DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 3/24/2026. Claims 1-17 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 3/24/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 3/24/2026, with respect to the terms “submersion” and “passive safety system” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The related objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
In response to Applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a water detection module as an electronic detector that detects the presence of water and is also capable of detecting the orientation of the vehicle (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 9 & 11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. An electronic detector is not a term of art for a specific structure, and there is no disclosure of a sensor that is responsive to the presence of water. A water detection module could be implemented in either software or hardware using many different sensing methodologies (e.g., detecting a vehicle is in water by using GPS to detect when the vehicle is positioned within a lake on a map). Other than the function of the water detection module, the only structural requirements are that the water detection module is connected to the electronic control module (para. 12), and typically installed in the engine compartment or the heaviest location in the vehicle, neither of which preclude implementing the water detection module in software or hardware. Additionally, an electronic detector that detects the presence of water must not inherently be capable of detecting the orientation of a vehicle because the presence of water does not depend on the orientation of the vehicle, nor does the orientation of the vehicle depend on the presence of water. See claim interpretation and rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that paragraphs 59-61 and 84-86 define the structure of the rollover detection module (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 9 & 11-12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 61 discloses the rollover detection module is comprised of, but not limited to, an inertial measurement sensor, input data and/or signals from the electronic control unit, and optional sensor and/or detector networks. Paragraph 86 discloses the rollover detection module is comprised of, but not limited to, “other signal inputs” which are transmitted to vehicle’s electronic control unit, and an inertial measurement sensor. Other than including an inertial measurement sensor, the structure for implementing the rollover detection module is not disclosed. It is further unclear how the rollover detection module structure comprises “other signal inputs” in the vehicle. See interpretation and rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that paragraphs 62-65 define the structure of the collision detection module (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 9-10 & 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although paragraph 62 appears to be a section heading, and paragraph 65 subsequently discloses an event data recorder that records data that can be used to identify a collision, no relationship between the collision detection modules and the event data recorders is explicitly disclosed. Additionally, paragraphs 62-65 do not disclose a specific structure for implementing either the collision detection modules or the event data recorders. See interpretation and rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that paragraphs 94-99 define the structure of the fire detection module (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 10 & 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 98 discloses the fire detection module includes a network of sensors or detectors which detect the by-products of combustion. It is unclear how the detectors are different than the sensors, and no specific structure is disclosed for implementing the detectors. See interpretation and rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that paragraphs 101-103 define the structure of the oxides and volatile compounds module (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 10 & 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 102 discloses the oxides and volatile organic compounds module is composed of sensors or detectors that detect ranges of oxides, volatile organic compounds and other chemicals and/or substances. It is unclear how the detectors are different than the sensors, and no specific structure is disclosed for implementing the detectors. See interpretation and rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Adams does not disclose a method to control an electronic control module connected to a plurality of detection modules according to a priority logic model (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 13-14), it is noted that Adams is not relied upon to disclose the electronic control module connector to a plurality of detection modules. Adams discloses an electronic circuit that implements logic combining inputs from a plurality of condition detectors (Adams; col. 4, ll. 18-26). Although the analog logic circuit of Adams could be interpreted as an electronic control module under its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is the combination of Adams with Wang that is relied upon to disclose an electronic control module connected to the condition detectors. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the flexibility of using a reprogrammable device to expand upon the fixed logic capabilities of Adams. It is further noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a priority logic model) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require opening the windows in response to different sequences of detections. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Wang does not disclose a priority logic model as described in the present application for prioritizing a plurality of input signals received from a plurality of detection modules and the subsequent issuance and correct timing of output commands to open the windows of a passenger vehicle while considering multiple types of adverse events (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), it is noted that Wang is not relied upon to disclose opening the windows of a passenger vehicle while considering multiple types of adverse events. Adams is relied upon to disclose a plurality of input signals received from a plurality of detection modules and the subsequent issuance and correct timing of output commands to open the windows of a passenger vehicle while considering multiple types of adverse events. Wang additionally discloses a plurality of detection modules (e.g., wheel vertical load sensor (Wang; para. 36), vehicle height sensor (Wang; para. 39), and acceleration sensor (Wang; para. 45)), and determining the correct timing to open the windows (Wang; para. 122). It is further noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a priority logic model and prioritizing a plurality of input signals) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require opening the windows in response to different sequences of detections. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Percher does not disclose a priority logic model (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a priority logic model) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require opening the windows in response to different sequences of detections. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner has not provided any reason or rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the elements identified in the cited prior art (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), it is noted that the Examiner has provided motivation for each proposed combination such as “enabling changing the system’s behavior without physically modifying the hardware” (Non-Final Rejection; p. 17), “preventing the vehicle from sinking rapidly” (Non-Final Rejection; p. 18), and “helping passengers escape as quickly as possible” (Non-Final Rejection; p. 18). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that it would not have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the individual elements identified by the Examiner (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 14-15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a vehicle may be subject to many different types of emergencies both singly and in combination, and that different actions may be required in response to different combinations of emergencies to minimize risk to the vehicle’s occupants. Neither the Applicant’s invention nor the prior art has anticipated every possible combination of emergencies that may affect a passenger vehicle, therefore, the elements disclosed therein are limited to specific design choices, but could obviously include additional conditions. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the combination of structural features in the claimed invention provides advantages that were not taught or suggested in any of the prior art (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), it is noted that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Turner does not describe a priority logic model and priority sequence for automatically opening at least one window of a vehicle (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 16), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Turner, in paragraphs 20-21, discloses issuing an alarm or alert when a level of carbon monoxide or smoke within a vehicle’s cabin exceeds a predetermined threshold, and opening a window when an undesirably high level of smoke or carbon monoxide has been detected. It is further noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a priority logic model) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require opening the windows in response to different sequences of detections. See rejection below.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 3/24/2026.
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:
In claims 1 and 6, lines 4 and 5, respectively, “detect[ing] an immersion condition … at a water detection module”.
In claim 10, lines 1-2, “a water detection module for detecting the immersion condition”.
In claim 12, lines 1-2, “a rollover detection module for detecting the rollover condition”.
In claim 13, lines 1-2, “at least one collision detection module for detecting the collision condition”.
In claim 14, lines 1-2, “a fire detection module for detecting the fire condition”.
In claim 15, lines 1-3, “an oxides and volatile organic compounds module for detecting the oxides or volatile organic compounds condition”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-17 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, lines 4 and 5, respectively, the limitation “detect[ing] an immersion … at a water detection module” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear if the water detection module detects the immersion, or is merely subject to the immersion. Paragraph 26 discloses opening the windows upon continuous water detection by the water detection module, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the immersion is detected by the water detection module.
Regarding claim 6, lines 6-7, the limitation “detect an upright condition … at the water detection module” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the water detection module detects the upright condition, is merely subject to the upright condition. Paragraph 25 discloses the water detection module has an integrated sensor that indicates an upright vehicle position, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the water detection module detects the upright condition.
Regarding claim 10, line 1, the limitation “The system … comprising a water detection module” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same water detection module used to detect an immersion condition in claim 6, line 5. Figure 1 discloses a single water detection module, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to the same water detection module.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 10, lines 4, 5 and 1, respectively, the limitation “a water detection module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although paragraph 25 discloses the water detection module has an integrated sensor that continuously monitors the vehicle’s pitch and roll axes, it is unclear how immersion is detected by sensing a vehicle’s pitch and roll. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the water detection module is an electronic device that includes a sensor responsive to the presence of moisture and a sensor that monitors the vehicle’s pitch and roll axes.
Regarding claim 12, lines 1-2, the limitation “a rollover detection module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 61 discloses the rollover detection module is comprised of an inertial measurement sensor than can include the multifunctional detection module, however, there does not appear to be disclosure of a specific structure implementing the multifunctional detection module. Paragraph 61 further discloses the rollover detection module is comprised of input data and/or signals from the ECU, electronic communication buses, CAN buses, or LIN buses, however, figure 2 discloses the RDM is connected to, but not comprised of, the CAN and LIN buses. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the rollover detection module is an inertial measurement sensor.
Regarding claim 13, lines 1-2, the limitation “at least one collision detection module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 56 discloses the collision detection module is formed by the ECU and CAN or LIN busses, however, figure 2 discloses CDM1 and CDM2 are connected to, but not comprised of, the ECU, CAN bus, and LIN bus. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the collision detection module is an inertial measurement sensor.
Regarding claim 14, lines 1-2, the limitation “a fire detection module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 54 discloses the fire detection module may be a detector network or module that detects heat, smoke, or combustion byproducts, however, there does not appear to be disclosure of a specific structure implementing the detector network or module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the fire detection module is a sensor responsive to heat, smoke, or combustion byproducts.
Regarding claim 15, lines 1-2, the limitation “an oxides and volatile organic compounds module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 55 discloses the oxides and volatile organic compounds detection module may be a detector network or module that detects oxides and volatile organic compounds, however, there does not appear to be disclosure of a specific structure implementing the detector network or module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the oxides and volatile organic compounds detection module is a sensor responsive to oxides or volatile organic compounds.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 and 7-17 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 6,588,532), hereinafter Adams, in view of Wang (CN 112065208) and Percher (US 2016/0053523).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Adams discloses a method for automatically opening at least one window of a vehicle, the at least one window being operably connected to an electric system of the vehicle (Adams; col. 5, ll. 16-20: Q2 energizes the three relays K1, K2 and K3 causing the relays to apply 12 volt DC power to the door lock solenoids and to the window lowering motors, energizing them and forcing the doors to unlock and the windows to start to open), the method comprising: detecting an immersion condition of the vehicle at a water detection module (Adams; col. 6, ll. 7-10: In case of a vehicle immersion, any one of the immersion sensors S4 containing one of the diodes D2, D3, D4 and D5 detects an abnormal level of water along a portion of the vehicle.), then opening the at least one window (Adams; col. 6, ll. 16-20: upon immersion of the diode in water, a 12 volt DC power is immediately applied to the base of transistor Q1, turning it on. Transistor Q1 causes transistor Q2 to turn on energizing the three relays K1, K2 and K3, causing … the windows to start to open); and if an immersion condition has not been detected (Adams; fig. 1: the outputs of the immersion sensor S4 and the inversion detection switch S3 are connected in parallel to the base of transistor Q1, therefore, vehicle inversion is detected and will activate window opening relays K2 and K3 when immersion is not detected), detecting a rollover condition of the vehicle (Adams; col. 5, ll. 62-66: vehicle inversion detection switch S3 has a built-in timer causing a 30 second or so delay in its activation. This built-in timer is to prevent … the opening of the windows while the vehicle might still be tumbling or even slowly rolling over), and if the rollover condition is detected, then opening the at least one window (Adams; col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 4: After 30 seconds or so of inversion, a 12 volt DC power source is connected to the base of transistor Q1, turning it on. This again causes transistor Q2 to turn on, activating the three relays, K1, K2 and K3, thereby causing … the windows to open.).
Although Adams discloses an inversion detector that is responsive to either rotation of the vehicle’s pitch and roll axes exceeding a predetermined threshold (Adams; col. 8, ll. 35-67), Adams does not disclose if the immersion condition has been detected, then detecting an upright condition of the vehicle at the water detection module, the water detection module continuously monitoring the vehicle pitch and roll axes and programmed with an acceptable range for pitch and roll angular settings that indicate the upright condition, and if the upright condition has been detected, then opening the at least one window.
Percher, in the same field of endeavor (automotive power window controls), discloses if an immersion condition has been detected, then detecting an upright condition of a vehicle at a water detection module (Percher; para. 49: When the two water probes do form a closed circuit via the conductivity of water, the 2 volts are passed on to the transistor only when the roll and pitch axes meet predefined position criteria.), the water detection module (Percher; fig. 1b: water collector component) continuously monitoring the vehicle pitch and roll axes and programmed with an acceptable range for pitch and roll angular settings that indicate the upright condition (Percher; para. 45: The multi axes position sensor can be any suitable sensor with axes-detecting capabilities. The multi axes position sensor contains predefined position criteria for roll and pitch axes and a switch which has a default off position. When the roll and pitch axes meet predefined position criteria, the switch turns on.), and if the upright condition has been detected, then opening the at least one window (Percher; para. 83: should a vehicle land in the water sideways, on its roof or any position that is not upright, the system will not activate the power windows until the vehicle has safely rotated to an upright position. This is achieved by having integrated a multi axes position sensor into the system allowing it to recognize its exact roll and pitch positions at all times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have combined the immersion and inversion detectors of Adams into a water collector component, and to lower the windows after detecting the vehicle is upright, as disclosed by Percher, with the motivation of preventing the vehicle from sinking rapidly (Percher; para. 83) thereby providing an opportunity for any and all passengers to escape from the vehicle through the windows and minimizing the possibility of said passenger(s) from drowning inside the vehicle (Percher; para. 75).
Although Adams, as modified, discloses using a timer to prevent opening the windows while the vehicle might still be rolling over, Adams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose detecting a stationary condition of the vehicle after the rollover is detected.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor (automotive power window controls), discloses detecting a stationary condition of the vehicle, and if the stationary condition of the vehicle has been detected, opening the at least one window (Wang; para. 109: When it is determined that the vehicle has stopped rolling, control the vehicle's window drive device to open the window.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, after a rollover is detected, instead of waiting for a timer to expire before the lowering the windows in the control logic of Adams, as modified, to have lowered the windows when a processor determines the vehicle is stationary, as disclosed by Wang, with the motivation of helping passengers escape as quickly as possible thereby improving their safety (Wang; para. 114).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Adams discloses a system for automatically opening at least one window of a vehicle, the at least one window being operably connected to an electric system of the vehicle, configured to: detect an immersion condition of the vehicle at a water detection module (Adams; col. 6, ll. 7-10: In case of a vehicle immersion, any one of the immersion sensors S4 containing one of the diodes D2, D3, D4 and D5 detects an abnormal level of water along a portion of the vehicle.), then open the at least one window (Adams; col. 6, ll. 16-20: upon immersion of the diode in water, a 12 volt DC power is immediately applied to the base of transistor Q1, turning it on. Transistor Q1 causes transistor Q2 to turn on energizing the three relays K1, K2 and K3, causing … the windows to start to open); and detect a rollover condition of the vehicle (Adams; col. 5, ll. 62-66: vehicle inversion detection switch S3 has a built-in timer causing a 30 second or so delay in its activation. This built-in timer is to prevent … the opening of the windows while the vehicle might still be tumbling or even slowly rolling over), and if the immersion condition is not detected and if the rollover condition has been detected (Adams; fig. 1: the outputs of the immersion sensor S4 and the inversion detection switch S3 are connected in parallel to the base of transistor Q1, therefore, vehicle inversion is detected and will activate window opening relays K2 and K3 when immersion is not detected), then open the at least one window (Adams; col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 4: After 30 seconds or so of inversion, a 12 volt DC power source is connected to the base of transistor Q1, turning it on. This again causes transistor Q2 to turn on, activating the three relays, K1, K2 and K3, thereby causing … the windows to open.).
Although IC1 of Adams receives inputs from the immersion sensors and controls the opening of the vehicle windows, IC1 is not directly responsive to the inversion sensor, therefore, Adams does not appear to explicitly disclose the system comprising a single electronic control module configured to determine both the immersion condition and an upright condition of the vehicle.
Wang discloses a system comprising an electronic control module (Wang; para. 13: a vehicle, which includes a processor and sensors and a window driving device connected to the processor) configured to monitor multiple types of sensors (Wang; paras. 44-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the signals received from the impact detection, fire detection, vehicle inversion detection, and immersion detection circuits, and the signals that are output to activate the window opening relays, in the RAS of Adams, to be received, processed, and generated by a processor, as disclosed by Wang, to yield the predictable result of enabling changing the system’s behavior without physically modifying the hardware.
Adams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose if the immersion condition has been detected, then detecting an upright condition of the vehicle, and if the upright condition has been detected, then opening the at least one window; and detecting a stationary condition of the vehicle, and if the stationary condition of the vehicle has been detected, opening the at least one window.
Percher, in the same field of endeavor (automotive power window controls), discloses if an immersion condition has been detected, then detecting an upright condition of a vehicle, and if the upright condition has been detected, then opening at least one window (Percher; para. 83: should a vehicle land in the water sideways, on its roof or any position that is not upright, the system will not activate the power windows until the vehicle has safely rotated to an upright position. This is achieved by having integrated a multi axes position sensor into the system allowing it to recognize its exact roll and pitch positions at all times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, after sensing the vehicle immersion, the processor of Adams, as modified, to lower the windows after further detecting the vehicle is upright, as disclosed by Percher, with the motivation of preventing the vehicle from sinking rapidly (Percher; para. 83) thereby providing an opportunity for any and all passengers to escape from the vehicle through the windows and minimizing the possibility of said passenger(s) from drowning inside the vehicle (Percher; para. 75).
Although Adams, as modified, discloses using a timer to prevent opening the windows while the vehicle might still be rolling over, Adams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose detecting a stationary condition of the vehicle after the rollover is detected.
Wang further discloses detecting a stationary condition of the vehicle, and if the stationary condition of the vehicle has been detected, opening at least one window (Wang; para. 109: When it is determined that the vehicle has stopped rolling, control the vehicle's window drive device to open the window.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, after a rollover is detected, instead of waiting for a timer to expire before the lowering the windows in the control logic of Adams, as modified, to lower the windows when the vehicle is determined to be stationary, as disclosed by Wang, with the motivation of helping passengers escape as quickly as possible thereby improving their safety (Wang; para. 114).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses detecting a collision condition of the vehicle (Adams; col. 5, ll. 1-2: The first delay is activated by a signal from the impact detection switch S1.); and if the immersion condition is not detected and the rollover condition is not detected and the collision condition is detected (Adams; fig. 1: the outputs of the immersion sensor S4, the inversion detection switch S3, and the impact detection switch S1, via timer chip IC1, are connected in parallel to the base of transistor Q1, therefore, a collision is detected and will activate window opening relays K2 and K3 when immersion and rollover are not detected), and if the stationary condition of the vehicle has been detected, then opening the at least one window (Adams; col. 5, ll. 2-20: The switch S1 connects the first trigger input of IC1 (pin 6) to ground … Then, Q2 energizes the three relays K1, K2 and K3 causing the relays to apply 12 volt DC power to the door lock solenoids and to the window lowering motors, energizing them and forcing … the windows to start to open.).
Although Adams, as modified, discloses using a timer to prevent opening the windows while the vehicle might still be moving after a collision, Adams does not explicitly disclose detecting a stationary condition of the vehicle after the rollover is detected.
Wang further discloses detecting a stationary condition of the vehicle, then if the stationary condition of the vehicle has been detected, opening the at least one window (Wang; para. 109: When it is determined that the vehicle has stopped rolling, control the vehicle's window drive device to open the window.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, after a collision is detected, instead of waiting for a timer to expire before the lowering the windows in the control logic of Adams, as modified, to lower the windows when the vehicle is determined to be stationary, as disclosed by Wang, with the motivation of helping passengers escape as quickly as possible thereby improving their safety (Wang; para. 114).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses detecting a fire condition in the vehicle (Adams; col. 5, ll. 50-53: In case of a fire in the vehicle compartment in which the fire detector S2 is located, the detector S2, when heated, passes 12 volt DC power to the transistor Q1, turning this transistor on.), if the immersion condition is not detected and the rollover condition is not detected and the collision condition is not detected and the fire condition has been detected (Adams; fig. 1: the outputs of the immersion sensor S4, the inversion detection switch S3, the impact detection switch S1, via timer chip IC1, and the fire detector S2 are connected in parallel to the base of transistor Q1, therefore, a fire is detected and will activate window opening relays K2 and K3 when immersion, rollover, and collision are not detected), then opening the at least one window (Adams; col. 5, ll. 53-56: This forces the transistor Q2 to turn on, which again energizes the three relays, K1, K2 and K3, thereby … causing the windows to open.).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses the at least one window is a side window or a sunroof window (Adams; col. 4, ll. 47-50: K2 is used to operate the right window lowering motors, and the relay K3 is used to operate the left window lowering motors).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses a water detection module for detecting the immersion condition (Adams; col. 4, l. 24: S4 is an immersion sensor), the electronic control module being connected to the water detection module (Wang; para. 115: Referring to Figure 3, the vehicle includes a processor and sensors and a window driving device connected to the processor).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses at least one inertial measurement sensor for detecting the upright condition (Percher; para. 70: The system can also include a multi-axes position sensor. The position sensor can monitor the pitch and roll of the vehicle to determine the orientation of the vehicle in the water.), the electronic control module being connected to the inertial measurement sensor (Wang; para. 115: Referring to Figure 3, the vehicle includes a processor and sensors and a window driving device connected to the processor).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses a rollover detection module for detecting the rollover condition (Adams; col. 4, ll. 22-23: S3 is an inversion detection switch), the electronic control module being connected to the rollover detection module (Wang; para. 115: Referring to Figure 3, the vehicle includes a processor and sensors and a window driving device connected to the processor).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses at least one collision detection module for detecting the collision condition (Adams; col. 4, ll. 22-23: S1 is an impact detection switch), the electronic control module being connected to the at least one collision detection module (Wang; para. 115: Referring to Figure 3, the vehicle includes a processor and sensors and a window driving device connected to the processor).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses a fire detection module for detecting the fire condition in the vehicle (Adams; col. 4, l. 23: S2 is a fire detector), the electronic control module being connected to the fire detection module (Wang; para. 115: Referring to Figure 3, the vehicle includes a processor and sensors and a window driving device connected to the processor), the electronic control module being configured to open the at least one window if the fire condition is detected (Adams; col. 5, ll. 50-56: In case of a fire in the vehicle compartment in which the fire detector S2 is located, the detector S2, when heated, passes 12 volt DC power to the transistor Q1, turning this transistor on. This forces the transistor Q2 to turn on, which again energizes the three relays, K1, K2 and K3, thereby immediately … causing the windows to open.).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses the at least one window comprises side windows (Adams; col. 4, ll. 47-49: K2 is used to operate the right window lowering motors, and the relay K3 is used to operate the left window lowering motors).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above.
Adams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the at least one window comprises a sunroof window.
Wang discloses at least one window comprises a sunroof window (Wang; para. 97: vehicle windows include sunroofs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the control logic of Adams, as modified, to open a sunroof, as disclosed by Wang, to yield the predictable result of opening all of the vehicle windows.
Claim(s) 4, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Wang and Percher as applied to claims 2 and 7 above, and further in view of Turner (US 2020/0384825).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above.
Adams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose detecting an oxide or volatile organic compound condition in the vehicle, if the immersion condition is not detected and the rollover condition is not detected and the collision condition is not detected and the oxide or volatile organic compound condition has been detected, then opening the at least one window.
Turner, in the same field of endeavor (automotive environmental controls), discloses detecting an oxide or volatile organic compound condition in a vehicle (Turner; para. 18: detector 42 is a carbon monoxide detector that is configured to detect the presence of carbon monoxide within air), if an immersion condition is not detected and a rollover condition is not detected and a collision condition is not detected and the oxide or volatile organic compound condition has been detected, then opening at least one window (Turner; para. 21: In the event that an undesirably high level of smoke or carbon monoxide has been detected, the controller 46 automatically at least partially opens the window 52 to increase ventilation within the cabin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to lower the windows when carbon monoxide is detected in the vehicle's cabin by a carbon monoxide detector, as disclosed by Turner, when immersion, rollover, and collision are not detected by the control logic of Adams, as modified, to yield the predictable result of preventing toxic gasses from accumulating in the vehicle cabin.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Adams, as modified, discloses an oxides and volatile organic compounds module for detecting the oxides or volatile organic compounds condition in the vehicle (Turner; para. 18: detector 42 is a carbon monoxide detector that is configured to detect the presence of carbon monoxide within air), the electronic control module being connected to the oxides and volatile organic compounds module (Wang; para. 115: Referring to Figure 3, the vehicle includes a processor and sensors and a window driving device connected to the processor), the electronic control module being configured to open the at least one window if the oxides or volatile organic compounds condition is detected (Turner; para. 21: In the event that an undesirably high level of smoke or carbon monoxide has been detected, the controller 46 automatically at least partially opens the window 52 to increase ventilation within the cabin).
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights