DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims use the formulation “even when” which is indefinite. For example, claim 4 recites in part:
the autonomous driving control unit performs any control of restricting vehicle speed in autonomous driving, reducing autonomous driving level, and discontinuing autonomous driving, in response to the contamination detection unit detecting contamination on the sensor even after spraying of the cleaning liquid is continued for the predetermined liquid cleaning time.
This “even after” could mean simply “after,” or it could mean: when this condition does not exist and “even” when it does, either way. Both interpretations have written description. In the former interpretation, Fig. 3 shows that the system drops down in autonomy level in S122 when contamination is detected “after” trying to clean the senor because the system determines that the sensor is not improved (NO out of S120). In the latter interpretation the system can drop down in autonomy at S122 “after” trying to clean the sensor as just discussed and the system can also simply determine that liquid cleaning is not possible (NO out of S114) and therefore drop down in autonomy without trying to clean the sensor with liquid. This is the “either way” interpretation.
For examination purposes, the “even after” phrase will be interpreted as just “after”.
Claim 4 is also rejected for being indefinite for reciting “any control of”. For examination purposes this phrase can broadly and reasonably be interpreted to teach that if the contamination is detected the system can performs any single one of the listed options, such as any single one yet not necessarily more than one of: restricting vehicle speed in autonomous driving, or reducing autonomous driving level, or discontinuing autonomous driving. It is possible that future amendments could require all these options, and with evidence from the original disclosure proving this has written description, the examiner will reevaluate the claim based on this new embodiment.
Therefore, the above quoted clause from claim 4 can be interpreted to mean:
the autonomous driving control unit performs…discontinuing autonomous driving, in response to the contamination detection unit detecting contamination on the sensor…after spraying of the cleaning liquid is continued for the predetermined liquid cleaning time.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US2024/0181999) in view of Wakamiya (US2020/0231125).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches:
A sensor cleaning apparatus comprising (see Fig. 2 for item 100):
an object detection unit that detects an object in a vicinity of a vehicle from information acquired by at least one sensor monitoring the vehicle vicinity (see Fig. 2 for lidar and cameras 6Lf, Lcf, 6Lb, and 6Cb. These are generally referred to as sensors 6.);
a contamination detection unit that detects contamination on the at least one sensor (see paragraph 0268 for a “dirt sensor that detects dirt” on the sensors 6.);
a cleaning control unit that continues air cleaning in which high-pressure air is sprayed onto the at least one sensor for a predetermined air cleaning time, in response to the contamination detection unit detecting that water droplets are attached to a sensor surface of the at least one sensor (see Fig. 8, especially S102 for performing “air cleaning…for predetermined time”. See paragraph 0267 for blowing air to remove water droplets. See paragraph 0270 for teaching that either air or liquid can be used for sensor cleaning. See paragraph 0271 for teaching that “When the weather is rainy, dirt such as falling raindrops, water drops and mud splashed from the road surface is likely to adhere to the external sensor 6. Therefore, when the weather is rainy, it is preferable to operate the air curtain devices,” which are air jets. See paragraph 0272 for determining that the weather is rainy and then using the air jets. Note that according to paragraph 0271 “dirt” can include raindrops.); and
an autonomous driving control unit that (see Fig. 8 for a YES out of S104. See Fig. 2 and 3 for the vehicle control unit 3 including the external sensors 6. See paragraph 0206 for the external sensors 6 being part of the vehicle control unit 3. See paragraph 0207 for “the vehicle control unit 3 autonomously” drives the host vehicle.)
controls autonomous driving of the vehicle using information on the object detected by the object detection unit (see Fig. 2 and 3 for the vehicle control unit 3 including the external sensors 6. See paragraph 0206 for the external sensors 6 being part of the vehicle control unit 3. See paragraph 0207 for “the vehicle control unit 3 autonomously” drives the host vehicle.), and
outputs a command to the cleaning control unit to clean the at least one sensor with a cleaning liquid when the contamination detection unit detects contamination on the at least one sensor and determines that cleaning with the liquid cleaner is possible (see paragraph 0268 for a “dirt sensor that detects dirt” on the sensors 6. See Fig. 10, YES out of step S202 and paragraph 0306 for indicating that the liquid cleaning condition is satisfied. See also paragraph 0309 for determining that there is still more cleaning liquid and thus the “cleaning using the cleaning liquid is possible,” as recited in paragraph 0314.),
wherein the cleaning control unit
controls at least one liquid cleaning actuator to clean the at last one sensor by spraying the cleaning liquid based on the command (see Fig. 10, S202, and Fig. 4.).
Yet Suzuki does not further teach:
wherein the cleaning control unit
notifies the autonomous driving control unit that the at least one sensor is being cleaned with the cleaning liquid.
However, Wakamiya teaches:
wherein the cleaning control unit
notifies the autonomous driving control unit that the at least one sensor is being cleaned with the cleaning liquid (see Wakamiya Fig. 3 for a system in which cleaning is needed for the vehicle sensors. The autonomous system is notified. If autonomous driving is still possible, the cleaning will occur (S205). If not, the vehicle state will change to adjust the sensor usage (S208) and then the cleaning will occur (S207). See paragraph 0036 for the cleaning device that “cleans dirt off the detector….while continuing autonomous driving”. See paragraph 0049 for changing of the range of the sensors and cleaning the sensors while autonomous system is operating yet notified of the cleaning. See Fig. 3, step S210 for the autonomous system being notified that the cleaning is completed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Suzuki, to add the additional features of: the cleaning control unit notifies the autonomous driving control unit that the at least one sensor is being cleaned with the cleaning liquid, as taught by Wakamiya. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid collisions by going too fast for the autonomous system while the sensors of the system are being cleaned, as recognized by Wakamiya (see paragraph 0041).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
In the present published disclosure, paragraph 0047 states that the reason why the cleaning control unit would notify the autonomous driving control unit that cleaning is in process is not only that driving may be effected by the cleaning but also that the “cleaning liquid is dispersed in the vicinity of the vehicle”. Essentially, the host vehicle does not want to spray liquid on nearby pedestrians or cyclists, as clarified by paragraphs 0041-0042. Air blowing on a sensor does not affect pedestrians or cyclists in the same way as liquid. According to the end of paragraph 0045, if the liquid cannot be sprayed for any reason the system goes to step S122. According to paragraph 0050, in step S122 the autonomous vehicle may take some action, such as reduce the speed of the vehicle, reduce the autonomy level, or stop.
Note that in Wakamiya, as in the present disclosure, the autonomous system may slow down the vehicle when sensor cleaning occurs. See Wakamiya paragraph 0041 for the changing of the range of the sensors being related to slowing down the vehicle, which is also taught in the present disclosure as a reason for the cleaning system alerting the autonomy system that cleaning is occurring. Thus, according to Wakamiya, paragraph 0041, collisions can be avoided. As in the present disclosure, the autonomous driving system is subordinate to the sensor cleaning system, not the other way around.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki and Wakamiya teach the sensor cleaning apparatus according to claim 1.
Suzuki further teaches:
The sensor cleaning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0217 for multiple sensors on the vehicle and multiple sensor cleaning units. For example, see item 102f, which paragraph 0217 identifies as the front lidar cleaner unit); and
the autonomous driving control unit outputs a command to the cleaning control unit to clean a target sensor to be cleaned with the cleaning liquid, in response to determination that
at least one sensor among the plurality of sensors is the target sensor to be cleaned and
at least one sensor other than the target sensor to be cleaned, among the plurality of sensors, is functioning in a normal manner (for these two hollow bullets and the solid bullet above it see Suzuki, Fig. 10 and paragraph 0298 teach what “each cleaner device” does “by the cleaner control unit.” Paragraph 0299 teaches that “each cleaner device” can clean “the external sensor 6” but if the “dirt or the like…cannot be removed by the injection of the air” then “the cleaner control unit determines a state of the external sensor 6 based on information from a dirt sensor…that detects dirt…and discharges the cleaning liquid to the external sensor 6”. Every intimation in these paragraphs is that each external sensor 6 has its own cleaner control unit and dirt sensor that clean each external sensor individually when needed. That is also supported by Fig. 3, which shows, for example, item 102f. Paragraph 0217 identifies item 102f as the front lidar cleaner unit. Fig. 3 shows that item 102f contains a “first air curtain device” with its own control unit, and a “first cleaner device” with its own control unit.” Paragraph 0368 also teaches that “Each cleaner unit may be individually provided” but in some cases they can be arranged as “a single unit.” For example, the headlights could be commanded to be cleaned together. Yet there are multiple lidar units. Because paragraph 0299 teaches what “each” lidar unit does, this means that one lidar cleaning unit could detect dirt and clean it, while another lidar cleaning unit does not detect dirt and does not perform cleaning. See Fig. 3 and paragraph 0220 for the “integrated control unit 111 that controls these cleaner units.” See also Fig. 3 and paragraphs 0225-0226, noting that the vehicle control unit 3 is the autonomous vehicle controller and can have the integrated control unit 111 integrated into it.).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki and Wakamiya teach the sensor cleaning apparatus according to claim 1.
Suzuki further teaches:
The sensor cleaning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the cleaning control unit does not notify the autonomous driving control unit that the sensor is being cleaned in response to the sensor being air-cleaned (see Fig. 8, S108 for setting the air blowing strength. The system does not notify the autonomous controller, it just cleans the sensor. See also paragraphs 0247-0248. It seems that in at least one embodiment of Suzuki air is blowing in a lidar sensor all the time to rid it of any leaves or bugs. Not notification is necessary or provided.).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki and Wakamiya teach the sensor cleaning apparatus according to claim 1.
Suzuki further teaches:
The sensor cleaning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the autonomous driving control unit interrupts air cleaning and outputs a command to the cleaning control unit to clean with the cleaning liquid in response to detection function of the sensor not being improved after air cleaning is continued for the predetermined air cleaning time (see paragraph 0299 for a system that uses air but when the “dirt or the like…cannot be removed by the injection of air” the system discharges liquid. See paragraph 0300 for the system that will “first inject air”. See paragraph 0269 for blowing air for a “predetermined time”.).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches:
A sensor cleaning method comprising (see Fig. 8):
detecting an object in a vehicle vicinity from information acquired by a sensor that monitors the vehicle vicinity (for the remainder of the rejection see the substantially similar bullets points in the rejection of claim 1.);
controlling autonomous driving of the vehicle using information on the detected object;
detecting contamination on the sensor; continuing air cleaning in which high-pressure air is sprayed onto the sensor for a predetermined air cleaning time, in response to detecting that water droplets are attached to a sensor surface of the sensor; and
controlling a liquid cleaning actuator to clean the sensor by spraying a cleaning liquid, in response to the contamination on the sensor being detected and capable of being cleaned with the cleaning liquid.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a sensor cleaning program for causing a computer to implement (see claim 9):
detecting an object in a vehicle vicinity from information acquired by a sensor that monitors the vehicle vicinity (for the remainder of the rejection see the substantially similar bullets points in the rejection of claim 1.);
detecting contamination on the sensor;
controlling an air cleaning actuator and continuing air cleaning in which high-pressure air is sprayed onto the sensor for a predetermined air cleaning time, in response to detecting contamination on the sensor, in response to detecting that water droplets are attached to a sensor surface of the sensor;
controlling autonomous driving of the vehicle using the information on the object detected and outputs a command to clean the sensor with a cleaning liquid, in response to detecting contamination on the sensor and determining that cleaning with the cleaning liquid is possible; and
controlling a liquid cleaning actuator to clean the sensor by spraying with the cleaning liquid based on the command, and notifying that the sensor is being cleaned with the cleaning liquid.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US2024/0181999) in view of Wakamiya (US2020/0231125) in further view of Suh et al. (US2023/0219589).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki and Wakamiya teach the sensor cleaning apparatus according to claim 1.
Yet Suzuki and Wakamiya do not further teach:
The sensor cleaning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the autonomous driving control unit discontinues cleaning of the sensor with the cleaning liquid in response to the object detection unit detecting a predetermined object that is not to come into contact with the cleaning liquid within a certain range from the sensor, in response to the sensor being cleaned with the cleaning liquid.
However, Suh teaches:
the autonomous driving control unit discontinues cleaning of the sensor with the cleaning liquid in response to the object detection unit detecting a predetermined object that is not to come into contact with the cleaning liquid within a certain range from the sensor, in response to the sensor being cleaned with the cleaning liquid (see paragraph 0058 for a system that will stop sensor cleaning if a pedestrian is detected nearby.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Suzuki and Wakamiya, to add the additional features of: the autonomous driving control unit discontinues cleaning of the sensor with the cleaning liquid in response to the object detection unit detecting a predetermined object that is not to come into contact with the cleaning liquid within a certain range from the sensor, in response to the sensor being cleaned with the cleaning liquid, as taught by Suh. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent a pedestrian from getting splashed on, as recognized by Suh (see paragraph 0005).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and all other rejection can be resolved, such as 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections.
Claim 4 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The sensor cleaning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the cleaning control unit continues spraying of the cleaning liquid onto the sensor for a predetermined liquid cleaning time, and
the autonomous driving control unit performs any control of restricting vehicle speed in autonomous driving, reducing autonomous driving level, and discontinuing autonomous driving, in response to the contamination detection unit detecting contamination on the sensor even after spraying of the cleaning liquid is continued for the predetermined liquid cleaning time.
Suzuki et al. (US2024/0181999) teaches the first clause as follows:
the cleaning control unit continues spraying of the cleaning liquid onto the sensor for a predetermined liquid cleaning time (see paragraph 0019 for determining a period of time in which the liquid cleaner is used. See paragraphs 0239 and 0329 for determining an “operation time” of the “cleaning liquid” and adjusting it for strength. See paragraph 0330 for this adjustment being made for “each cleaner” air and liquid. Thus, in some embodiments a predetermined amount of liquid is sprayed. In others, the spray is for a predetermined amount of time.).
Yet Suzuki does not further teach the second clause. A discussion of how the examiner is interpreted the clause can be found in the USC 112(b) section of this detailed action.
The closest prior art is Wakamiya (US2020/0231125). One could make a strained argument that Wakamiya teaches the present clause in question (the second bullet of the present claim) but the problem with the argument is that the “autonomous driving” recited in claim 4 is the initial autonomous driving level, not an already restricted driving level.
The argument that Wakamiya teaches the second bullet of present claim 4 and the arguments against that go as follows: Wakamiya teaches in paragraph 0044 that the system determines if cleaning is completed or not, in Fig. 3, S208. One way is determining that a sensor has been cleaned for a second predetermined time. The sensor is checked with a dirt detection sensor to see if it is clean after this third predetermined time. If the sensor is not clean, the system will drop down to manual driving mode. But the system may not go directly to manual mode. In some cases the system will look for other sensors to take over the job of the dirty sensor. This is one of the “modifications” discussed beginning in paragraph 0050. Within this section, paragraph 0066 teaches that, in some cases, the system can determine if the vehicle can drive without the detection sensor that is dirty. If so, autonomous driving can be continued. But in that case, the “required detection range is narrowed.” When the detection range is narrowed the vehicle drives at lower speeds because it has less time to stop as compared to at high speeds. Thus, it still drives autonomously, but in a restricted manner. A broad reasonable interpretation of this teaching is that the sensor that needs to be cleaned has a longer range than another sensor that does not need to be cleaned. The host vehicle can still drive but only at a lower speed due to the shorter range sensor being the only one available at the moment. Or the system wishes to be cautious in case the only working sensor fails.
The problem with this is that S208 in Fig. 3 comes after the system has already determined in S203 that continuous autonomous driving is not possible (NO out of S203) and has reduced the driving state for that reason (S206). So does the above discussion still fulfil the present clause in that case? To get to S208, the system has already gone to S206 which is change the vehicle state, in other words, the system has already restricted the autonomous driving in some way.
In one sense, this does not matter because even when restricted, the system is still driving autonomously and the claim does not say that the system stops driving with full autonomy. Rather, the claim merely says that the system simply restricts or stops driving with some unspecified level of autonomy to a lower one or none at all. In that sense, Fig. 3 could be interpreted as meeting the present clause. But a reasonable interpretation of the claim is that the restriction mentioned in the present claim is the initial restriction. The examiner finds that it is unreasonable to interpret the present claim as including a system in which autonomy has already been restricted, and then it is restricted even more.
It would be much more satisfying if as rejection using Wakamiya did not require zeroing on S207 through S209 and having to make an argument about a method in which the autonomous system has already been restricted once. How about the branch from a YES out of S203 to S205? Does that also read on the present clause? That comes before any state change to autonomy occurs in S206.
The problem with this branch is that the disclosure of Wakamiya offers very scant description of S205. Based on the fact that it has a box within a box, it appears to a sub-routine. In S201, a sensor is found to need cleaning and the vehicle is being driven autonomously (YES out of S202). At least for a few more moments, the vehicle can continue to do so. Therefore, the system can move to S205.
But how does the system know when to stop cleaning once it arrives at S205? Does the system simply clean for a predetermined time, or does a dirt detector sensor determine whether or not the cleaning has been successful (as in S208)? What happens if the cleaning is not successful? The disclosure does not go into much detail.
The examiner can’t mix and match the items in the method of Fig. 3 with a view toward building the present application. That would be hindsight. But a 35 USC §102/103 analysis is permitted when reasonable. Even if one had no knowledge of the present application one could reasonable ask the above questions. To determine the answers it’s important to note that S205 returns right back to S201. In one reasonable interpretation, the question in S203 is almost like asking: does the driving situation allow for a quick splash of liquid on the sensor? If yes, go to S205.
In this sense, if the cleaning in S205 is performed for a predetermined amount of time, the system would then go right back to S201 to determine if there is still a need for cleaning, and if that cleaning was again possible in S203, the cleaning in S205 would start again. Since it is well known in the art, including in Wakamiya (see S209), that sometimes sensors simply cannot get clean, this would lead to the vehicle getting stuck in a loop, and using up all its cleaning fluid.
To solve that problem, the sub-system of S205 could follow the cleaning in S205 with something akin of S208 where a sensor determines if the cleaning is complete using a dirt detector, and even if not complete, the system will still stop the cleaning loop after a predetermined amount of time, as in S209. But even in that case, the system after S205 does not drop down in autonomy level or turn off autonomy. Rather, as mentioned before, the system still goes right back to S201.
The long and short of it is this: In Wakamiya the system drops down in autonomy (S206) and then cleans the sensor (S207), whereas in the present claim the system cleans the sensor and then drops down in autonomy. Thus, the present clause states that the system will drop down in initial autonomy level when it is determined that there is still “contamination on the sensor…after spraying of the cleaning liquid…for the predetermined liquid cleaning time,” as recited in the present clause. That is not in Wakamiya.
Another close prior art is Hayashi (US2021/0009088). See Fig. 4 and paragraph 0072 for a system that cleans for a predetermined amount of time, and then displays a message that “cleaning cannot be performed”. But Hayashi says nothing about autonomy.
PNG
media_image1.png
958
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Another close prior art is Violetta (US2021/0107040) who teaches a vehicle 100 “configured to switch from autonomous mode and/or semi-autonomous mode to manual mode in a manner that optimizes sensor cleaning fluid usage of vehicle sensor cleaning system 125, in some implementations, to extend a travel distance of vehicle 100. Such switching can be initiated and/or caused by vehicle control system 105, vehicle operation system 115, and/or vehicle sensor cleaning system 125 according to various aspects of the present disclosure.”
Combining Violetta with Wakamiya would require at least arguing that the cleaning loop in S205 that goes back to S202 and then to S205 again would cause the system to run out of fluid, which is not mentioned whatsoever in Wakamiya. It would be difficult to defend an obviousness rejection with that one while also denying hindsight.
Hiroshi (WO2019049381) teaches in paragraph 0072 of the applicant-provided English translation for a system that “suppress the automatic driving based on the remaining amount of cleaning fluid.” Yet Hiroshi suffers from the same problem as Violetta.
Another close prior art is Moustafa et al. (US2022/0126878) who teaches in at least paragraph 0076 that the autonomous driving system can make decisions based on “Sensor cleaners”. See paragraph 0222 for dropping down in autonomy, as shown in Fig. 4, if the sensors are dirty. But Moustafa never says that the system will attempt to clean the sensor and, failing that, will drop down in autonomy.
Another close prior art is Marcotte et al. (US2022/0126865) who teaches that “if a camera providing image data of the road becomes dirty and provides poor image quality, the lane keeping autonomous function may be disabled while the following distance autonomous function remains enabled.” Higher level autonomous functions including ones that rely on the dirty camera sensor may be disabled, while lower level driver assistance functions, such as “basic cruise control” that rely on radar or sonar from a working sensor can remain active. The reason to drop down in autonomous functions is to ‘safely support an autonomous function” while avoiding a “collision, injury, or property damage” when a sensor is insufficiently working or unavailable, as recognized by Marcotte (see paragraph 0002).
Marcotte is a strong reference but does not consider the possibility that the sensors can be cleaned. Rather, Marcotte merely says that one or more sensors become dirty and then the system drops down in autonomy. Since Wakamiya provides no teaching that S205 involves anything more than a quick cleaning and then return to S202, Marcotte cannot be added because there’s no teaching in Wakamiya that after S205 the sensor can be determined to still be dirty and there is any other possibility but going to S205 for cleaning or changing vehicle state in S206 before cleaning, and that require intermediate traffic considerations in S203.
Claims 5-7 are potentially allowable at least due to their dependency.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Hsiao et al. (US2016/0272165) teaches in Fig. 7 attached below and claim 1 at least:
“A vehicle camera cleaning system, comprising: an air nozzle arranged proximate to the camera lens, the air nozzle being configured to expel air onto the camera lens; a water drop sensor comprising an infrared emitter and an infrared receiver, wherein the water drop sensor is configured to generate and transmit water drop sensor information indicating a percentage of infrared rays emitted by the infrared emitter that are received by the infrared receiver; a central controller comprising a processing unit including one or more processors, the central controller configured to control the operation of the air nozzle, wherein the central controller is further configured to: receive the water drop sensor information from the water drop sensor; determine whether there are water drops on the camera lens based on the water drop sensor information; and in response to determining there are water drops on the camera lens, generate an instruction to activate the air nozzle to expel air onto the camera lens to remove the water drops.”
PNG
media_image2.png
864
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665