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
Claims 1-4 were originally presented having a filing date of November 12, 2024 and claiming priority to German Application DE102023131465.3 that was filed on November 13, 2023. However, no German Priority documents have been received.
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on November 12, 2024.
Claims 1-4 were amended via Preliminary Amendment.
Claims 5-19 were newly added via Preliminary Amendment.
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements that were filed on November 12, 2024 and February 25, 2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner. Initialed copies of the 1449 Forms are enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Evaluation unit” in claim 1. The originally filed specification, in [0020], states the its structural association, “the electronic control unit 7 has an evaluation unit 8, which uses the signals from the sensors 14 to determine whether there is a leak or whether the cabin 5 and/or the semi-trailer 3 or trailer is leak-proof, i.e. has no leak.”
“Behavior Module” in claims 1, 13, and 14. The originally filed specification, in [0022], states the its structural association, “the electronic control unit 7 has a behavior module 12 that can plan and control the driving behavior of the autonomous vehicle 1 by activating actuators 13 of the vehicle 1 for longitudinal and lateral control, for example accelerator, brakes and steering.”
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim states, “wherein the vehicle is designed as a passenger car.” It is not clear why the design is relevant for the claim limitation. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “wherein the vehicle is a passenger car.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-12 recite the limitation "of the body" in line 2 of each of those claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tascione, et al. (Publication US 2018/0050704 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Tascione”.)
As per claim 13, Tascione discloses a method of controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring data from at least one sensor, wherein the sensor is arranged within a respective sensor chamber [see at least Tascione [0044] "The resolution engine 240 can process the AV system report 262 to determine whether a particular fault condition can be resolved, mitigated, or ignored, or whether the fault condition is critical to the safe operation of the SDV. … In some examples, such as a detected leak in a tire, the safety or troubleshoot procedure can comprise monitoring the tire pressure to determine whether immediate operation of the SDV is safe (e.g., by determining a pressure loss rate). If so, the resolution engine 240 can generate a control instruction 242 for the AV control system 292 indicating the tire leak and a low urgency level for repairing the tire. "];
sending the data via a signal to an electronic control unit, the electronic control unit comprising an evaluation unit [see at least Tascione [0044] "The resolution engine 240 can process the AV system report 262 to determine whether a particular fault condition can be resolved, mitigated, or ignored, or whether the fault condition is critical to the safe operation of the SDV.];
determining, using the evaluation unit, whether the data indicates a leak [see at least Tascione [0044] "...such as a detected leak in a tire, the safety or troubleshoot procedure can comprise monitoring the tire pressure to determine whether immediate operation of the SDV is safe (e.g., by determining a pressure loss rate)… ."]; and
performing a parking maneuver using a behavior module of the electronic control unit when the evaluation unit determines a leak [see at least Tascione [0044] "...if the tire has little or no pressure, then the resolution engine 240 can generate an emergency control instruction 242 commanding the AV control system 292 to pull the vehicle over or drive directly to a proximate service station."]
As per claim 14, Tascione discloses … wherein behavior module is configured to activate actuators of the vehicle which control longitudinal and lateral vehicle movement [see at least Tascione [0044] "...if the tire has little or no pressure, then the resolution engine 240 can generate an emergency control instruction 242 commanding the AV control system 292 to pull the vehicle over or drive directly to a proximate service station."]
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tascione, in view of Maitre (Publication US 2023/0206703 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Maitre”.)
As per claim 1, Tascione discloses a vehicle, comprising at least one sensor arranged inside the vehicle for each of the at least one sensor arranged inside the vehicle each of the at least one sensor configured to detect a vehicle leak, and an electronic control unit configured to evaluate signals from the at least one sensor [see at least Tascione [0044] "The resolution engine 240 can process the AV system report 262 to determine whether a particular fault condition can be resolved, mitigated, or ignored, or whether the fault condition is critical to the safe operation of the SDV. … In some examples, such as a detected leak in a tire, the safety or troubleshoot procedure can comprise monitoring the tire pressure to determine whether immediate operation of the SDV is safe (e.g., by determining a pressure loss rate). If so, the resolution engine 240 can generate a control instruction 242 for the AV control system 292 indicating the tire leak and a low urgency level for repairing the tire. "],
wherein the electronic control unit has an evaluation unit, which is configured to use the signals to determine whether or not there is a leak [see at least Tascione [0038] "...Still further, the diagnostic data 109 from the operational components 155 of the vehicle 100, or the ECU(s) 180, can indicate any fault conditions with the vehicle's power unit and chassis control systems—..., to relatively major hydraulic fluid leaks, tire failures, or broken components. Thus, the diagnostic data 109 can be received by the diagnostic system 160 from any number of AV systems."];
wherein the vehicle is configured to be an autonomous vehicle [see at least Tascione [0009] "An on-board diagnostic system for an autonomous vehicle (AV) is provided herein that can independently monitor and manage all of the AV systems. Such AV systems can include each of the sensor systems,…"],
wherein the at least one sensor is arranged in a respective sensor chamber in order to detect leaks on the vehicle, … [see at least Tascione [0044] "...In some examples, such as a detected leak in a tire, the safety or troubleshoot procedure can comprise monitoring the tire pressure to determine whether immediate operation of the SDV is safe (e.g., by determining a pressure loss rate). If so, the resolution engine 240 can generate a control instruction 242 for the AV control system 292 indicating the tire leak and a low urgency level for repairing the tire. The AV control system 292 can travel to a destination to make a drop off or fulfill some current obligation before driving the SDV to a servicing station to repair the tire."],
wherein the electronic control unit also has a behavior module, which is configured to plan and control a driving behavior of the vehicle by controlling longitudinal and lateral control actuators of the vehicle [see at least Tascione [0044] "...If so, the resolution engine 240 can generate a control instruction 242 for the AV control system 292 indicating the tire leak and a low urgency level for repairing the tire. The AV control system 292 can travel to a destination to make a drop off or fulfill some current obligation before driving the SDV to a servicing station to repair the tire."], and
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to control the behavior module to perform a parking maneuver at a safe location upon detection of a leak with imminent danger [see at least Tascione [0044] "...if the tire has little or no pressure, then the resolution engine 240 can generate an emergency control instruction 242 commanding the AV control system 292 to pull the vehicle over or drive directly to a proximate service station."]
Tascione fails to disclose … the electronic control unit comprises a communication unit which is configured to communicate with a backend via a wireless interface in order to report a detected leak … . However, Maitre teaches this limitation [see at least Matire (the electronic control unit comprises a communication unit which is configured to communicate with a backend via a wireless interface in order to report a detected leak) Fig. 2; [0033] "Each of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124 may be arranged to transmit a signal 201 to the control unit 110 upon detecting a gas leakage, e.g. detecting a concentration of gas that is above a determined threshold level. The signal 201 indicate to the control unit 110 that the gas leakage sensor 121, 122, 123, 124 has detected a gas leakage. Upon receiving the signal 201 from any of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124, the control unit 110 is arranged to generate an alarm signal and identify the location of the gas leakage sensor 121, 122, 123, 124 that has detected the gas leakage."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … the electronic control unit comprises a communication unit which is configured to communicate with a backend via a wireless interface in order to report a detected leak … as disclosed in Maitre with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved detection and warning of vehicle gas leakages. [See at least Maitre [0007].]
As per claim 4, Tascione fails to disclose … wherein the evaluation unit is configured to provide the information "no leak detected" in the backend when a leak is detected without immediate danger or when no leak is detected. However, Maitre teaches this limitation [see at least Maitre [0033] "Each of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124 may be arranged to transmit a signal 201 to the control unit 110 upon detecting a gas leakage, e.g. detecting a concentration of gas that is above a determined threshold level."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … wherein the evaluation unit is configured to provide the information "no leak detected" in the backend when a leak is detected without immediate danger or when no leak is detected as disclosed in Maitre with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved detection and warning of vehicle gas leakages. [See at least Maitre [0007].]
As per claim 9, Tascione fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor chamber is arranged at a front portion of the body. However, Maitre teaches this limitation [see at least Maitre [0008] "… “Gas leakage detected in the front of the vehicle … .”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … wherein the at least one sensor chamber is arranged at a front portion of the body as disclosed in Maitre with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved detection and warning of vehicle gas leakages. [See at least Maitre [0007].]
As per claim 11, Tascione fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor chamber is arranged at a rear portion of the body. However, Maitre teaches this limitation [see at least Maitre Fig. 2; [0032] "...After the control unit 110 and the gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124 has been turned on and the control unit 110 has established communication with each of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124, the maintenance or repair technician may begin positioning a number of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124 onto or at the power modules 103 of the vehicle 10. The number of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124 and their individual locations onto or at the power modules 103 of the vehicle 10 may preferably be selected to enable possible gas leakage detection from any of the power modules 103 of the vehicle 10. ... “back of the vehicle” for gas leakage sensor 124 in FIG. 2."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … wherein the at least one sensor chamber is arranged at a rear portion of the body as disclosed in Maitre with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved detection and warning of vehicle gas leakages. [See at least Maitre [0007].]
As per claim 18, Tascione fails to disclose … the method further comprising communicating, via a communication unit, the status of the leak to a backend which is available to a user of the vehicle. However, Maitre teaches this limitation [see at least Maitre Fig. 2; [0033] "Each of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124 may be arranged to transmit a signal 201 to the control unit 110 upon detecting a gas leakage, e.g. detecting a concentration of gas that is above a determined threshold level. The signal 201 indicate to the control unit 110 that the gas leakage sensor 121, 122, 123, 124 has detected a gas leakage. Upon receiving the signal 201 from any of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124, the control unit 110 is arranged to generate an alarm signal and identify the location of the gas leakage sensor 121, 122, 123, 124 that has detected the gas leakage."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … the method further comprising communicating, via a communication unit, the status of the leak to a backend which is available to a user of the vehicle as disclosed in Maitre with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved detection and warning of vehicle gas leakages. [See at least Maitre [0007].]
As per claim 19, Tascione fails to disclose … wherein the communication unit communicates with the backend wirelessly. However, Maitre teaches this limitation [see at least Maitre Fig. 2; [0033] "Each of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124 may be arranged to transmit a signal 201 to the control unit 110 upon detecting a gas leakage, e.g. detecting a concentration of gas that is above a determined threshold level. The signal 201 indicate to the control unit 110 that the gas leakage sensor 121, 122, 123, 124 has detected a gas leakage. Upon receiving the signal 201 from any of the one or more gas leakage sensors 121, 122, 123, 124, the control unit 110 is arranged to generate an alarm signal and identify the location of the gas leakage sensor 121, 122, 123, 124 that has detected the gas leakage."; [0009] "the control unit may be arranged to establish a wireless connection with the one or more gas leakage sensors."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … wherein the communication unit communicates with the backend wirelessly as disclosed in Maitre with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved detection and warning of vehicle gas leakages. [See at least Maitre [0007].]
Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tascione, in view of Maitre and Knowles (Publication US 2024/0017592 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Knowles”.)
As per claim 2, Tascione fails to disclose … wherein the vehicle is designed as a commercial vehicle, and {… has …} a cabin of a tractor. However, Maitre teaches this limitation [see at least Maitre [0029] "...the vehicle itself may be equipped with built-in hydrogen or gas sensors. … It should also be added that most built-in gas leakage sensors are intended to alert driver of the vehicle when located inside the vehicle."
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … wherein the vehicle is designed as a commercial vehicle, and {… has …} a cabin of a tractor as disclosed in Maitre with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved detection and warning of vehicle gas leakages. [See at least Maitre [0007].]
The combination of Tascione and Maitre fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor is arranged inside a cabin of a tractor. However, Knowles teaches this limitation [see at least Knowles [0129] "… when the invention is used in an autonomous vehicle, it is desirable that such sensors be located proximate an air intake port or air exhaust port of the autonomous control system used to control the vehicle."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in the combination of Tascione and Maitre to use … wherein the at least one sensor is arranged inside a cabin of a tractor as disclosed in Knowles with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of the safety of occupants within a vehicle. [See at least Knowles [0008].]
As per claim 3, Tascione discloses … wherein the vehicle is designed as a passenger car [see at least Tascione [0002] "Autonomous vehicle (AV) technology significantly increases computing power and complexity of vehicle control systems, providing a suite of multiple sensor systems as well as an on-board sensor data processing system for autonomous operation of the vehicle."]
As per claim 5, the combination of Tascione and Maitre fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor detects a leak comprised of particles inside the vehicle. However, Knowles teaches this limitation [see at least Knowles [0129] "… when the invention is used in an autonomous vehicle, it is desirable that such sensors be located proximate an air intake port or air exhaust port of the autonomous control system used to control the vehicle."; [0118] "Additional sensors (not shown) may be incorporated into the above system to detect the presence of contaminants within the cabin 1. For instance, additional sensors may be incorporated into the system to detect the presence and amount of dust, nanoparticles, diesel particulates, SO.sub.2 and methane in the cabin 1."
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in the combination of Tascione and Maitre to use … wherein the at least one sensor detects a leak comprised of particles inside the vehicle as disclosed in Knowles with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of the safety of occupants within a vehicle. [See at least Knowles [0008].]
As per claim 7, the combination of Tascione and Maitre fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor detects a leak comprised of air pollution inside of the vehicle. However, Knowles teaches this limitation [see at least Knowles [0129] "… when the invention is used in an autonomous vehicle, it is desirable that such sensors be located proximate an air intake port or air exhaust port of the autonomous control system used to control the vehicle."; [0118] "Additional sensors (not shown) may be incorporated into the above system to detect the presence of contaminants within the cabin 1. For instance, additional sensors may be incorporated into the system to detect the presence and amount of dust, nanoparticles, diesel particulates, SO.sub.2 and methane in the cabin 1."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in the combination of Tascione and Maitre to use … wherein the at least one sensor detects a leak comprised of air pollution inside of the vehicle as disclosed in Knowles with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of the safety of occupants within a vehicle. [See at least Knowles [0008].]
As per claim 8, the combination of Tascione and Maitre fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor is comprised of a sensor to detect particles inside the vehicle, and/or a sensor to detect moisture inside the vehicle, and/or a sensor to detect air pollution inside the vehicle. However, Knowles teaches this limitation [see at least Knowles [0129] "… when the invention is used in an autonomous vehicle, it is desirable that such sensors be located proximate an air intake port or air exhaust port of the autonomous control system used to control the vehicle."; [0118] "Additional sensors (not shown) may be incorporated into the above system to detect the presence of contaminants within the cabin 1. For instance, additional sensors may be incorporated into the system to detect the presence and amount of dust, nanoparticles, diesel particulates, SO.sub.2 and methane in the cabin 1."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in the combination of Tascione and Maitre to use … wherein the at least one sensor is comprised of a sensor to detect particles inside the vehicle, and/or a sensor to detect moisture inside the vehicle, and/or a sensor to detect air pollution inside the vehicle as disclosed in Knowles with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of the safety of occupants within a vehicle. [See at least Knowles [0008].]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tascione, in view of Maitre and Min (Publication US 2020/0292404 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Min”.)
As per claim 6, the combination of Tascione and Maitre fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor detects a leak comprised of moisture inside the vehicle. However, Min teaches this limitation [see at least Min [0007] "The present invention is conceived to solve the problems, and provides an apparatus and a method of detecting liquid leakage within a battery pack by using ...a moisture detecting sensor... ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in the combination of Tascione and Maitre to use … wherein the at least one sensor detects a leak comprised of moisture inside the vehicle as disclosed in Min with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of operating a moisture detecting sensor to be on only for a region requiring the detection of the generation of the liquid leakage, thereby preventing unnecessary energy consumption. [See at least Min [0014].]
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tascione, in view of Maitre and Ogura, et al. (Publication US 2017/0248946 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Ogura”.)
As per claim 10, the combination of Tascione and Maitre fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor chamber is arranged at a front upper corner of the body. However, Ogura teaches this limitation [see at least Ogura front upper 42F: [0048] "In the autonomously moving work vehicle 1, a camera 42F photting a front side and a camera 42R photting the work machine at a rear side ... are mounted and connected to the control device 30. In this embodiment, the cameras 42F and 42R are arranged respectively in an upper front part and an upper rear part of a roof of the cabin 11."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in the combination of Tascione and Maitre to use … wherein the at least one sensor chamber is arranged at a front upper corner of the body as disclosed in Ogura with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved operability of the AV sensors. [See at least Ogura [0090].]
As per claim 12, the combination of Tascione and Maitre fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor chamber is arranged at a rear upper corner of the body. However, Ogura teaches this limitation [see at least Ogura rear upper 42R: [0048] "In the autonomously moving work vehicle 1, a camera 42F photting a front side and a camera 42R photting the work machine at a rear side ... are mounted and connected to the control device 30. In this embodiment, the cameras 42F and 42R are arranged respectively in an upper front part and an upper rear part of a roof of the cabin 11."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in the combination of Tascione and Maitre to use … wherein the at least one sensor chamber is arranged at a rear upper corner of the body as disclosed in Ogura with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved operability of the AV sensors. [See at least Ogura [0090].]
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tascione, in view of Knowles.
As per claim 15, Tascione fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect particles. However, Knowles teaches this limitation [see at least Knowles [0129] "… when the invention is used in an autonomous vehicle, it is desirable that such sensors be located proximate an air intake port or air exhaust port of the autonomous control system used to control the vehicle."; [0118] "Additional sensors (not shown) may be incorporated into the above system to detect the presence of contaminants within the cabin 1. For instance, additional sensors may be incorporated into the system to detect the presence and amount of dust, nanoparticles, diesel particulates, SO.sub.2 and methane in the cabin 1."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect particles as disclosed in Knowles with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of the safety of occupants within a vehicle. [See at least Knowles [0008].]
As per claim 17, Tascione fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect air pollution. However, Knowles teaches this limitation [see at least Knowles [0129] "… when the invention is used in an autonomous vehicle, it is desirable that such sensors be located proximate an air intake port or air exhaust port of the autonomous control system used to control the vehicle."; [0118] "Additional sensors (not shown) may be incorporated into the above system to detect the presence of contaminants within the cabin 1. For instance, additional sensors may be incorporated into the system to detect the presence and amount of dust, nanoparticles, diesel particulates, SO.sub.2 and methane in the cabin 1."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect air pollution as disclosed in Knowles with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of the safety of occupants within a vehicle. [See at least Knowles [0008].]
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tascione, in view of Min.
As per claim 16, Tascione fails to disclose … wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect moisture. However, Min teaches this limitation [see at least Min [0007] "The present invention is conceived to solve the problems, and provides an apparatus and a method of detecting liquid leakage within a battery pack by using ...a moisture detecting sensor... ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle as disclosed in Tascione to use … wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect moisture as disclosed in Min with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of operating a moisture detecting sensor to be on only for a region requiring the detection of the generation of the liquid leakage, thereby preventing unnecessary energy consumption. [See at least Min [0014].]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668