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 Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/921,564, with an effective filing date of 10/21/2024. Claims 16-30 are currently pending. Claims 1-15 have been canceled by the Applicant prior to examination. Claims 31-36 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Drawings, body of the Specification, and Claim Objections in Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, and subsequently withdraws the previous objections to said sections. However, upon further review of the application, and the amendments performed by the Applicant, new objections are hereby made on the Drawings and Claims sections as further detailed below. Further, the Examiner submits that the objection to the abstract was not addressed and is subsequently maintained. Furthermore, it is unclear which abstract that was received on the same date (11/13/2024) is the Applicant’s intended abstract, however both abstracts have objections to them as noted below. The applicant may address whichever abstract that is pertinent to the instant application as we move forward.
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the previous rejection of claim(s) 16-22 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention, see pg. 11, and subsequently withdraws the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to said claims. However, upon consideration of the new claims a new rejection of claims 34-36 under 35 USC § 112(b) is hereby made as detailed below.
Examiner acknowledges the changes made regarding 35 USC § 101 to claims 1 and 6 found in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5. The Examiner has considered the amended claim limitation controlling a component of the vehicle based on the water level information and the amendment properly integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection based on 35 USC § 101 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 16-28 as being anticipated by Mohammed et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0410525 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Mohammed], the Applicant has elected to amend the aforementioned claims. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 102 is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, new reference Gao et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 113954875 A) [hereinafter referred to as Gao] has been necessitated. Therefore, a new rejection based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues, see pg. 12, that Mohammed allegedly fails to disclose wherein the first sensor is a pressure sensor or an ultrasonic sensor, and wherein the first sensor is mounted one of: on an underbody of the vehicle in a region of a fender of the vehicle, on a wheel wheel of the vehicle, in an engine compartment of the vehicle, on a bumper of the vehicle, or in a region of a door of the vehicle. However, Gao in pg. 12 ¶2 teaches a water flow direction acquisition sensor is arranged at the bottom of the vehicle body and is used for acquiring water flow direction data according to a second instruction. Specifically, the water flow direction acquisition sensor is installed on a metal plate of a vehicle floor, and is used for converting a pressure signal of water to the water pressure sensing module into an electric signal and transmitting the electric signal to the data acquisition and processing module through a data line. Furthermore, in pg. 13 ¶10 discloses water pressure sensing modules are installed on the water flow direction sensor. These are construed as a pressure sensor mounted to the underbody region of a vehicle.
Therefore, this argument is moot.
In regards to independent claims 23 and 27, Applicant argues, while differing in scope, these claims recite similar features to claim 16 and their rejections should likewise be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues the dependent claims, including new claims 31-36, are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Drawings
Drawings 1 and 3 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show: (a) with respect to Fig. 1, details regarding the identifications (i.e.,Fig.1 items 120,130, 150, and 160), as described in the specification and (b) with regard to Fig. 3, details regarding the blocks contained therein (i.e. Fig. 3 items 320, 330, 340, 350, 360, 370, and 380), as described by the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the applicant will be notified an informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
In the one abstract received on 11/13/2024, line 5 contains a phrase that can be implied (i.e., “…is also described.”)
In the other abstract received on 11/13/2024, line 1 contains a phrase that can be implied (i.e., “The present invention claims…”);
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 21-23, 26-27 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 (line 7), Claim 23 (line 8), and Claim 27 (line 8), contains a typographical error where wheel wheel should be corrected to wheel well;
Claim 21 (line 5) contains a typographical error where camera image, should be corrected to camera image[[,]];
Claim 22 (line 7) contains a typographical error where area, should be corrected to area [[,]];
Claim 22 (line 3) contains a typographical error where garage, and/or a charging station, should be corrected to garage, ;
Claim 26 (lines 3-4) limitations of a processing unit and/or a central server and/or other road users and/or a fleet operator and/or a garage and/or a charging station and/or an insurance company in order to improve clarity should be reworded to a processing unit, , , , , , and/or an insurance company;
Claim 31 (line 1) contains a typographical error where accoding should be corrected to according; and
Claim 36 (line 2) contains a typographical error where accelation should be corrected to acceleration.
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 34-36 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 claim 34, in line 4 the claim recites the limitation the at least one second sensor value with a second threshold, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the above claims because claim 16 makes no mention of an “at least one second sensor value”, it only recites a second sensor variable and it is unclear if this is the value intended or not. see MPEP §2173.05(e).
Claims 35-36 are rejected as they inherit the rejection of the claim from which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 16-28 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0410525 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mohammed, in view of Gao et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 113954875 A), hereinafter referred to as Gao.
Regarding claim 16, Mohammed discloses:
A method for recognizing a rise in a water level which is in contact at least with part of a vehicle ([0016] sentence (s.)1, defining a rising water level), the method comprising the following steps:
determining at least two sensor variables of a first sensor which can change directly or indirectly due to the rising water level on the vehicle ([0016] two-variables comprising of water-level and humidity);
detecting a driving state of the vehicle ([0038] s.1, collecting inputs including the speed of the automobile if in motion and registering if the vehicle is parked, which are construed as examples of determining the driving state of the vehicle);
carrying out a first comparison based on at least one first sensor variable of the at least two sensor variables of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable ([0016] performing comparison of water level to a water level threshold);
carrying out a second comparison based on at least one second sensor variable of the at least two sensor variables of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one second sensor variable ([0016] performing comparison of humidity to a humidity threshold);,
determining a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison ([0017] second timer associated with the water level);
comparing the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison ([0017] comparing to a second time threshold);
generating water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state ([0016-17] as discussed above which necessarily generates water level information based on the state of the vehicle and time); and
controlling a component of the vehicle based on the water level information ([0017] opening a contactor to terminate a vehicle charging operation, which is construed as deactivating energy connections of a battery).
Although Mohammed discloses in [0004] a vehicle having multiple sensory inputs capturing data representing hazards including excessive water or flooding, the reference does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first sensor is a pressure sensor or an ultrasonic sensor, and wherein the first sensor is mounted one of: on an underbody of the vehicle in a region of a fender of the vehicle, on a wheel wheel of the vehicle, in an engine compartment of the vehicle, on a bumper of the vehicle, or in a region of a door of the vehicle.
However, Gao in pg. 12 ¶2 teaches a water flow direction acquisition sensor is arranged at the bottom of the vehicle body and is used for acquiring water flow direction data according to a second instruction. Specifically, the water flow direction acquisition sensor is installed on a metal plate of a vehicle floor, and is used for converting a pressure signal of water to the water pressure sensing module into an electric signal and transmitting the electric signal to the data acquisition and processing module through a data line. Furthermore, in pg. 13 ¶10 discloses water pressure sensing modules are installed on the water flow direction sensor. These are construed as a pressure sensor mounted to the underbody region of a vehicle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and water level observations before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle monitoring system of Mohammed, by incorporating the pressure sensor teachings of Gao, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved safety for the vehicle against water hazards.
Regarding claim 17, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 16, wherein, in the first and/or second comparison, an exceedance of a threshold value is determined using the at least one first sensor variable of the first sensor, or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable, or a water level gradient between two derived water level values, wherein a lower first threshold value is used for the first comparison and a higher second threshold value is used for the second comparison ([0008] classification of hazard data defines different working thresholds to distinguish between the different degrees of the hazards, which is construed as necessarily having a hierarchy of threshold values where the second is associated with a higher degree of hazard due to a higher level of water).
Regarding claim 18, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 16, wherein, in the second comparison:
an exceedance of a first threshold value is determined using the at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor, or a water level value, or a water level gradient between two determined water level values (see claim 16 regarding first and second value thresholds and claim 17 above regarding the exceeding of a water level),
based on the exceedance of the first threshold value being determined, an exceedance of a higher second threshold value is determined using the at least one second sensor variable of the first sensor, or the water level value, or the water level gradient between two determined water level values (see claim 16 regarding first and second value thresholds and claim 17 above regarding the exceeding of a water level);
wherein the water level information is additionally generated based on the determination of the exceedance of the second threshold value see claim 16 regarding generating water level information.
Regarding claim 19, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 17, wherein at least one threshold value is defined based on the vehicle state, wherein the threshold value is defined based on a speed of the vehicle or an acceleration of the vehicle (see claim 16 regarding [0038] and detecting the speed of a vehicle as an input).
Regarding claim 20, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 16,
wherein the controlling of the component of the vehicle based on the water level information includes deactivating energy connections of a battery of the vehicle or activating protection of the battery against water in contact with contacts of the battery ([0017] opening a contactor to terminate a vehicle charging operation, which is construed as deactivating energy connections of a battery).
Regarding claim 21, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 16, further comprising:
detecting a location variable, a movement variable, a pressure variable, and/or a camera image (see claim 16 regarding [0038] detecting movement variable and also in [0038] where input data comprises global positioning system coordinates and map data of the automobile vehicle); and
taking into account the location variable, the movement variable, the pressure variable, and/or the camera image, when carrying out the first comparison, when carrying out the second comparison and/or when generating the water level information (see claim 16).
Regarding claim 22, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 16, further comprising:
transmitting at least the water level information: to a central server, to other road
users, to a fleet operator, to a garage, and/or to a charging column operator, and/or to an insurance company, wherein a current geoposition of the vehicle ([0004] s.3, system is in communication with the computer and a remote system (e.g., server) signals the predefined warning signal to a user of the automobile vehicle (necessarily other users) in time to mitigate against damage occurring to the automobile vehicle and [0038] pertaining to input data comprising speed, map, and location of the vehicle),
movement data of the vehicle, a number and a location of the people in the vehicle, an opening state of windows, an opening state of doors, and/or landmarks of a surrounding area, are also transmitted ([0004] s.3, system is in communication with the computer and a remote system (e.g., server) signals the predefined warning signal to a user of the automobile vehicle (necessarily other users) in time to mitigate against damage occurring to the automobile vehicle and [0038] pertaining to input data comprising speed, map, and location of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 23, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
A device for recognizing a rise in a water level which is in contact at least with part of a vehicle, comprising:
an evaluation unit which is part of an airbag control apparatus of the vehicle ([0004] us of computers in communication with a database, construed as an evaluation unit),
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to:
determine at least two water level values, in each case using at least one sensor variable of a first sensor (see claim 16), wherein the first sensor is a pressure sensor or an ultrasonic sensor, and wherein the first sensor is mounted one of: on an underbody of the vehicle in a region of a fender of the vehicle, on a wheel wheel of the vehicle, in an engine compartment of the vehicle, on a bumper of the vehicle, or in a region of a door of the vehicle (see claim 16);
detect a driving state of the vehicle using a second sensor (see claim 16),
carry out a first comparison based on at least one first water level value of the at least two water level values (see claim 16),
carry out a second comparison based on at least one second water level value of the at least two water level values (see claim 16),
determine a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison (see claim 16),
compare the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison (see claim 16), and
generate water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state (see claim 16);
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to control a component of the vehicle based on the water level information (see claim 16).
Regarding claim 24, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The device according to claim 23, wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine, in the first comparison and/or the second comparison, an exceedance of a threshold value using at least one water level value or a water level gradient between two determined water level values, wherein a lower threshold value is used for the first comparison than for the second comparison (see claim 17).
Regarding claim 25, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The device according to claim 23, wherein the control of the component of the vehicle based on the water level information, includes deactivating energy connections of a battery of the vehicle or activating protection of the battery against water in contact with contacts of the battery (see claim 20).
Regarding claim 26, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The device according to claim 23, wherein the evaluation unit is configured to, using a wireless transmission unit, transmit: at least the water level information to a processing unit and/or a central server and/or other road users and/or a fleet operator and/or a garage and/or a charging station and/or an insurance company, wherein evaluation unit is additionally configured to transmit: a current geoposition of the vehicle and/or movement data of the vehicle, and/or a number and location of people in the vehicle and/or an opening state of windows and/or an opening state of doors and/or landmarks of a surrounding area (see claim 22).
Regarding claim 27, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
A processing unit including a central server, which receives transmitted water level information generated by a vehicle, the water level information being generated by:
detecting at least two sensor variables of a first sensor which can change directly or indirectly due to a rising water level on the vehicle (see claim 16), wherein the first sensor is one of: a pressure sensor or an ultrasonic sensor, and wherein the first sensor is mounted one of: on an underbody of the vehicle in a region of a fender of the vehicle, on a wheel wheel of the vehicle, in an engine compartment of the vehicle, on a bumper of the vehicle, or in a region of a door of the vehicle (see claim 16),
detecting a driving state of the vehicle (see claim 16),
carrying out a first comparison based on at least one first sensor variable of the least two sensor variables of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one first sensor variable (see claim 16),
carrying out a second comparison based on at least one second sensor variable of the least two sensor variables of the first sensor or a water level value derived from the at least one second sensor variable (see claim 16),
determining a time span based on the first comparison and the second comparison (see claim 16),
comparing the time span to a predetermined time duration in a third comparison (see claim 16), and
generating the water level information based on the third comparison and the driving state (see claim 16);
wherein the processing unit is configured to, based on the received water level information: determine hazard information (see claim 16), and
transmit the determined hazard information to disaster control and/or a rescue service and/or a traffic control center and/or a garage and/or other road users and/or charging columns and/or charging column operators and/or an insurance company (see claim 22 regarding communication to a remote system to provide a warning signal, [0007] on-board database is in communication with the computer wherein a classification of hazard data in the on-board database is separated to distinguish different degrees of the hazards, and [0072] vehicle off-guard monitoring system 10 of the present disclosure provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) features for communication with a police department, which is construed as a rescue service).
Regarding claim 28, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The processing unit according to claim 27, wherein, based on the water level information and a transmitted geoposition of the vehicle, the processing unit estimates a risk that electrical charging stations in an area of the geoposition should be deactivated for safety reasons with regard to their functionality or danger to users, wherein the processing unit, based on danger information, sends out indirect or direct control signals to deactivate at least one electrical charging station in an area of the geoposition ( [0038] pertaining to input data comprising speed, map, and location of the vehicle, also see claim 27 regarding communication to other systems, and claims 20 and 25 regarding termination of charging as a result of determining excessive water levels).
Regarding claim 33, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 16, wherein the water level information is generated only when the time span exceeds the predetermined time duration (see [0017] where water level utilizes a second timer and second threshold before action).
Regarding claim 34, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 16, wherein the first comparison compares the at least one first sensor variable or the water level derived from the at least one first sensor variable with a first threshold, and the second comparison compares the at least one second sensor variable of the water level derived from the at least one second sensor value with a second threshold (see claim 16 and [0016] where humidity threshold (first threshold) and water level threshold (second threshold) are utilized).
Regarding claim 35, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 34, wherein values of the first threshold and the second threshold are set based on the detected state of the vehicle ([0038] where vehicle speed is accounted for as an input data).
Regarding claim 36, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method according to claim 34, wherein values of the first threshold and the second threshold are set based on a speed of the vehicle or an accelation of the vehicle ([0038] where vehicle speed is accounted for as an input data).
__________________________________________
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0410525 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mohammed, in view of Gao et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 113954875 A), hereinafter referred to as Gao, and Hakeem et al. (DE Pat. Pub. No. 10 2017 120 707 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hakeem.
Regarding claim 29, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
utilizing at least two pieces of water level information transmitted by different vehicles and respective geopositions, wherein the processing unit is configured to transmit the prediction of the further rise in the water level or the spread of the rise in water to disaster control and/or a rescue service and/or a traffic control center and/or other road users (see claim 27 regarding communication to remote computers and other systems including that of law enforcement,
but Mohammed, as modified by Gao, does not disclose:
wherein the processing unit is configured to predict a further rise in the water level or a spread of the rise in water in an area of the geoposition.
However, Hakeem teaches, in pg. 2 of the translation, vehicle navigation with water depth detection. An exemplary disclosed method includes determining current and predicted water depths for and around road segments of a current route to and around a destination. This is construed as predicting the future water levels associated with a specific route based on location and current water level measurements.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and water level observations before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle monitoring system of Mohammed, as already modified by the pressure sensor teachings of Gao, by incorporating the prediction teachings of Hakeem, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved safety for the vehicle and other vehicles it is in communication with.
