DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/934,611 filed on November 1, 2024 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
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
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-6 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); and claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 1, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 includes the limitation “wherein controlling the removal comprises automatically controlling a cleaning device of the vehicle to remove the external material present on the lens.” (Emphasis added). The statement that the controlling is “to remove the external material present on the lens” appears to be a statement of the intended use of the controlling. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 9 includes the limitation “wherein controlling the removal comprises automatically controlling the vehicle to travel to a location where a subsequent removal of the external material present on the lens can be carried out.” (Emphasis added). This limitation does not appear to require the removal of the external material to affirmatively occur. If this not Applicant’s intended interpretation, the examiner recommends amending this claim to better define the intended scope of the invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “obtain trajectory of an upcoming trajectory of the vehicle” is awkward and grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “wherein the current driving profile on one or more of braking properties of the vehicle, a weight of the vehicle, a weight of currently loaded material on the vehicle, a current speed of the vehicle, and ambient conditions” is awkward and grammatically incorrect. (Emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because it depends from claim 10, while intervening claim 11 depends from claim 1. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, Applicant’s sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
This objection will be held in abeyance upon Applicant’s request.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1and 18, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claim recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a method and a system for detecting obstructed sensors. Therefore, claims 1 and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the § 101 rejection. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A computer system for determining a lens coverage condition of a light-based scanning device arranged in a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain light data from the light-based scanning device;
obtain trajectory of an upcoming trajectory of the vehicle;
generate a frame of reference for the light-based scanning device, the frame of reference indicating positional relationships of a plurality of light points based on the light data and a plurality of trajectory points based on the trajectory data;
for one or more given trajectory points, identify a non-overlapping region in the frame of reference where no light points are collocated at the one or more given trajectory points; and
determine the lens coverage condition based on a position of the vehicle in relation to the identified non-overlapping region.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation/s constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, and in the context of this claim, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality that encompass a human user looking through a camera view finder and performing these steps in a general manner to recognize dust s or other small particles that are not obvious, but are still detectable, to the human eye. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claims, as a whole, integrate the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A computer system for determining a lens coverage condition of a light-based scanning device arranged in a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain light data from the light-based scanning device;
obtain trajectory of an upcoming trajectory of the vehicle;
generate a frame of reference for the light-based scanning device, the frame of reference indicating positional relationships of a plurality of light points based on the light data and a plurality of trajectory points based on the trajectory data;
for one or more given trajectory points, identify a non-overlapping region in the frame of reference where no light points are collocated at the one or more given trajectory points; and
determine the lens coverage condition based on a position of the vehicle in relation to the identified non-overlapping region.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “the computer system comprising processing circuitry” the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional limitations of obtaining the light data and the trajectory, the examiner submits that these limitation are merely data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
In particular, the obtaining of the light data and the trajectory are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, the additional limitations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer system comprising computer circuitry amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtaining” the light data and the trajectory, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and Herman et al., US Publication 2020/0215972.
Hence, the claim, and corresponding claim 18, are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 14-17, and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: additional mental steps to be performed. Each of the further limitations expound upon the mental steps of their parent claim and do not recite additional elements integrating the mental steps into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 14-17, and 18-20 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 14-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, this claim includes the limitation “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the frame of reference by projecting the plurality of trajectory points onto a surface of the field of view of the light-based scanning device such that a common coordinate system comprising the plurality of light points of the light data and the plurality of trajectory points of the trajectory data is obtained.” (Emphasis added).
In the present instance, the use of the conjunction “such that” renders the limitation subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations.
First, this limitation can be interpreted to indicate the natural result or consequence of the frame generated by projecting the trajectory points. Under this interpretation, the portion of the limitation following “such that” would not be subject to separate patentable weight. If this is Applicant’s intended interpretation, the examiner recommends removing the entire “such that” clause.
Second, this limitation can be interpreted to affirmatively require that a common coordinate system is obtained and that the common coordinate system comprise a plurality of light points of the light data and the plurality of trajectory points of the trajectory data. Under this interpretation, the portion of the limitation following “such that” would be accorded separate patentable weight. If this is Applicant’s intended interpretation, the examiner recommends replacing the such that clause with “obtaining a common coordinate system comprising the plurality of light points of the light data and the plurality of trajectory points of the trajectory data based on the generated frame of reference,” or similar.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, these claims depend from claim 2 and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1-4, 7, 8, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herman et al., US Publication 2020/0215972 (hereinafter Herman) in view of Liu et al., US Patent 10,496,104 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Herman discloses a computer system for determining a lens coverage condition of a light-based scanning device arranged in a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry (Herman ¶ 15) configured to: “obtain light data from the light-based scanning device” (Herman ¶ 15) where a camera (i.e., a light based scanning device, see Spec. ¶ 39) senses data about an external light source. Additionally, Herman discloses “obtain trajectory of an … trajectory of the vehicle” (Herman ¶ 56) by sensing (i.e., obtaining) the trajectory of the light source 604, which is based on the “motion of the vehicle 30,” making the trajectory a “trajectory of the vehicle.” Further, Herman discloses “generate a frame of reference for the light-based scanning device” (Herman ¶ 47) by generating image frames of the field of view. These are “a frame of reference” for the reasons discussed below. Moreover, Herman discloses “the frame of reference indicating positional relationships of a plurality of light points based on the light data and a plurality of trajectory points based on the trajectory data” (Herman ¶¶ 56-57) where the positions of the pixels indicate the trajectory of the light points based on the record light data and the trajectory template represents a plurality of expected trajectory points based on the trajectory data. Likewise, Herman discloses “for one or more given trajectory points, identify a non-overlapping region in the frame of reference where no light points are collocated at the one or more given trajectory points” (Herman ¶ 62) by generating a map of the differences between the recorded light intensities and the expected light intensities. Fig. 6 shows an example frame of reference where there are portions of no light points along the given trajectory. Finally, Herman discloses “determine the lens coverage condition based on a position of the vehicle in relation to the identified non-overlapping region” (Herman ¶ 63) by detecting an obstruction based on the map.
Herman does not appear to disclose that the trajectory is an “upcoming” trajectory and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “obtain trajectory of an upcoming trajectory of the vehicle.”
However, Liu discloses a computer system for determining a lens coverage condition of a light-based scanning device arranged in a vehicle (Liu col. 6, ll. 47-54), the computer system comprising processing circuitry (Liu col. 5, ll. 50-53) configured to: “obtain light data from the light-based scanning device” (Liu col. 3, l. 56-col. 4, l. 14) where cameras (i.e., light-based scanning devices, see Spec. ¶ 39) are used to capture images (i.e., light data). Additionally, Liu discloses “obtain trajectory of an upcoming trajectory of the vehicle” (Liu col. 15, ll. 55-58) by obtaining a predicted (i.e., upcoming) device movement (i.e., trajectory). Finally, Liu discloses “determine the lens coverage condition” (Liu col. 9, ll. 19-28) by determining that the camera lens are blocked from incoming light.
Herman and Liu are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of lens obstruction detection.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Herman and Liu before him or her to modify the lens obstruction detection of Herman to include the trajectory prediction of Liu.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that using a predicted trajectory would allow the system to better predict where the lens obstructions are located before any light sources are missed because of those obstructions, thereby increasing the safety of the vehicle in which the system is installed.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the frame of reference by projecting the plurality of trajectory points onto a surface of the field of view of the light-based scanning device such that a common coordinate system comprising the plurality of light points of the light data and the plurality of trajectory points of the trajectory data is obtained” (Herman ¶ 56) where the frame of reference is generated by projection the trajectory points onto a pixel based coordinate system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses “wherein the frame of reference comprises a discrete map having a plurality of interconnected tiles being a tessellation of the field of view of the light-based scanning device, the light points and the trajectory points being contained in one or more of the interconnected tiles” (Liu col. 28, l. 59-col. 29, l.9, Fig. 16) where an occupancy grid is shown to be a tessellation of squares (i.e., tiles) of the field of view of the camera, and where the data, including light points and trajectory points, are shown to be contained in one or more of the tiles.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Herman discloses “wherein the non-overlapping region is identified by processing … the discrete map” (Herman ¶ 62) as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Further, Liu discloses wherein the autonomous actions by processing the tiles of the discrete map” (Liu col. 33, ll. 23-41) where robot’s actions are determined by processing the tiles of the discrete map.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Liu was combined with Herman, the processing according to the tiles of the discrete map of Liu would be applied to the action of identifying the non-overlapping regions on the discrete map of Herman. Therefore, the combination of Herman and Liu at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the non-overlapping region is identified by processing the tiles of the discrete map,” rendering it obvious.
Herman and Liu are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of lens obstruction detection.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Herman and Liu before him or her to modify the map of Herman to include the tiles of Liu.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that such tiles provide a convenient method for locating data within the map.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses “wherein in response to the lens coverage condition indicating that an external material is present on a lens of the light-based scanning device, the processing circuitry is further configured to control a removal of the external material” (Herman ¶ 12) by activating the camera cleaning apparatus “upon detecting the obstruction.”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses “wherein controlling the removal comprises automatically controlling a cleaning device of the vehicle to remove the external material present on the lens” (Herman ¶ 12) by activating the camera cleaning apparatus “upon detecting the obstruction.”
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses “wherein the lens coverage condition is determined as at least partially covered due to an external material being present on at least portions of a lens of the light-based scanning device, the external material being one or more of mud, dust, sand, water, ice, snow and bugs” (Herman ¶ 2) where the external material may be dirt, water, or bugs.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses “wherein the lens coverage condition is determined as at least partially covered due to hardware degradation of the light-based scanning device” (Liu col. 9, ll. 19-28) where the lens coverage condition is a scratch, which is “hardware degradation of the light-based scanning device.”
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses “wherein the trajectory data is obtained from one or more of a route planning system, a road estimation system, and a predefined road network” (Liu col. 16, ll. 14-41) where the trajectory data is obtained from a path (i.e., route) planning system.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses a “vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1.” (Herman ¶ 14).
Regarding claim 18, it merely recites a method for implemented by the system of claim 1. The method comprises execution of computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Herman and Liu comprises execution of computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 18 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses a “computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 18.” (Herman ¶ 70).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 18 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 18.” (Herman ¶ 70).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gideon et al., US Publication 2025/0065900 (hereinafter Gideon).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the lens coverage condition by comparing a closest distance between the vehicle and the non-overlapping region in relation to a safety buffer distance defining a safe distance to a surface of a scanned environment required for a continued operation of the vehicle based on a current driving profile.”
However, Gideon discloses a system for detecting obstructing material in view of a camera (Gideon ¶ 375) “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the lens coverage condition by comparing a closest distance between the vehicle and the covered region in relation to a safety buffer distance defining a safe distance to a surface of a scanned environment required for a continued operation of the vehicle based on a current driving profile” (Gideon ¶ 383) by comparing the distance d2 to distance d1 by determining the difference between the two distances to determine the depth of the road covering. (Gideon ¶ 383). This is a “safe distance to a surface” because it establishes how far the vehicle may travel before interaction with the covering debris. The road covering material is calculated according to a profile information (Gideon ¶ 377), which is defined to include ambient conditions (Gideon ¶ 232), which is defined by claim 6 to be a driving profile.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Gideon was combined with Herman and Liu, the distance calculations of Gideon would be applied to the regions of the image of Herman and Liu. Therefore, the combination of Herman, Liu, and Gideon at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the lens coverage condition by comparing a closest distance between the vehicle and the non-overlapping region in relation to a safety buffer distance defining a safe distance to a surface of a scanned environment required for a continued operation of the vehicle based on a current driving profile,” rendering it obvious.
Herman, Liu, and Gideon are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of camera obstruction detection.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Herman, Liu, and Gideon before him or her to modify the obstruction calculation of Herman and Liu to include the distance calculation of Gideon.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Herman and Liu teaches the “base device” for detecting an obstruction within the field of view of a camera. Further, Gideon teaches the “known technique” for detecting an obstruction based on distances that is applicable to the base device of Herman and Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Herman, Liu, and Gideon discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman, Liu, and Gideon discloses “wherein the current driving profile on one or more of braking properties of the vehicle, a weight of the vehicle, a weight of currently loaded material on the vehicle, a current speed of the vehicle, and ambient conditions” (Gideon ¶ 232) where the profile includes ambient conditions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Liu, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Kobayashi et al., US Publication 2023/0251099 (hereinafter Kobayashi)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein controlling the removal comprises automatically controlling the vehicle to travel to a location where a subsequent removal of the external material present on the lens can be carried out.”
However, Kobayashi discloses a system for controlling the removal of dirt and debris on a vehicle “wherein controlling the removal comprises automatically controlling the vehicle to travel to a location where a subsequent removal of the external material present on the lens can be carried out” (Kobayashi ¶¶ 122-123) by controlling the vehicle to enter a car wash.
Herman, Liu, and Kobayashi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of cleaning autonomous vehicles.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Herman, Liu, and Kobayashi before him or her to modify the sensor cleaning of Herman and Liu to include the automatically controlling the vehicle to travel to a cleaning location of Kobayashi.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Herman and Liu teaches the “base device” for cleaning a vehicle. Further, Kobayashi teaches the “known technique” for automatically controlling a vehicle to travel to a cleaning location that is applicable to the base device of Herman and Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yamauchi, US Publication 2020/0391702 (hereinafter Yamauchi).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein in response to the lens coverage condition indicating that a field of view of the lens of the light-based scanning device is at least partially covered, the processing circuitry is further configured to automatically control a braking system of the vehicle to cause a standstill of the vehicle.”
However, Yamauchi discloses a sensor cleaning system including light based scanning devices (Yamauchi ¶ 38) “wherein in response to the lens coverage condition indicating that a field of view of the lens of the light-based scanning device is at least partially covered, the processing circuitry is further configured to automatically control a braking system of the vehicle to cause a standstill of the vehicle” (Yamauchi ¶ 104) where the vehicle comes to a complete stop at a safe location.
Herman, Liu, and Yamauchi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of sensor cleaning systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Herman, Liu, and Yamauchi before him or her to modify the sensor cleaning system of Herman and Liu to stop the vehicle until it is cleaned, according to Yamauchi.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that such a modification would improve the safety of the vehicle to the driver by reducing the chances of the dirty sensor missing important data and causing an accident.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein in response to the lens coverage condition indicating that a field of view of the lens of the light-based scanning device is at least partially covered, the processing circuitry is further configured to automatically control a braking system of the vehicle to cause a speed limitation of the vehicle.”
However, Yamauchi discloses a sensor cleaning system including light based scanning devices (Yamauchi ¶ 38) “wherein in response to the lens coverage condition indicating that a field of view of the lens of the light-based scanning device is at least partially covered, the processing circuitry is further configured to automatically control a braking system of the vehicle to cause a speed limitation of the vehicle” (Yamauchi ¶ 104) where the vehicle comes to a complete stop at a safe location, which is a form of speed limitation (e.g., the speed is limited to zero).
Herman, Liu, and Yamauchi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of sensor cleaning systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Herman, Liu, and Yamauchi before him or her to modify the sensor cleaning system of Herman and Liu to stop the vehicle until it is cleaned, according to Yamauchi.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that such a modification would improve the safety of the vehicle to the driver by reducing the chances of the dirty sensor missing important data and causing an accident.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Herman, Liu, and Yamauchi discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman, Liu, and Yamauchi discloses “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cancel control of the braking system after a cleaning procedure has been carried out” (Yamauchi ¶ 104) where the cleaning control processing, including bringing the vehicle to a stop, prohibits further actions until the warning is lifted.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Herman and Liu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Herman and Liu does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein in response to the lens coverage condition indicating that a field of view of the lens of the light-based scanning device is at least partially covered, the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a warning signal.”
However, Yamauchi discloses a sensor cleaning system including light based scanning devices (Yamauchi ¶ 38) “However, Yamauchi discloses a sensor cleaning system including light based scanning devices (Yamauchi ¶ 38) “wherein in response to the lens coverage condition indicating that a field of view of the lens of the light-based scanning device is at least partially covered, the processing circuitry is further configured to automatically control a braking system of the vehicle to cause a standstill of the vehicle” (Yamauchi ¶ 104) where a warning is displayed on the instrument panel.
Herman, Liu, and Yamauchi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of sensor cleaning systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Herman, Liu, and Yamauchi before him or her to modify the sensor cleaning system of Herman and Liu to warn the driver of the sensor status, according to Yamauchi.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that such a modification would improve the safety of the vehicle by alerting the driver of potentially inaccurate sensor readings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Zhao et al., US Publication 2017/0036647, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Wachter, US Publication 2018/0134259, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Bacchus et al., US Publication 2019/0106085, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Higashitani, US Publication 2019/0291740, System and method for prohibiting a vehicle start until sensors are cleared of snow.
Kline et al., US Publication 2019/0322245, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Shalev-Shwartz et al., US Publication 2019/0329782, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Zhang et al., US Publication 2020/0192388, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Kudla et al., US Publication 2021/0223374, System and method for detecting dirt on a LIDAR sensor by comparing paths across frames of LIDAR data.
D’Onofrio, US Publication 2022/0144219, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Slobodyanyuk et al., US Publication 2023/0036838, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Wijntjes, US Publication 2023/0358869, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Ravi Kumar et al., US Publication 2025/0085407, System and method for warning a driver of obstructed vehicle sensors.
Chou et al., US Publication 2025/0136122, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Martin, US Patent 11,040,619, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Pertsel, US Patent 11,655,893, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Terefe et al., US Patent 12,235,396, System and method for cleaning vehicle sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662