are both related to guiding a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Korngold would increase the accuracy and success of properly loading the vehicle onto the car wash conveyor.
Regarding Claim 8, Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick, and Korngold teaches, The vehicle of claim 7.
Korngold, directed to A system is configured to assist a driver in self-loading a vehicle on a car wash conveyor at a loading point located at an entrance to the car wash conveyor further teaches, wherein the processor is further configured to output a fifth notification to align the vehicle on the track based on the estimation of the distance (Fig. 6 depicts the process 600 where block 676, Calculate distance and show it on the screen is a notification used to align the vehicle on the track, see at least, ¶58, Fig. 6, Korngold).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick, and Korngold to further incorporate the teachings of Korngold which teaches wherein the processor is further configured to output a fifth notification to align the vehicle on the track based on the estimation of the distance, since they are both related to guiding a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Korngold would increase the accuracy and success of properly loading the vehicle onto the car wash conveyor.
Regarding Claim 9, Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick, and Korngold teaches, The vehicle of claim 8,
Korngold, directed to A system is configured to assist a driver in self-loading a vehicle on a car wash conveyor at a loading point located at an entrance to the car wash conveyor further teaches, wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the vehicle is aligned with the track based on the inputs from the second detection unit (Fig. 6 depicts the process 600 where block 678, determines that the vehicle is aligned with the track, see at least, ¶59, Fig. 6, Korngold).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick, and Korngold to further incorporate the teachings of Korngold which teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the vehicle is aligned with the track based on the inputs from the second detection unit, since they are both related to guiding a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Korngold would increase the accuracy and success of properly loading the vehicle onto the car wash conveyor.
Regarding Claim 10, Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick, and Korngold teaches, The vehicle of claim 9,
Korngold, directed to A system is configured to assist a driver in self-loading a vehicle on a car wash conveyor at a loading point located at an entrance to the car wash conveyor further teaches, wherein the processor is configured to output the first notification responsive to a determination that the vehicle is aligned with the track (Fig. 6 depicts the process 600 where block 680, sends notification to stop since the car is aligned with the track, see at least, ¶59, Fig. 6, Korngold).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified An in view of Korngold and Wey to further incorporate the teachings of Korngold which teaches wherein the processor is configured to output the first notification responsive to a determination that the vehicle is aligned with the track, since they are both related to guiding a vehicle to go through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Korngold would increase the accuracy and success of properly loading the vehicle onto the car wash conveyor.
Regarding Claim 15, Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick teaches, The vehicle of claim 1.
Korngold, directed to A system is configured to assist a driver in self-loading a vehicle on a car wash conveyor at a loading point located at an entrance to the car wash conveyor teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: compare the images with pre-stored images associated with the car wash station; and determine, based on comparing the images with pre-stored images associated with the car wash station, that the vehicle is within the predefined distance of the car wash station entry point (Fig. 71 depicts comparing images of the vehicle graphics element 794 with the distance graphics element 791, which is a pre-stored image associated with the car wash station, and the length of the graphics distance element 791 is the maximum length to convey a distance between the actual vehicle location and the loading point (car wash entry point), see at least, ¶64, Fig. 7A, Korngold).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl in view of Kang and Gorsick to incorporate the teachings of Korngold which teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: compare the images with pre-stored images associated with the car wash station; and determine, based on comparing the images with pre-stored images associated with the car wash station, that the vehicle is within the predefined distance of the car wash station entry point since they are both related to guiding vehicles through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Korngold would increase the accuracy of guiding a vehicle onto the car wash conveyor when the vehicle is within a close proximity to the car wash entrance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrl (DE 102016009552 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 20230234551 A1) and Gorsick (US 20020140387 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 16, and 19-20 and further in view of Liu et al. (WO 2020151190 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick teaches, The vehicle of claim 1.
Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick does not explicitly teach, wherein the processor is configured to output the sixth notification after a predetermined time duration of the vehicle exiting the car wash station.
Liu, directed to an auxiliary parking method which can automatically perform parking guidance and improve the efficiency of vehicles parking in a car wash service area teaches, wherein the processor is configured to output the sixth notification after a predetermined time duration of the vehicle exiting the car wash station (Fig.9 depicts when the vehicle is exiting the car wash when it reaches the Fourth position detection point 104 within a preset time period, a vehicle departure message is sent to the server, see at least, ¶112-113, Fig.9, Liu).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick to incorporate the teachings of Liu which teaches wherein the processor is configured to output the sixth notification after a predetermined time duration of the vehicle exiting the car wash station since they are both related to guiding a vehicle through a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Liu would increase the accuracy of detecting when the vehicle exits the car wash using a predetermined time duration required by the sensing system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrl (DE 102016009552 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 20230234551 A1), Gorsick (US 20020140387 A1) and Liu et al. (WO 2020151190 A1) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of Takeuchi (JP H10273018 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick and Liu teaches, the vehicle of claim 12.
Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick and Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to output the sixth notification when the vehicle is at a predetermined distance away from a car wash exit point after exiting the car wash station.
Takeuchi, directed to a vehicle transport device for a vehicle washing apparatus which transports a vehicle to be washed to a car washing machine teaches, wherein the processor is further configured to output the sixth notification when the vehicle is at a predetermined distance away from a car wash exit point after exiting the car wash station (Fig. 1 depicts when the vehicle passes through the car wash section C and reaches point V2 which is a predetermined distance away from the car wash exit point (outside of section C), the notification device displays “Car Wash Completed” and “Please move the car forward to exit”. The 3rd action is moving the car forward, see at least, ¶19-20, Fig. 1, Takeuchi).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ehrl in view of Kang, Gorsick and Liu to incorporate the teachings of Takeuchi which teaches wherein the processor is further configured to output the sixth notification when the vehicle is at a predetermined distance away from a car wash exit point after exiting the car wash station since they are both related to methods of preparing vehicles for a car wash and incorporation of the teachings of Takeuchi would increase the awareness of the driver by notifying the driver that the vehicle has exited the car washing portion of the car wash.
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 IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664