__________________________________________
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0410525 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mohammed, in view of Gao et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 113954875 A), hereinafter referred to as Gao, and Lavie et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0193943 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lavie.
Regarding claim 30, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
wherein the processing unit is configured to transmit information regarding the estimated damage to a garage and/or a fleet operator and/or an insurance company (see claim 27 regarding communication to other systems and generating water level information).
but Mohammed, as modified by Gao, does not disclose:
wherein, based on the water level information, the processing unit is configured to estimate damage caused to the vehicle.
However, Lavie teaches in [0037] use image recognition and deep learning to detect vehicle body damage, and to predict damage type and extent of damage. This is construed as a system that estimates damage caused to the vehicle, necessarily based upon water level.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and water level observations before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle monitoring system of Mohammed, as already modified by the pressure sensor teachings of Gao, by incorporating the damage assessment teachings of Lavie, as acknowledged by Lavie in [0077] s.6, which allows improved accuracy in damage estimates as compared to prior techniques.
__________________________________________
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0410525 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mohammed, in view of Gao et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 113954875 A), hereinafter referred to as Gao, and Webb (EP Pat. Pub. No. 2698299 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses:
The method accoding to claim 16 (see claim 16), further comprising:
determining a location on the vehicle where the water level is in contact, and
generating water level information that identifies specific vehicle regions in contact with water such that vehicle components in the specific regions of the vehicle affected by the water can be selectively controlled to prevent damage.
However Webb teaches in [0018] sensors 21a-e which are located on the wheel well(s) at different heights. Furthermore, in [0020] secondary sensors can detect the occurrence of a bow wave by comparing the detected water depth at the very front of the vehicle with those further back, and moreover how the relative difference changes over time. Such information can be used by the central controller 30 to control the vehicle’s speed to avoid the crest of the bow wave and also to take advantage of the following trough. Such control can be automatic via the transmission system of the vehicle, or may be as a result of the way the driver controls the vehicle in response to guidance issued by the user interface as will be described below. Further, in [0016] the central controller is able to issue commands via the on-board data network to control certain components of the vehicle such as an active suspension system and a transmission system of the vehicle. This is construed as a system that may determine locations of the vehicle in contact with the water and control different components of the vehicle selectively in order to prevent damage to the vehicle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and water level observations before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle monitoring system of Mohammed, as already modified by the pressure sensor teachings of Gao, by incorporating the vehicle contact with water determination teachings of Webb, as acknowledged in Webb in [0021] s.3, providing a better prediction of water dynamics relative to the vehicle and in [0002] to prevent damage to electrical or internal-combustion systems of a vehicle.
________________________________________
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0410525 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mohammed, in view of Gao et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 113954875 A), hereinafter referred to as Gao, and the Le article “Liquid-Level Monitoring Using a Pressure Sensor”.
Regarding claim 32, Mohammed, as modified by Gao, discloses
The method according to claim 16, wherein the first sensor is the pressure sensor (see claim 1),
But Mohammed, as modified by Gao, does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the pressure sensor is configured to detect an air pressure generated by the rising water level in a hose as the hose fills with water, wherein the hose is coupled to the pressure sensor.
However, Le teaches in pg. 1 ¶3 and in Fig.2, below, height of liquid in a container (i.e., a hose or tube) can be measured using a pressure sensor. Placed at the top of the container, the pressure sensor is connected to an open-ended tube that is submerged in the container. The amount of water in the container exerts a proportional amount of pressure on the sensor via the trapped air in the tube. At its output, the sensor produces a pressure equivalent voltage.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and water level observations before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle monitoring system of Mohammed, as already modified by the pressure sensor teachings of Gao, by incorporating the height of a liquid by a pressure sensor teachings of Le, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved determination of a height of a liquid in an area of rising water levels.
PNG
media_image1.png
525
135
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Moreno article "Active Vehicle Water Level Monitoring System" is directed towards a design and implementation of an avoidance safety system to prevent vehicles from becoming stranded in water and thus prevent personal injury and damage to the vehicle.
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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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 D. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights