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 .
Status of the Claims
This first final action is in response to applicant's original filing on Sept. 09, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Examiner's response
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s amendment with respect to claims 1-7 as rejected under 35 USC 101 and has reconsidered the rejection. As such, the examiner believes that the amendments have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 and as withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-7.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 with respect to claims 8-20 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argued the claimed invention would still be patent eligible under Prong Two of revised Step 2A because the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application by reciting additional elements. Specifically, the applicant argued that the elements include a vehicle sensor configured to transmit and receive a high-frequency sound wave, measuring the time it takes for the transmitted high-frequency sound wave to be received by the vehicle sensor, the desired dirt threshold measured in the time it takes for the transmitted sound wave to be received by the vehicle sensor and issue a notification to a vehicle owner that the vehicle is above the desired dirt threshold and suggest optimal day, time, or location for vehicle washing are executable instructions stored on a memory system executed by a processing system and are steps which perform an actual function and provide an actual product.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this arguments/amendment. The newly added “a vehicle sensor….” (e.g. an ultrasonic sensor) is used to collect data/provide a vehicle environment and are used only as a data source; the claim does not effect control of the machine, transform any physical article, or cause a technological change.. The limitation of “issuing a notification to a vehicle owner” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere extra solution activity (transmitting information). Please see 101 rejection session for details. As such, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the different elements of the claims, including, the newly added limitation of “transmit and receive a high-frequency sound wave and measure the time it takes for the vehicle sensor to receive the transmitted high-frequency sound wave”, “a measure in the time it takes for the transmitted high-frequency sound wave to be received”, “the measured time it takes for the transmitted high- frequency sound wave to be received is greater than a predetermined threshold” etc. must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Claim 14
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that Claim 14 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does Claim 14 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a system (machine) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 14. A vehicle system for a vehicle, the vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle sensor configured to transmit and receive a high-frequency sound wave and measure the time it takes for the vehicle sensor to receive the transmitted high-frequency sound wave;
data processing hardware; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
determining if the vehicle is above a desired dirt threshold based on one or more of vehicle location and vehicle event data, wherein the desired dirt threshold is a measure in the time it takes for the transmitted high-frequency sound wave to be received by the vehicle sensor;
determining an optimal day, time, or location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and a contextual data, the contextual data including one or more of weather information, schedule information, and car wash information; and
issue a notification to a vehicle owner that the vehicle is above the desired dirt threshold and suggest the optimal day, time, or location for vehicle washing.
The system in Claim 14 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of Claim 14 highlighted above merely consist of determining if the vehicle is above a desired dirt threshold and determining an optimal day, time, or location for vehicle. This is equivalent to a person, upon receiving vehicle location data, a desired dirt threshold and the measured time data collected by the vehicle sensor, mentally decides whether the vehicle is above a desired dirt threshold and upon receiving contextual data mentally decides an optimal day, time, or location for vehicle washing. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 14. A vehicle system for a vehicle, the vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle sensor configured to transmit and receive a high-frequency sound wave and measure the time it takes for the vehicle sensor to receive the transmitted high-frequency sound wave;
data processing hardware; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
determining if the vehicle is above a desired dirt threshold based on one or more of vehicle location and vehicle event data, wherein the desired dirt threshold is a measure in the time it takes for the transmitted high-frequency sound wave to be received by the vehicle sensor;
determining an optimal day, time, or location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and a contextual data, the contextual data including one or more of weather information, schedule information, and car wash information; and
issue a notification to a vehicle owner that the vehicle is above the desired dirt threshold and suggest the optimal day, time, or location for vehicle washing.
Claim 14 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. “a vehicle sensor” (e.g. an ultrasonic sensor) is used to collect data/ provide a vehicle environment and a mere extra-solution activity. The data processing hardware and memory hardware, merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Further, the issuing a notification step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere extra solution activity.
As such, the additional limitations of Claim 14 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 14 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Estimating and determining data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by general purpose computing devices, such as the devices in claim 14.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 14 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 14 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 8, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 14 which is commensurate in scope to claims 8.
As such, since claims 8 and 14 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 8 and 14 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 9-13 and 15-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more, as the limitations are either further part of the mental process or are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application using a similar analysis as applied to claim 14 above.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s Amendments have created new rejections under 35 USC 112(a). See below.
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 1-8, 11 and 16 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. Specifically,
Claim 1 has newly added limitations “activating the vehicle to move from a first location to one or more vehicle maintenance stations based on a location of the vehicle when the measured time it takes for the transmitted high- frequency sound wave to be received is greater than a predetermined threshold”. [0038] of specification describes that “Additionally, the vehicle event data 206 may include data from the ultrasonic sensors, which are configured to emit high-frequency sound waves and measure the time it takes for the sound waves to bounce back. A change in the time it takes to receive the high-frequency sound waves back to the sensor 14 can be used to identify changes in an outer surface of the vehicle 10. Namely, if an outer surface of the vehicle 10 includes built-up dirt or debris, the time required to receive the high-frequency sound waves back to the sensor 14 will change relative to a surface that is clean and free from dirt and debris. Accordingly, these sensors 14 can be used to determine whether-and to what extent-an outer surface of the vehicle 10 is covered by dirt and debris.” It is a change in the time, not time …. being greater than a predetermined threshold, used to identify changes in an outer surface of the vehicle 10.
In addition, it is well known that when the vehicle surface has foreign objects such as dirt or debris , it takes less time to receive the reflected wave (a shorter distance from the ultrasonic sensor) relative to a surface that is clean and free from dirt and debris. Therefore, the limitation should be “ activating the vehicle to move from a first location to one or more vehicle maintenance stations based on a location of the vehicle when the measured time it takes for the transmitted high- frequency sound wave to be received is less than a predetermined threshold”. The newly added limitation “….when the measured time it takes for the transmitted high- frequency sound wave to be received is greater than a predetermined threshold ”constitutes new matter.
Claims 2-7 are rejected because they are dependent from rejected claim 1.
Claims 4, 11 and 16 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation, “wherein the vehicle event data includes data captured from one or more vehicle cameras or vehicle sensors”. Claim 14 recited “wherein the vehicle event data is a measure in the time it takes for the transmitted high-frequency sound wave to be received”.
Claim 16 is dependent from claim 14. Therefore, claim 16 has limitations of event data is a measure in the time it takes for the transmitted high-frequency sound wave to be received and event data includes data captured from one or more vehicle cameras or vehicle sensors.
[0038] of specification provides that “the vehicle event data 206 may include data from the ultrasonic sensors, which are configured to emit high-frequency sound waves and measure the time it takes for the sound waves to bounce back”. It appears that specification only describes ultrasonic sensor emits high-frequency sound waves. the specification does not describe that data from vehicle cameras or sensors is a measure in the time it takes for the transmitted high-frequency sound wave as claimed. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 recite(s) similar limitations to that of claim 16. thus, such limitations constitute new matter for the same reasons as discussed above. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically:
“Sensors” recited in Claim 16 are the same as “a vehicle sensor” at line 2 claim 14? If the answerer is yes, “Sensors” is claim 16 should be “the vehicle sensor”. If the answerer is no, please clarify sensors. A clarification/ correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Ferrer (US 20220250590 A1) in view of Weldemariam (US 20210070304 A1) in view of Yumoto (US 20230057854 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Ferrer teaches a vehicle system for a vehicle (title ), the vehicle system comprising:
data processing hardware ([0034], Figs 2-3 ); and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware ([0034] ), the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations ([0034], [0059] Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data Figs 2-3 );
comprising determining if the vehicle is above a desired dirt threshold based on one or more of vehicle location and vehicle event data ( [0017] The dirt detection system 107 may be implemented in any of various ways. In one example implementation, the dirt detection system 107 can include multiple cameras that are mounted at various locations upon the vehicle 105 in order to capture images of various exterior surfaces of the vehicle 105. The images may be provided to the car wash system computer 108, which may evaluate the images for determining the amount of dirt present on one or more of the various exterior surfaces of the vehicle 105. [0011]; [0035] The information may be evaluated in cooperation with the sensor data processing module 245 for determining whether the amount of dirt present on the vehicle 105 exceeds a threshold value. When the amount of dirt exceeds the threshold value, a remedial action directed at having the vehicle 105 washed may be executed);
issue a notification to a vehicle owner that the vehicle is above the desired dirt threshold and suggest optimal day, time, or location for vehicle washing ( [0011] A car wash system computer in the vehicle may evaluate the information provided by the dirt detection system and determine that the amount of dirt present on the vehicle exceeds a threshold value. When the amount of dirt exceeds the threshold value, the car wash system computer may execute a remedial action directed at having the vehicle washed. One example of a remedial action involves the car wash system computer communicating with an infotainment system in the vehicle to issue an announcement that the vehicle is in need of a wash and/or providing navigation guidance to a driver of the vehicle to drive to a car wash. Another example of a remedial action, where the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, involves the car wash system computer locating a car wash and determining a travel path for the autonomous vehicle to travel to the car wash. [0048] At block 410, the car wash system module 240 executes a remedial action directed at having the vehicle 105 washed in order to remove dirt present on the vehicle 105. the remedial action can involve issuing an alert to the driver of the vehicle 105. The alert may be issued through the infotainment system 210, for example in the form of a message displayed on the display 211 of the infotainment system 210. The alert and/or message may direct the driver of the vehicle 105 to travel to a car wash to have the vehicle 105 washed. In another example scenario, where the vehicle 105 is an autonomous vehicle, the remedial action may involve the car wash system computer 108 cooperating with the vehicle computer 106 to autonomously drive the vehicle 105 to the car wash (for example, the car wash 120).
Ferrer does not explicitly teach but Weldemariam teaches the limitation of determining an optimal day, time, or location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and contextual data, the contextual data including one or more of weather information, schedule information, and car wash information ( Weldemariam [0062]-[0063] A minimum threshold value T can correspond to a level of dirtiness warranting the system to automatically invoke methods to optimally schedule a vehicle car wash at a particular location and time once the aggregated vehicle dirtiness score exceeds T.A minimum threshold value T can correspond to a level of dirtiness warranting the system to automatically invoke methods to optimally schedule a vehicle car wash at a particular location and time once the aggregated vehicle dirtiness score exceeds T, Fig. 4 and 5 and corresponding paragraphs; [0065] Continuing to 510 , FIG. 5, the system 151 automatically invokes methods to identify a set of candidate car wash locations by invoking the Candidate Service Locations Selector module 160, When invoked, Candidate Service Locations <L>Selector module 160 conducts a search to obtain results suggesting a set of candidate car wash locations L in the area or vicinity of the vehicle's current location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer, determining time and location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and contextual data, as taught by Weldemariam, as Ferrer and Weldemariam are directed to a car wash system (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using determining time and location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and contextual data and predictably applied it to optimally schedule a vehicle wash service ([0015] Weldemariam).
Ferrer as modified by Weldemariam does not explicitly teach but Yumoto teaches the limitation of a vehicle sensor configured to transmit and receive a high-frequency sound wave and measure the time it takes for the vehicle sensor to receive the transmitted high-frequency sound wave ([0036] The cleaning section 30 includes a cleaning brush and a brush rotating motor (not shown) that rotates the cleaning brush. Under the control of the controller 10, the cleaning section 30 can clean by rotating the cleaning brush while spraying supplied cleaning liquid, which is a liquid such as water, onto the cleaning brush and bringing the cleaning brush into contact with the returning belt surface 20b);
wherein the desired dirt threshold is a measure in the time it takes for the transmitted high-frequency sound wave to be received by the vehicle sensor ([0041] Specifically, in the case where ultrasonic waves are transmitted from the transmission section 12a of the ultrasonic sensor 12 toward a glue surface GS (to be described later), which is the surface of the glue G on the return belt surface 20b, when the glue G is consumed by peeling, then, compared to when the glue G is not consumed (threshold), the time until the reception section 12b receives the ultrasonic waves that were reflected by the glue surface GS and returned becomes longer, and the distance detected by the ultrasonic sensor 12 becomes longer. The glue G is consumed when, for example, the medium M is peeled off from the forward belt surface 20a or the return belt surface 20b is cleaned by the cleaning section 30. [0045] With respect to the return belt surface 20b cleaned by the cleaning section 30, the distance to the return belt surface 20b is detected by the ultrasonic sensor 12 in the detection target region 20c. The controller 10 can determine, according to the detection result of the ultrasonic sensor 12, that is, based on the detection result of the ultrasonic sensor 12, the state of the return belt surface 20b, for example, the state of the thickness of the glue G on the return belt surface 20b or the state in which foreign matter, such as droplets of cleaning liquid, adhere to the return belt surface 20b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer as modified by Weldemariam, using data from a sensor transmitting and receiving a high-frequency sound wave and measuring the time it takes for the sensor to receive the transmitted high-frequency sound wave, as taught by Yumoto, as Yumoto, Ferrer and Weldemariam are directed to transport systems (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using data from a vehicle sensor transmitting and receiving a high-frequency sound wave and measuring the time it takes for the sensor to receive the transmitted high-frequency sound wave and predictably applied it to a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer as modified by Weldemariam to determine a state of the surface based on a detection result of the ultrasonic sensor ([0006], Yumoto).
Regarding claim 15, Ferrer does not explicitly teach but Weldemariam teaches the limitation of wherein the vehicle location includes one or more of current vehicle location, past vehicle location, route information, and road conditions ([0065] suggesting a set of candidate car wash locations L in the area or vicinity of the vehicle's current location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer, determining time and location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and contextual data, as taught by Weldemariam, as Ferrer and Weldemariam are directed to a car wash system (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using determining time and location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and contextual data and predictably applied it to optimally schedule a vehicle wash service ([0015] Weldemariam).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 are similar to the limitations of claims 14, therefore claim 8 is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, Ferrer teaches wherein the vehicle sensors include one or more of an optical sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a proximity sensor, or a pressure sensor ( [0017] The dirt detection system 107 may be implemented in any of various ways. the dirt detection system 107 can include multiple cameras (optical sensor) that are mounted at various locations upon the vehicle 105 in order to capture images of various exterior surfaces of the vehicle 105 ).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 11 are similar to the limitations of claims 16, therefore claim 11 is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Ferrer teaches wherein the vehicle sensor is an ultrasonic sensor. [0031] The sensor system 205 may include various types of sensors for performing various types of functions. A few examples of such sensors may include … ultrasonic sensors).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are similar to the limitations of claims 17, therefore claim 12 is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Ferrer does not explicitly teach but Weldemariam teaches the limitation of wherein the vehicle event data includes captured vehicle event data from nearby vehicles (Weldemariam, [0043] contextual data collected at module 120 from other “connected” vehicles include road/route data as collected by vehicle-based sensors, cameras, video recorders at the other vehicles that have traversed or are traversing along the anticipated route(s)—nearby vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer, determining time and location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and contextual data, as taught by Weldemariam, as Ferrer and Weldemariam are directed to a car wash system (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using determining time and location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and contextual data and predictably applied it to optimally schedule a vehicle wash service ([0015] Weldemariam).
Regarding claim 19, Ferrer does not explicitly teach but Weldemariam teaches wherein the weather information includes one or more of past, current, or future precipitation information or past, current, or future pollen information (Weldemariam, [0038] Because road conditions change not only depending on a present weather event (e.g., it is raining) but also based on how the present weather event contributes to a history of events (it is raining, and has been since yesterday afternoon) the Multi-Step Forecaster maintains the context of past weather events in its prediction and categorization of present road conditions and their effects on car cleanliness.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer, determining time and location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and contextual data, as taught by Weldemariam, as Ferrer and Weldemariam are directed to a car wash system (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using determining time and location for vehicle washing based on the vehicle location and contextual data and predictably applied it to optimally schedule a vehicle wash service ([0015] Weldemariam).
Regarding claim 20 , Ferrer teaches a vehicle incorporating the vehicle system (Figs. 1-2 and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are similar to the limitations of claims 20, therefore claim 13 is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Ferrer teaches wherein the processing hardware is configured to identify a car wash near a current route of the vehicle based on the vehicle location if the vehicle is above the desired dirt threshold ([0024] the car wash system computer 108 may cooperate with a GPS system in the vehicle 105 to locate a car wash, which may be any car wash that is closest to the vehicle 105 at the time when remedial action is initiated, or may be a specific car wash (such as a car wash that is preferred by an owner of the vehicle 105 ).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Ferrer (US 20220250590 A1) in view of Akselrod (US 20160148439 A1) in view of Yumoto (US 20230057854 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ferrer teaches
data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising determining if the vehicle requires maintenance based on one or more of vehicle event data or contextual data (see rejection to claim 14);
activating the vehicle to move from a first location to one or more vehicle maintenance stations based on a location of the vehicle when the measured time it takes for the transmitted high- frequency sound wave to be received is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0024] The car wash system computer 108 may then provide navigation assistance to the driver of the vehicle 105 to travel to the car wash. When the vehicle 105 is an autonomous vehicle, the car wash system computer 108 may cooperate with the vehicle computer 106 to autonomously drive the vehicle 105 to the car wash. please note, the limitation of “when the measured time it takes for the transmitted high- frequency sound wave to be received is greater than a predetermined threshold” is under 112 rejection).
Ferrer does not explicitly teach but Akselrod teaches returning the vehicle to the first location once vehicle maintenance is complete based on the vehicle location (Akselrod, Fig. 3, [011] Upon which, automated service program 112 instructs vehicle 106 to return to the originally identified vehicle location from the service location 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer, returning the vehicle to the original location, as taught by Akselrod, as Ferrer and Akselrod are directed to a car wash system (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using returning the vehicle to the original location to provide services to user at the original location.
Ferrer as modified by Akselrod does not explicitly teach but Yumoto teaches a vehicle sensor configured to transmit and receive a high-frequency sound wave and measure the time it takes for the vehicle sensor to receive the transmitted high-frequency sound wave; wherein the vehicle event data is a measure in the time it takes for the transmitted high-frequency sound wave to be received; activating the vehicle to move from a first location to one or more vehicle maintenance stations based on a location of the vehicle (when the measured time it takes for the transmitted high- frequency sound wave to be received is greater than a predetermined threshold) ([0036] The cleaning section 30 includes a cleaning brush and a brush rotating motor (not shown) that rotates the cleaning brush. Under the control of the controller 10, the cleaning section 30 can clean by rotating the cleaning brush while spraying supplied cleaning liquid, which is a liquid such as water, onto the cleaning brush and bringing the cleaning brush into contact with the returning belt surface 20b); [0041] Specifically, in the case where ultrasonic waves are transmitted from the transmission section 12a of the ultrasonic sensor 12 toward a glue surface GS (to be described later), which is the surface of the glue G on the return belt surface 20b, when the glue G is consumed by peeling, then, compared to when the glue G is not consumed (threshold), the time until the reception section 12b receives the ultrasonic waves that were reflected by the glue surface GS and returned becomes longer, and the distance detected by the ultrasonic sensor 12 becomes longer. The glue G is consumed when, for example, the medium M is peeled off from the forward belt surface 20a or the return belt surface 20b is cleaned by the cleaning section 30. [0045] With respect to the return belt surface 20b cleaned by the cleaning section 30, the distance to the return belt surface 20b is detected by the ultrasonic sensor 12 in the detection target region 20c. The controller 10 can determine, according to the detection result of the ultrasonic sensor 12, that is, based on the detection result of the ultrasonic sensor 12, the state of the return belt surface 20b, for example, the state of the thickness of the glue G on the return belt surface 20b or the state in which foreign matter, such as droplets of cleaning liquid, adhere to the return belt surface 20b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer as modified by Akselrod , using data from a sensor transmitting and receiving a high-frequency sound wave and measuring the time it takes for the sensor to receive the transmitted high-frequency sound wave, as taught by Yumoto, as Yumoto, Ferrer and Akselrod are directed to transport systems (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using data from a vehicle sensor transmitting and receiving a high-frequency sound wave and measuring the time it takes for the sensor to receive the transmitted high-frequency sound wave and predictably applied it to a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer as modified by Akselrod to determine a state of the surface based on a detection result of the ultrasonic sensor ([0006], Yumoto).
Regarding claim 2, Ferrer does not explicitly teach but Akselrod teaches wherein the processing hardware is configured to issue a notification of completed maintenance once the vehicle is returned (Akselrod, Step 318 in Fig. 3, [0037] Automated service program 112 notifies the user the service was completed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a system to wash a vehicle as taught by Ferrer, returning the vehicle to the original location, as taught by Akselrod, as Ferrer and Akselrod are directed to a car wash system (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using returning the vehicle to the original location to provide services to user at the original location.
Regarding claim 3, please look the rejection to claim 19.
Regarding claim 4, please look the rejection to claim 16.
Regarding claim 5, please look the rejection to claim 17.
Regarding claim 6, Ferrer teaches wherein the vehicle maintenance stations include one or more of a car wash station, a battery charging station, a tire pressure station, and a vehicle light station (title).
Regarding claim 7, please look the rejection to claim 20.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, Ramanujam (US-20150348335-A1) teaches the autonomous vehicle may detect that a service is to be performed on the autonomous vehicle. The autonomous vehicle may select a service center to perform the service on the autonomous vehicle. The autonomous vehicle may provide commands to drive the autonomous vehicle to the service center to enable performance of the service on the autonomous vehicle.
Minster (US-20170278312-A1) teaches identifying a maintenance requirement for an autonomous vehicle, wherein identifying a maintenance requirement includes using one or more sensors to obtain vehicle maintenance data; in response to identifying the maintenance requirement, generating a maintenance request comprising a description or data relating to the maintenance requirement; transmitting the maintenance request; receiving maintenance instructions comprising maintenance routing instructions and a maintenance schedule for a maintenance session for resolving the maintenance requirement; and implementing the maintenance instructions.
Gagat (US 20230131653 A1) teaches using ultrasonic sensors determines a status of a surface. ( [0030] Each ultrasonic sensor 322 transmits ultrasonic waves in a pulse shape to the surrounding region of the vehicle 10, and receives the reflected wave reflected by the three-dimensional object. Each ultrasonic sensor 322 acquires information indicating “a reflection point that is a point on the three-dimensional object by which the transmitted ultrasonic waves are reflected”, “a distance between each ultrasonic sensor 322 and the three-dimensional object”, and the like based on the time it takes from the transmission of the ultrasonic waves to the reception of the reflected waves. Each ultrasonic sensor 322 outputs the acquired information to the driving support ECU 21.[0070] The sensor surface dirt index value is a parameter indicating the degree of dirt on the sensor surface. Specifically, the sensor surface dirt index value of the radar sensor 321 is “a magnitude of millimeter wave attenuation due to the dirt of the sensor surface” defined as follows. Sensor surface dirt index value=(millimeter wave emission intensity)/(millimeter wave (reflected wave)incident intensity) [0072] When the third abnormality condition is satisfied, the sensor surface of any one of the plurality of peripheral sensors 32 is dirty).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights