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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jauch (WO 2018184809 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Jauch teaches a method comprising:
collecting, by an object detection camera coupled to a vehicle, image data ([0014], the sensors obtain a three-dimensional recording of the object);
identifying, based on the collected image data, an airborne object in a field of vision of the object detection camera ([0010], [0014] and [0026], airborne objects that are moving towards the vehicle’s windshield are detected);
determining, based on the collected image data, a trajectory of the airborne object ([0016]);
determining, based on the collected image data and the determined trajectory, that the airborne object has potential to damage a windshield coupled to the vehicle if the airborne object were to contact the windshield ([0016] and [0022-0023], determine if object trajectory will hit the windshield, and if object is of a type that is “potentially dangerous”); and
moving, based on the determination that the airborne object has potential to damage the windshield, a deflector from a first position to an intercept position ([0022], only potentially dangerous objects cause the system to move the deflector),
wherein when in the intercept position the deflector is positioned to contact the airborne object ([0017], windshield wiper, i.e. deflector, moves to the point of impact).
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 1-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jauch (WO 2018184809 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jauch teaches a system comprising:
a deflector configured to be coupled to a vehicle ([0010]);
an imaging system configured to be coupled to the vehicle ([0014]); and
a control system ([0015] and [0028]) configured to:
while the vehicle is in motion, receive image data from the imaging system ([0014], the sensors obtain a three-dimensional recording of the object);
identify, based on the received image data, an airborne object in a field of vision of the imaging system ([0010], [0014] and [0026], airborne objects that are moving towards the vehicle’s windshield are detected);
determine, based on the received image data and identified airborne object, a trajectory of the airborne object ([0016]); and
operate the deflector, based on the determined trajectory, to locate the deflector in a position to contact the airborne object ([0017]).
Jauch teaches that the deflectors are windshield wipers that are “already familiar” in the art ([0010]). While not explicitly stating that the deflectors are configured to move across a predetermined portion of the windshield, Jauch does show that the structure of the windshield wiper is that of a traditional dual-wiper system that is connected via a single rotational axis (see Fig. 1, the wipers 3 are connected to the base of the windshield 2 as is well understood in the art).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that these windshield wipers operate by moving across a predetermined portion of the windshield as part of the well-known operation of such a dual-wiper system in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Jauch further teaches:
wherein the deflector comprises a pad coupled to an outer side of the deflector ([0020] deflector comprises a deflector plate, i.e. a pad),
wherein the pad is configured to contact the airborne object ([0020], deflector plate widens the windshield wiper mechanism so as to “ward off incoming objects”).
Regarding claim 3, Jauch does not explicitly teach that an inner side of the deflector comprises a wiper blade that is in contact with the windshield when the deflector moves across the windshield.
However, Jauch does teach that the windshield wiper system is one that is “already familiar” in the art ([0010]). This system is configured to wipe the windshield clean to remove dirt from it ([0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that windshield wipers comprises blades in order to clean the windshield. As such, it would have been obvious at the effective date of filing that the windshield wipers of Jauch comprise blades that are in contact with the windshield as the deflectors move across the windshield as the windshield wipers would be nonfunctional and unable to clean the dirt from the windshield as disclosed if they lacked such blades.
Regarding claim 4, Jauch teaches:
wherein the pad extends along a portion of the deflector ([0020] extends along the deflector so as to widen the windshield wiper mechanism).
Regarding claim 5, Jauch teaches:
wherein the deflector comprises a deflector arm (see Fig. 1, the deflector 3 is attached to the base of the windshield 2).
While Jauch does not explicitly teach that these arms are configured to rotate about an axis, Jauch does teach that such a windshield wiper system is “already familiar” to those in the art ([0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that both of the wipers the dual-wiper system as shown in Fig. 1 of Jauch are configured to rotate about an axis as is part of such a well-understood windshield wiper system.
Regarding claim 6, Jauch teaches:
wherein an outer side of the deflector comprises a low durometer silicone rubber ([0021], where a soft, particularly elastic rubber is recognized as a low durometer silicone rubber).
Regarding claim 7, Jauch teaches:
a second deflector configured to be coupled to the vehicle (see Fig. 1, multiple deflectors 3).
Jauch does not explicitly teach that this second deflector is configured to move across a second predetermined portion of the windshield. However, Jauch does show that the structure of the windshield wiper is that of a traditional dual-wiper system that is connected via a single rotational axis (see Fig. 1, the wipers 3 are connected to the base of the windshield 2 as is well understood in the art).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that this second windshield wiper operates by moving across a second predetermined portion of the windshield as part of the well-known operation of such a dual-wiper system in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Jauch teaches:
wherein the control system is further configured to determine, based on the trajectory of the airborne object, whether the deflectors should operate ([0016-0017] and [0022-0023], deflectors operate to block the object(s) if harm could occur to the windshield).
Jauch does not explicitly teach that such control of the deflectors includes determining which of the deflector or the second deflector should operate. However, as shown in Fig. 1, the system of Jauch is configured to block multiple objects simultaneously, with both deflectors 3 of the dual-wiper assembly being separably operable to block separate objects 5 whose trajectories are passing into their respective ranges. Therefore, it is implicit that the control system determines which of the deflector or the second deflector should operate as the wipers would be unable to block separate objects at the same moment if such a determination of which deflector should operate was not performed.
Regarding claim 9, Jauch teaches:
wherein the control system is further configured to determine, based on the determined trajectory, that the airborne object has potential to damage the predetermined portion of the windshield ([0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Jauch teaches:
wherein determining that the airborne object has potential to damage the predetermined portion of the windshield is based on a relative speed of the airborne object ([0016], the speed is analyzed as part of the trajectory to determine if the movement of the object is towards the window. It is recognized that a movement vector leading away from a potential impact on the vehicle windshield would be harmless to the windshield).
Regarding claim 11, Jauch teaches:
wherein the control system is further configured to determine, based on the received image data and identified airborne object, that the airborne object has potential to damage the windshield if the airborne object contacts the windshield ([0023], the object is identified and categorized via the received sensor information to determine if it is “potentially dangerous” if it contacts the windshield).
Regarding claim 12, Jauch teaches:
wherein determining that the airborne object may damage the windshield is based on a size of the airborne object ([0023], “this categorization is based on the shape and/or size of the object”).
Regarding claim 13, Jauch teaches:
wherein the imaging system comprises an object detection camera configured to be coupled to the vehicle such that the object detection camera faces a forward vehicle direction ([0014], [0030], and see Fig. 1, the sensor technology facing forward so as to detect the objects 5).
Regarding claim 15, Jauch teaches:
a pad on an outer side configured to contact the airborne object. ([0020] deflector comprises a deflector plate, i.e. a pad, to “ward off incoming objects”).
Jauch does not explicitly teach that the deflector has a wiper blade on an inner side configured to contact the windshield.
However, Jauch does teach that the windshield wiper system is one that is “already familiar” in the art ([0010]). This system is configured to wipe the windshield clean to remove dirt from it ([0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that windshield wipers comprises blades in order to clean the windshield. As such, it would have been obvious at the effective date of filing that the windshield wipers of Jauch comprise wiper blades on an inner side configured to contact the windshield as the windshield wipers would be nonfunctional and unable to clean the dirt from the windshield as disclosed if they lacked such blades.
Regarding claim 16, Jauch teaches:
determining, based on the trajectory, whether the deflectors should operate to move from the first position to the intercept position ([0016-0017] and [0022-0023], deflectors operate to block the object(s) at points of interception).
Jauch does not explicitly teach that such control of the deflectors includes determining which deflector of a plurality of deflectors should operate. However, as shown in Fig. 1, the system of Jauch is configured to block multiple objects simultaneously, with both deflectors 3 of the dual-wiper assembly being separably operable to block separate objects 5 whose trajectories are passing into their respective ranges. Therefore, it is implicit that the control system determines which deflector of a plurality of deflectors should operate as the wipers would be unable to block separate objects at the same moment if such a determination of which deflector should operate was not performed.
Regarding claim 17, Jauch teaches:
wherein the deflector comprises a deflector arm (see Fig. 1, the deflector 3 is attached to the base of the windshield 2),
and the intercept position is an angle of the deflector arm relative to a storage position ([0016-0017] and Fig. 1, the angle of the arm of the deflector 3 relative to a storage position, i.e. an inactive position, is manipulated so that it teaches an intercept position to deflect an object 5).
While Jauch does not explicitly teach that these arms are configured to rotate about an axis, wherein the axis is located at a proximate end of the deflector arm, Jauch does teach that such a windshield wiper system is “already familiar” to those in the art ([0010]). As seen in Fig. 1, this windshield wiper system is a typical dual-wiper system, of which the wipers of said system are well known to rotate about an axis, wherein the axis is located at a proximate end of the deflector arm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that both of the wipers the dual-wiper system as shown in Fig. 1 of Jauch are configured to rotate about an axis as is part of such a well-understood windshield wiper system.
Regarding claim 18, Jauch teaches
a vehicle ([0014]) comprising:
a windshield coupled to the vehicle ([0029]);
an object detection camera coupled to the vehicle, wherein the object detection camera is configured to identify and track a trajectory of an airborne object ([0014] and [0030]);
a windshield wiper ([0030]) comprising:
a deflection pad on a side opposite the wiper blade ([0020]);
wherein the windshield wiper is configured to operate in at least a wiping mode and a deflection mode ([0034], wiper is operable via a normal wiping process, i.e. wiping mode, and a targeted positioning at a point of impact, i.e. deflection mode);
wherein when in the wiping mode, the windshield wiper rotates ([0010] and [0030], the windshield wiper rotates to clean);
and wherein when in the deflection mode, the windshield wiper rotates about the axis such that the windshield wiper is positioned for the deflection pad to contact the airborne object ([0032] and [0034], “position the windshield wiper device 3 specifically at the expected point of impact 7”).
Jauch does not explicitly teach that the windshield wiper is additionally comprising a wiper blade configured to wipe a predetermined section of the windshield.
However, Jauch does teach that the windshield wiper system is one that is “already familiar” in the art ([0010]). This system is configured to wipe the windshield clean to remove dirt from it ([0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that windshield wipers comprises blades in order to clean the windshield. As such, it would have been obvious at the effective date of filing that the windshield wipers of Jauch comprise a wiper blade configured to wipe a predetermined section of the windshield as the windshield wipers would be nonfunctional and unable to clean the dirt from the windshield as disclosed if they lacked such blades.
Jauch does not explicitly teach that the rotation of the wipers is about an axis such that the wiper blade moves across the predetermined section of the windshield. Jauch does teach that such a windshield wiper system is “already familiar” to those in the art ([0010]). As seen in Fig. 1, this windshield wiper system is a typical dual-wiper system, of which the wipers of said system are well known to rotate about an axis such that the wiper blade moves across the predetermined section of the windshield.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that both of the wipers the dual-wiper system as shown in Fig. 1 of Jauch are configured to rotate about an axis as is part of such a well-understood windshield wiper system.
Regarding claim 19, Jauch teaches:
a second windshield wiper (Fig. 1, two windshield wipers 3) comprising:
a second deflection pad on a side opposite the second wiper blade ([0020]);
wherein the second windshield wiper is also configured to operate at least the wiping mode and the deflection mode ([0034]);
wherein when in the deflection mode, the second windshield wiper rotates about the axis such that the second windshield wiper is positioned for the second deflection pad to contact the airborne object ([0032] and [0034]; see Fig. 1, both deflectors 3 block airborne objects 5).
wherein the object detection camera determines, based on the trajectory, whether the deflectors should operate in the deflection mode ([0016-0017] and [0022-0023], deflectors operate to block the object(s) at points of interception).
Jauch does not teach that the second windshield wiper comprises a second wiper blade configured to wipe a second predetermined section of the windshield.
However, Jauch does teach that the windshield wiper system is one that is “already familiar” in the art ([0010]). This system is configured to wipe the windshield clean to remove dirt from it ([0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that windshield wipers comprises blades in order to clean the windshield. As such, it would have been obvious at the effective date of filing that the second windshield wiper of Jauch comprises a second wiper blade configured to wipe a second predetermined section of the windshield as the windshield wiper would be nonfunctional and unable to clean the dirt from the windshield as disclosed if it lacked a windshield wiper blade.
Jauch does not explicitly teach that such control of the deflectors includes determining which deflector of a plurality of deflectors should operate. However, as shown in Fig. 1, the system of Jauch is configured to block multiple objects simultaneously, with both deflectors 3 of the dual-wiper assembly being separably operable to block separate objects 5 whose trajectories are passing into their respective ranges. Therefore, it is implicit that the control system determines which deflector of a plurality of deflectors should operate as the wipers would be unable to block separate objects at the same moment if such a determination of which deflector should operate was not performed.
Regarding claim 20, Jauch teaches:
wherein the windshield wiper cannot operate in the deflection mode if already in the wiping mode ([0034], where a “normal wiping process” means that the wiper rotates so as to clean the windshield without stopping at the intercept position 7. Any deflection occurs due to the operation of the windshield wiper occurring “at the appropriate wiping speed” as part of its normal wiping process).
Jauch does teach that the object detection camera determines that the trajectory of the airborne object is such that it would contact the second predetermined section of the windshield ([0032-0034] and Fig. 1, where upon determining that the object is headed towards a windshield wiper, the windshield wiper is configured to intercept and deflect the object). Jauch does not teach wherein the second windshield wiper can operate in the deflection mode if already in the wiping mode.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that oncoming objects can travel at a vehicle quickly, often faster than it takes a windshield wiper to complete a full rotation. Additionally, Jauch alludes to independent operation of the second wiper to intercept an object while in wiping mode ([0016-0017] and [0022-0023]. As such, when an object is coming at the second windshield wiper and risks damage, while having not completed its wiping operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify this system so that the second windshield wiper can operate in the deflection mode if already in the wiping mode when an object is detected as traveling at a windshield after the second windshield wiper has already begun its wiping operation. This ensures that the deflector is adaptive and able to adjust its travel and trajectory to best prevent damage to the windshield.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon by the examiner is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Hukar et al. (GB 2509370 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R. BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663