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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 10/22/2024 and 06/12/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 recites “an acquisition unit,” which is a generic placeholder for “means” followed by the functional language “acquire moving object information that is information on a moving object in a water leak inspection of the moving object.” A review of the specification shows that vehicle acquisition unit 115 performs the claimed function. Accordingly, “acquisition unit” will be interpreted as vehicle acquisition unit 115 and equivalents.
Claim 1 recites “a control unit,” which is a generic placeholder for “means” followed by the functional language “control either or both of a travel mode of the moving object and a control mode of an ejector according to the moving object information ….” A review of the specification shows that vehicle control unit 117 performs the claimed function. Accordingly, “control unit” will be interpreted as vehicle control unit 117 as equivalents.
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.
Claim 4 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. Claim 4 recites “wherein the control unit is configured to set the ejection pressure or the ejection amount when a moving speed of the moving object is a first speed to a value smaller than the ejection pressure or the ejection amount when the moving speed is lower than the first speed.” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to what this phrase means. The claim appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and lacks grammatical structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 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. Claim 5 recites “wherein the control unit is configured to set the ejection pressure or the ejection amount when a moving speed of the moving object is a second speed to a value larger than the ejection pressure or the ejection amount when the moving speed is lower than the second speed.” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to what this phrase means. The claim appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and lacks grammatical structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0018134 to Park et. al. (“Park”) (submitted in the IDS of 6/12/2026).
Regarding claim 1:
A control device (Park discloses a controller 300. Park at par. [0060] and Fig. 3.) comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire moving object information that is information on a moving object in a water leak inspection of the moving object (Park discloses that the controller retrieves vehicle information (“object information”) regarding vehicle 110 (“moving object”), which is being subjected to water leakage inspection. Park at pars. [0005], [0009]-[0010], and [0080]-[0081] and Figs. 1 and 2.),
the moving object being configured to travel by unmanned driving (Park discloses that its system includes a moving unit (e.g., conveyor) for moving the vehicle to the workplace. Park at pars. [0018], [0023], and [0049]-[0051] and Fig. 1. Thus, Park discloses a “moving object being configured to travel by unmanned driving.” (Note that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, Applicant’s express definition of “unmanned driving” in the specification does not exclude travel by conveyer. In addition, the recitation “unmanned driving” is not a positive limitation because the claim never positively recites that the “moving object” travels by “unmanned driving,” and thus it is not a positive limitation on the claimed “control device.” A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. MPEP §2115.)); and
a control unit configured to control either or both of a travel mode of the moving object and a control mode of an ejector according to the moving object information in such a manner that a positional relationship between the ejector and the moving object becomes a predetermined target positional relationship, the ejector being configured to eject liquid or gas to the moving object in the water leak inspection (Park discloses that the “controller 300 recognizes entering and exiting of the vehicle 110” into a workspace and that the “jetting of the water from the jet nozzles 120 [is controlled] such that the jet nozzles 120 only jets water toward the vehicle 110 and jetting of water toward an empty space between vehicles 110 may be inhibited or prevented.” Park at par. [0064] and [0072]. In addition, Park discloses that the controller 300 controls the conveyor. Park. at [0076].).
Regarding claim 2: The control device according to claim 1,
wherein the moving object information includes information for classifying the moving object (Park disclose that the “vehicle information may include a type, a size, and/or a shape of the vehicle entering the workspace.” Park at par. [0081].).
Regarding claim 3: The control device according to claim 1,
wherein the control mode is at least one of the following: an ejection pressure of the liquid or the gas, an ejection amount of the liquid or the gas, and an ejection direction of the liquid or the gas (Park disclose that the jet pressure and jet amount may be determined by the vehicle information. Park at pars. [0081]-[0082]. Park also discloses that the “jet nozzles 120 only jets water toward the vehicle 110 ….” Park at par. [0072].).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN114838959 to FAW Jiefang Automotive Co Ltd (“FAW”) (please see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 4: The control device according to claim 3,
wherein the control unit is configured to set the ejection pressure or the ejection amount when a moving speed of the moving object is a first speed to a value smaller than the ejection pressure or the ejection amount when the moving speed is lower than the first speed (Park discloses that “jet pressure [(“ejection pressure”)] and jet amount [(“ejection amount”)] may be determined by the vehicle information, and the controller 300 may perform water jetting by controlling the pipe valve 260 and the nozzle valve 310...” and that the controller 300 activates the conveyor 100 to move the vehicle 100 to the workspace. Park at pars. [0076] and [0082]. However, Park does not explicitly disclose that the jet pressure or the jet amount is lowered when the vehicle speed is lowered.
In a same field of endeavor, leak testing a vehicle (and thus analogous art), FAW discloses controlling preset rainfall intensity levels (hereinafter “preset rainfall level” or “preset rainfall levels”), which is based on a combination of rainfall intensity and a rainfall time, to simulate small rain, moderate rain, and heavy rain under a range of simulated vehicle speeds. FAW at pp. 12-13. That is, FAW discloses correlating vehicle speeds and preset rainfall levels to provide a more accurate tightness test. FAW at Abstract. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to perform a leakage testing method that correlates driving speed and preset rainfall levels as disclosed by FAW in order to improve the accuracy of the vehicle tightness test. FAW at Abstract. Because Park and FAW related to rainfall leakage tests on vehicles, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. MPEP §2143.I.G.
In the system of FAW the vehicle is stationary and the pressure difference between the cab and atmosphere is simulated according to the desired diving speed (i.e., “the simulation pressure difference in the cab is positively related to the driving speed of the target vehicle”). FAW at Abstract and pp. 2-3. However, unlike FAW, the vehicle is moving in the system of Park. Accordingly, the preset rainfall levels from the jet spray will be affected if the actual vehicle speed changes. Therefore, in the system of Park in view of FAW, to maintain the preset rainfall level for different vehicle speeds when correlating the preset rainfall levels and driving speeds, the jet pressure and/or jet amount may need to change appropriately. For example, if the vehicle speed is increased to a “first speed” from a lower speed, the rainfall intensity may increase to a point where the preset rainfall level is too high. In this case, the jet pressure and/or jet amount will be lowered to lower the rainfall intensity to maintain the corresponding preset rainfall level. Accordingly, the system of Park in view of FAW renders obvious the claimed control unit configuration.).
Regarding claim 5: The control device according to claim 3,
wherein the control unit is configured to set the ejection pressure or the ejection amount when a moving speed of the moving object is a second speed to a value larger than the ejection pressure or the ejection amount when the moving speed is lower than the second speed (Park does not explicitly disclose that the jet pressure or the jet amount is raised when the vehicle speed is lowered. However, as discussed in claim 4, the preset rainfall levels from the jet spray will be affected if the actual vehicle speed changes. Accordingly, to maintain the preset rainfall level for different vehicle speeds when correlating the preset rainfall levels and driving speeds, the jet pressure and/or jet amount may need to change appropriately. For example, if the vehicle speed is increased to a “second speed” from a lower speed, the rainfall time may decrease to a point where the preset rainfall level is too low. In this case, the jet pressure and/or jet amount will be increased to increase the rainfall intensity in order to maintain the corresponding preset rainfall level. Accordingly, the system of Park in view of FAW renders obvious the claimed control unit configuration.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Engstle, "Adverse Weather Conditions in the Validation of ADAS/AD Sensors," AmE 2023 – Automotive meets Electronics; 14. GMM Symposium, Dortmund, Germany, 2023, pp. 103-107 discloses a rain testing facility for performing sensor testing and validation in adverse weather conditions.
Carvalho, Mateus, and Horia Hangan. "Modelling weather precipitation intensity on surfaces in motion with application to autonomous vehicles." Sensors 23.19 (2023): 8034 discloses modeling of weather data to calculate precipitation intensity on inclined surfaces of a vehicle.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0187443 to Chen et al. discloses a vehicle inspection system that uses an unmanned controlled travelling device that moving a vehicle o be inspected through a scanning area of an inspection device.
U.S. Patent No. 11,842,638 to Wang et al. discloses a remote control driving system for an intelligent network vehicle.
Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN106404290A to Hu et al. discloses a leak tightness testing device for automobile door handles in which the system controls the movement of the spray devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights