DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is drafted in response to amendments/remarks dated 07/08/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected as cited below. This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Specification Objections
Examiner withdraws the title objection in view of Applicant’s arguments.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner withdraws the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 15 in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 7 and 8:
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant cites ¶ [0036] of the specification and states, on page 11 of the remarks, “That is, the flameout state refers to "an engine of the vehicle flaming out" as understood by those skilled in the art.” Examiner disagrees that the term “flaming out” is well known in the automotive arts. Examiner maintains that this term is widely used in an aerospace setting, yet very uncommon in road vehicle arts. A flameout state may refer to any one of a host of engine functions, both operationally normal and abnormal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to discern the scope of the claims, thus the claims (7 and 8) remain indefinite.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-15:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 8 both recite a “flameout state”, yet the specification does not define this term. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a flameout state may describe fuel starvation, extinguishing of a spark, component failure, compressor stall, or even catastrophic engine damage. This term is widely used in aerospace and aviation, yet very uncommon in the automotive industry. For these reasons, the claim is unclear, and thus indefinite. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret a “flameout state” to mean the ignition of a vehicle being in the OFF state (e.g. no key detected and engine not running).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al.
(US Pub. 2018/0105139 A1; hereafter Park), in view of Liu (CN 109459333 A; hereafter Liu; see PE2E translation attached to Office action).
Park was cited in the previous Office action.
Liu was cited in the IDS dated 01/15/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches:
A vehicle control method for a vehicle provided with an ultra wide band (UWB) sensor (rain sensor 160) configured to measure a rainfall value (At least ¶ [0052] “the rain sensor 160 can distinguish between a clear weather and a rainy situation and detect how much rainfall is in the rainy situation.”), the method comprising:
waking up the UWB sensor in response to a trigger instruction for starting rainfall detection, to cause the UWB sensor to measure a rainfall value (At least ¶ [0069] “When the driver gets on the vehicle 100 and starts an engine (602), and sets the multifunction switch 510 to the ‘auto” mode (604), the body control module 502 determines a glass specification of the windshield 112 and prepares to detect a rainfall situation by activating the rain sensor 160 in response to the ‘auto’ mode setting of the multifunction switch 510.”);
acquiring the rainfall value measured by the UWB sensor (At least ¶ [0072] “If it is determined to be in a rainfall situation (‘Yes’ in 608), current rainfall is measured (610). The rainfall may be determined through the amount of light incident onto the light-receiving unit 266 of the rain sensor 160.”); and
controlling the vehicle to execute a preset control instruction action according to the rainfall value (At least ¶ [0074] “When the rainfall exceeds the predetermined reference value (‘Yes’ in 612), the rain sensor 160 transmits information on the rainfall situation to the control module 502, and the body control module 502 generates a wiper control signal corresponding to the information on the rainfall transmitted by the rain sensor 160 and drives the wiper 170.”).
Although Park teaches a sensor configured to measure a rainfall value (At least ¶ [0052] “the rain sensor 160 can distinguish between a clear weather and a rainy situation and detect how much rainfall is in the rainy situation.”), it does not explicitly teach that the sensor is an ultra wide band (UWB) sensor.
However, Liu, within the same field of endeavor, teaches an ultra wide band (UWB) sensor used to measure soil moisture (At least page 2, ¶ 4 “two UWB sensors 105 for detecting soil moisture”).
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 Park with Liu. This modification would have been obvious as both Park and Liu contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (moisture sensing). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would want to select sensors which provide the most efficient and precise operation. Using UWB sensors yields lower power consumption than others, all while providing higher spatial accuracy. A designer of the Park system would have noticed these benefits and potentially selected UWB sensors based on their use in Liu.
Liu further teaches:
wherein the waking up the UWB sensor, to cause the UWB sensor to measure the rainfall value comprises:
controlling a signal emitter of the UWB sensor to emit an electromagnetic wave signal (At leastpage 4, ¶ 4 “the UWB sensor 105 emits electromagnetic wave penetrating soil sample…”);
controlling a signal receiver of the UWB sensor to receive the electromagnetic wave signal propagated through a preset spatial range (At least page 5, ¶ 6 “the laser emitter 125 is fixed to a UWB sensor 105. laser irradiating the target fixed to the other UWB sensor 105.” The other UWB sensor, in this case, is the receiver.); and
calculating and obtaining the rainfall value according to a time of flight of the received electromagnetic wave signal (At least page 4, ¶ 2 “flying time distance measuring method mainly using the signal flight time to measure the distance between the node between the two asynchronous transceiver. bidirectional flying time method each module will generate a separate timestamp from the start … so as to calculate the pulse signal flight time between two modules, so as to determine the flight distance S.” and page 4, ¶ 5 “the amount of water content will affect the electromagnetic wave transmission speed and attenuation speed in the soil …. water content in soil with the UWB data 105 measured by the sensor are in linear relationship. such as soil moisture content data as Y, the UWB sensors 105 measuring data is X. can be formula Y=aX + b. a and b are constant coefficients.” Moisture content Y is analogous to the claimed rainfall value. Rainfall may soak into soil and create moisture.) reflecting propagation speeds of the electromagnetic wave signal in water and in air (At least page 4, ¶ 3 “The invention uses the electromagnetic wave propagation theory of different speed in different media, the traditional UWB sensor as a new using manner …”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Park and Liu teaches The vehicle control method according to claim 1, Park further teaches:
wherein the vehicle comprises a vehicle window (windshield 112), and before the response to a trigger instruction for starting rainfall detection, the vehicle control method further comprises:
sending the trigger instruction for starting rainfall detection when it is detected that the vehicle is in a flameout state and the vehicle window of the vehicle is in an open state, or
sending the trigger instruction for starting rainfall detection when it is detected that the vehicle is in an ignition state (At least ¶ [0069] “When the driver gets on the vehicle 100 and starts an engine (602), and sets the multifunction switch 510 to the ‘auto” mode (604), the body control module 502 determines a glass specification of the windshield 112 and prepares to detect a rainfall situation by activating the rain sensor 160 in response to the ‘auto’ mode setting of the multifunction switch 510.”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Park and Liu teaches The vehicle control method according to claim 7, Park further teaches:
controlling the UWB sensor to remain in a sleep state when it is detected that the vehicle is in the flameout state, and it is detected that the vehicle window of the vehicle is in a closed state (At least ¶ [0069] “When the driver gets on the vehicle 100 and starts an engine (602), and sets the multifunction switch 510 to the ‘auto” mode (604), the body control module 502 determines a glass specification of the windshield 112 and prepares to detect a rainfall situation by activating the rain sensor 160 in response to the ‘auto’ mode setting of the multifunction switch 510.” Activating the sensor at ignition on indicates that the senor was in a sleep state when the vehicle was off (flameout state).).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Park and Liu teaches The vehicle control method according to claim 1, Liu further teaches:
wherein the waking up the UWB sensor, to cause the UWB sensor to measure the rainfall value further comprises:
measuring a proportion of water in the detection space (At least page 4, ¶ 4 “UWB
electromagnetic wave sensor release through the soil, different component proportion in the soil directly influences the transmission speed of the electromagnetic wave, thereby affecting the measurement data of UWB …”), as a ratio of a volume of water to a volume of the detection space at a moment (At least page 4, ¶ 5 “the amount of water content will affect the electromagnetic wave transmission speed and attenuation speed in the soil …” An amount of water content in a defined space is analogous to a ratio of a volume of water to a volume of detection space (in this case, soil).), based on the time of flight of the received electromagnetic wave signal (At least page 4, ¶ 2 “the basic work principle of
UWB sensor is flying time measuring method. flying time distance measuring method mainly using the signal flight time to measure the distance between the node between the two asynchronous transceiver.”), and
using the ratio as an index to measure the rainfall value (At least page 4, ¶ 5 “water content in soil with the UWB data 105 measured by the sensor are in linear relationship. such as soil moisture content data as Y, the UWB sensors 105 measuring data is X. can be formula Y=aX + b. a and b are constant coefficients.”).
Claim 10 describes a vehicle which performs the method detailed in claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis. Additionally, Liu teaches a vehicle (vehicle 100), processor and memory (body control module 502. Both a processor and memory are implicit in a controller.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Park and Liu teaches The vehicle according to claim 10, Park further teaches wherein the UWB sensor is arranged on a vehicle body of the vehicle (At least ¶ [0041] “A windshield 112 is provided on a front upper side of a main body …” and ¶ [0045] “The rain sensor 160 is installed so as to be in close contact with the inside (passenger room side) of the windshield 112.”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Park and Liu teaches The vehicle according to claim 11, Park further teaches wherein the UWB sensor is arranged at a top of a front end of the vehicle (See FIG. 1, rain sensor 160 at the top of the front end of the vehicle 100.), a top of a rear end of the vehicle or a top of a middle portion of the vehicle.
Claim 13 describes a vehicle which performs the method detailed in claim 9, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Park and Liu teaches The vehicle according to claim 10, Park further teaches wherein the UWB signal emitter (rain sensor 160) and the UWB signal receiver (antenna 152) are arranged at a top of the vehicle (See FIG. 1 which shows the antenna 152 and rain sensor 160 both on top of the vehicle 100.), and the UWB signal receiver is arranged opposite to the UWB signal emitter at a preset distance (At least ¶ [0043] “An antenna 152 is designed for receiving broadcasting/communication signals of telematics …” Additionally, see FIG. 1 which shows antenna 152 arranged opposite to the signal emitter (rain sensor 160).).
Claim 15 describes a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processer, perform the method detailed in claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis. Additionally, Liu teaches a computer-readable medium storing instructions (body control module 502. A tangible memory (i.e. computer-readable medium) is implicit in a controller (e.g. body control module).).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Liu, in further view of Momcilovich et al. (US Pub. 2017/0130508 A1; hereafter Momcilovich).
Momcilovich was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Park and Liu teaches The vehicle control method according to claim 1. Park further teaches wherein the vehicle comprises a vehicle window (Park – “windshield 112”).
The combination of Park and Liu does not teach:
and the controlling the vehicle to execute a preset control instruction action according to the rainfall value comprises:
determining that the rainfall value reaches a preset window closing rainfall threshold, and controlling the vehicle window to be closed, in response to detecting that the vehicle window is in an open state.
However, Momcilovich, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
determining that the rainfall value reaches a preset window closing rainfall threshold (At least ¶ [0021] “Next, in a block 225, the computer 105 determines whether data from one or more sensors 115 indicates a presence of precipitation. If precipitation is detected, a block 240 is executed next.” The threshold, in this case, is the detection of precipitation.), and controlling the vehicle window to be closed, in response to detecting that the vehicle window is in an open state (At least ¶ [0024] “In the block 240, which may follow the block 225 as described above, the computer 105 actuates mechanisms such as are known, e.g., motors or the like, to close the vehicle 101 windows. Following the block 240, a block 245 is executed next. …”).
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 combination of Park/Liu with Momcilovich. This modification would have been obvious as both the Park/Liu combination and Momcilovich contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (moisture sensing). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would welcome the utility of closing the windows of a vehicle when rain is detected. A designer of the Park system would understand that vehicle owners may help prevent interior damage by using the Momcilovich closing of windows. This may broaden the appeal of the Park system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park, Liu, and Momcilovich teaches The vehicle control method according to claim 2. Park further teaches:
wherein the vehicle comprises a wiper (a wiper 170), and the controlling the vehicle to execute a preset control instruction action according to the rainfall value further comprises:
determining that the rainfall value meets a preset rain wiping condition, and controlling the wiper to wipe rain at a target speed, in response to detecting that the vehicle is in a driving state (At least ¶ [0038] “the computerized controller controls operation of the wiper in response to an indication of rain over a predetermined threshold or a metric representing amount/intensity of rain”),
wherein the target speed is determined according to a preset mapping relationship, and the mapping relationship represents a corresponding relationship between a speed of the wiper and the rainfall value (At least ¶ [0038] “the controller adjusts parameters for computing a metric representing amount or intensity of rain from the signals of the rain sensor such that the wiper operates at a desirable speed/frequency corresponding to level of incident rain for windshields of different glass types.” FIG. 3 shows a preset mapping relationship.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park, Liu, and Momcilovich teaches The vehicle control method according to claim 3. Park further teaches:
wherein the rain wiping condition is that the rainfall value is greater than the window closing rainfall threshold (At least ¶ [0038] “the computerized controller controls operation of the wiper in response to an indication of rain over a predetermined threshold or a metric representing amount/intensity of rain.”), and the controlling the wiper to wipe rain at a target speed comprises:
determining a target speed gear for an action of the wiper according to the rainfall value, and controlling the wiper to wipe rain at a speed of the target speed gear (At least ¶ [0045] “… the rain sensor 160 senses an intensity or an amount of rainwater by itself and helps to automatically control operation speed or operation time of the wiper 170.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park, Liu, and Momcilovich teaches The vehicle control method according to claim 4. Park further teaches:
wherein the determining a target speed gear for an action of the wiper according to the rainfall value, and controlling the wiper to wipe rain at a speed of the target speed gear comprises:
controlling the wiper to act at a first speed if the rainfall value is greater than the window closing rainfall threshold and less than a first rainfall threshold (At least ¶ [0074] “When there is large rainfall, the body control module 502 controls that the wiper 170 operates fast and, when there is small rainfall, speed of the wiper 170 also decreases.”), or
controlling the wiper to act at a second speed if the rainfall value is greater than the first rainfall threshold and less than a second rainfall threshold, the second speed being greater than the first speed, or
controlling the wiper to act at a third speed if the rainfall value is greater than the second rainfall threshold, the third speed being greater than the second speed,
wherein the first rainfall threshold is greater than the window closing rainfall threshold, and the second rainfall threshold is greater than the first rainfall threshold (At least ¶ [0074] “When there is large rainfall, the body control module 502 controls that the wiper 170 operates fast and, when there is small rainfall, speed of the wiper 170 also decreases.” The first threshold being small rainfall and the second threshold being large rainfall.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Liu, in view of Momcilovich, in further view of Salter et al. (US Pub. 2019/0152477 A1; hereafter Salter).
Salter was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Park, Liu, and Momcilovich teaches The vehicle control method according to claim 5.
The combination of Park, Liu, and Momcilovich does not teach:
controlling in-vehicle multimedia to perform rainfall prompting and speed limit warning, and
controlling the vehicle to drive at a limited speed in the case of rainfall, in response to the rainfall value being greater than the second rainfall threshold.
However, Salter, within the same field or endeavor, teaches:
controlling in-vehicle multimedia to perform rainfall prompting and speed limit warning (At least ¶ [0059] “the computer 105 can send an instruction to the HMI 123 to display a textual notification. Alternatively, or additionally, the computer 105 can actuate a haptic device and/or a light and/or an audio cue on the HMI 123.”), and
controlling the vehicle to drive at a limited speed in the case of rainfall, in response to the rainfall value being greater than the second rainfall threshold (At least ¶ [0016] “Actuating the component can include changing the speed of the vehicle based on the amount and type of precipitation, and the speed of a vehicle”).
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 combination of Park/ROH/Momcilovich with Salter. This modification would have been obvious as both the Park/ROH/Momcilovich combination and Salter contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle rain sensing). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that rain sensors may be used for more than just automatic wipers and windows. A designer of the Park system may include the automatic speed control, as taught by Salter, in order to increase the safety of the vehicles occupants. Changing the speed of an autonomous vehicle based on the type and amount of precipitation may help the vehicle navigate in poor weather conditions, thus increasing passenger safety and comfort.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights