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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/15/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one lighting unit is configured to generate a shadow in the region of interest is arranged on the commercial vehicle” and “at least one lighting unit is configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest” (in claims 4, 9 and 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 recites “a leak spot hypothesis” which should be corrected to “the leak spot hypothesis” in order to improve the form of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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: “processing unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
In Reference to Claim 1
In line 2 recites “at least one camera configured to detect leaks” however it is not clear as to what required by the claim since it looks like the “processing unit” is configured to detect leaks and not the camera (which is used to capture an image of the leak) therefore not clear if the recitations are requiring a camera with a special controller with control logic that detects leaks however “the processing unit” is already recited in line 4. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as at least one camera configured to capture images of leaks.
In Reference to Claims 4-5 and 9-10
Claim limitation “lighting unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim since the specification merely discloses the same language as the claim “lighting unit” without any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In Reference to Claim 4
In lines 2-3 recites “wherein at least one lighting unit is configured to
generate a shadow in the region of interest is arranged on the commercial vehicle” however it is not clear as to what is required by the claim since “lighting” devices such as headlights of the vehicles are normally used to create light and not shadows therefore recitations of “configured to generate a shadow” is not clear as to further limiting how the structure of the lighting unit are designed or placed, or how the device in combination of control unit with programing is performing such function. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the recitations only require at least on lighting unit which is capable generating the shadow.
In Reference to Claims 9-10
In lines 2-3 recites “wherein at least one lighting unit is configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest” however it is not clear as to what is required by the claim since “lighting” devices such as headlights of the vehicles are normally used to create light and not shadows therefore recitations of “configured to generate a shadow” is not clear as to further limiting how the structure of the lighting unit are designed or placed, or how the device in combination of control unit with programing is performing such function. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the recitations only require at least on lighting unit which is capable generating the shadow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
[101 Analysis Step 1]
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of mater.
The claim 1 is directed to a commercial vehicle (i.e. machine). Thus, claims 1 is one of four the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong I]
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A commercial vehicle comprising:
at least one camera configured to detect leaks, wherein the at least one camera is arranged and aligned to capture an image of a region of interest beneath the commercial vehicle,
wherein a processing unit is connected to the camera and is configured to read the image from the at least one camera at regular intervals when the commercial vehicle is stationary and to detect differences between the images and to classify them as a hypothesis, and when a leak spot hypothesis is verified, to determine its location in relation to a number of predetermined regions beneath the commercial vehicle in order to establish a defect hypothesis related to the cause of the leak.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretations, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “to read the image…”, “to detect difference…” and “to determine its location…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at photos and based on the comparison formulating a judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong II]
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A commercial vehicle comprising:
at least one camera configured to detect leaks, wherein the at least one camera is arranged and aligned to capture an image of a region of interest beneath the commercial vehicle,
wherein a processing unit is connected to the camera and is configured to read the image from the at least one camera at regular intervals when the commercial vehicle is stationary and to detect differences between the images and to classify them as a hypothesis, and when a leak spot hypothesis is verified, to determine its location in relation to a number of predetermined regions beneath the commercial vehicle in order to establish a defect hypothesis related to the cause of the leak.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract into a practical applications.
Regarding the additional limitations of “at least one camera configured to detect leaks…”, and “wherein a processing unit is connected to the camera” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a camera to perform the process of detecting (making photos). In particular, the “to detect leak” function can be performed via camera is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of taking photos), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “processing unit is connected to the camera” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and a known camera.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical filed, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2B]
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processing unit of a computer system in a vehicle to perform the “to read image…”, “to detect differences…” and “to determine its location…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in generic vehicle and camera. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “to detect leaks…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities (such as data gathering). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract ideas and do not recite additional elements integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-10 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. US 2018/0173961 to Jain et. al. (Jain) in view of Pub No. US 2019/0392656 A1 to Sarwar et. al. (Sarwar).
In Reference to Claim 1
Jain teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A commercial vehicle comprising:
at least one camera (108, 110) configured to detect leaks, wherein the at least one camera (108, 110) is arranged and aligned to capture an image of a region of interest beneath the commercial vehicle (100) (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs [0011] and [0032] “The vehicle 100 may include one or both of a forward facing camera 108 and a rearward facing camera 110. The methods disclosed herein include evaluating images of a parking location. Inasmuch as most people drive forwardly into a parking spot, a forward facing camera 108 may be preferred. However, for instances where a driver backs into a parking spot, a rearward facing camera 110 may be helpful. For purposes of the following disclosure, forward parking is assumed and only the forward camera 108 is used. However, the methods described herein may be used for rearward parking using the camera 110 in the same manner” and “The method 400 may then include performing 412 anomaly detection with respect to the residual image. For example, referring to FIGS. 5A to 5C. A representation of a stabilized arrival image is shown in FIG. 5A and a representation of a stabilized departure image is shown in FIG. 5B. The residual image based on these images is shown in FIG. 5C. As is apparent in FIG. 5C, a fluid stain is present that may indicate a fluid leak. The manner in which the residual image is analyzed to identify differences may include any image processing computational techniques known in the art. In some embodiments, the residual image may be processed by a machine learning algorithm trained to identify fluid leaks”),
wherein a processing unit (200) is connected to the camera (108, 110) and is configured to read the image from the at least one camera (108, 110) at regular intervals when the commercial vehicle is stationary (when the parking is detected) (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs [0025] and [0026] “The method 300 may include determining 306 whether parking was detected. Parking may be detected by detecting cessation of movement of the vehicle 100 for an above-threshold amount of time (e.g. 1 minute or more), removal of the key from the vehicle, exiting of the driver from the vehicle, or arrival at a known parking spot such as the driver's home, place of work, store, or other frequent location. A driver may program the controller 102 to recognize certain locations as parking locations” and “In response to detecting 306 parking, the method 300 may include storing 308 one or more arrival images and their corresponding locations from among the images and locations of steps 302, 304. For example, images and locations from step 302, 304 may be temporarily stored such that only the last M images and locations are retained. Upon detecting 306 parking, the arrival images may be selected from these temporarily stored images and corresponding locations. Alternatively, steps 302-304 may be performed upon detecting arrival within some proximity of a known parking location or upon the vehicle slowing to below some threshold speed that indicates potential parking”) and to detect differences between the images and to classify them as a hypothesis, and when a leak spot hypothesis is verified, to determine its location in relation to a number of predetermined regions beneath the commercial vehicle in order to establish a defect hypothesis related to the cause of the leak (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs [0032] and [0033] “The method 400 may then include performing 412 anomaly detection with respect to the residual image. For example, referring to FIGS. 5A to 5C. A representation of a stabilized arrival image is shown in FIG. 5A and a representation of a stabilized departure image is shown in FIG. 5B. The residual image based on these images is shown in FIG. 5C. As is apparent in FIG. 5C, a fluid stain is present that may indicate a fluid leak. The manner in which the residual image is analyzed to identify differences may include any image processing computational techniques known in the art. In some embodiments, the residual image may be processed by a machine learning algorithm trained to identify fluid leaks” and “If an anomaly is found 414 to be present, the method 400 may include performing 416 texture analysis and attempting to classify 418 the anomaly. Texture analysis may include identifying attributes such as color, reflectivity, and density of the anomaly. The attributes may then be used to classify 418 the anomaly. For example, a library of automotive fluids may be accessed by the controller that lists values or ranges of possible values for these attributes. Where the values for attributes identified by the texture analysis match those of an automotive fluid, that fluid may be determined to constitute the anomaly”).
Jain teaches to determine the leak based on comparing images however Jain do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to determine its location in relation to a number of predetermined regions beneath the commercial vehicle in order to establish a defect hypothesis related to the cause of the leak. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine its location in relation to a number of predetermined regions beneath the commercial vehicle in order to establish a defect hypothesis related to the cause of the leak. For example, Sarwar teaches to determine its location in relation to a number of predetermined regions beneath the commercial vehicle in order to establish a defect hypothesis related to the cause of the leak. Further Sarwar implicitly teaches that performing such step provides accurate and specific leak information to the user of the vehicle) (see at least Sarwar Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 19, 33, 40, 52, 54, 64 and 69). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jain to perform the step of to determine its location in relation to a number of predetermined regions beneath the commercial vehicle in order to establish a defect hypothesis related to the cause of the leak as taught by Sarwar in order to provide accurate and specific leak information to the user of the vehicle.
In Reference to Claim 2
The commercial vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the processing unit (200) is configured to distinguish at least one type of fluid leak selected from a group consisting of: fuel, cargo (water), transmission oil, axle bearing oil, battery fluid, brake fluid, coolant, urea, engine oil and power steering fluid (Jain and Sarwar teaches to determine the type of fluid being leaked from the vehicle and the fluids “fuel, cargo (water), transmission oil, axle bearing oil, battery fluid, brake fluid, coolant, urea, engine oil and power steering fluid” are all well known in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to be fluids within the vehicle therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that system of Jain in view of Sarwar would be configured to distinguish at least one type of fluid leak selected from a group consisting of: fuel, cargo (water), transmission oil, axle bearing oil, battery fluid, brake fluid, coolant, urea, engine oil and power steering fluid since they are well known fluid within the vehicles that can leak) (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraph 35) (see at least Sarwar Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 19, 33, 40, 52, 54, 64 and 69).
In Reference to Claim 3
The commercial vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the processing unit (200) is configured to issue an alarm upon verification of a leak spot hypothesis (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0035] “Where the classification is found 420 to be an automotive fluid, an alert may be generated 422. The alert may include illuminating a “check engine” light, displaying a textual message on a screen of an in-vehicle infotainment system, transmitting a message to a mobile phone of a driver, or other type of alert. The alert may include the classification of the type of fluid from step 418. The alert may indicate an amount of the fluid, such as determined from an area of the anomaly detected at step 414. Using the area of the anomaly and a viscosity of the detected fluid, the volume of leaked fluid may be determined. Using the elapsed time between arrival and departure and the volume, a rate of leakage may be determined. Using a known volume of the fluid in the vehicle, such as the volume of a reservoir holding the fluid or the manufacturer's recommendation for the volume of the fluid, the time until the fluid will be gone or reach a critical level may be determined from the leakage rate. The time until the level of the fluid is critical may be included in the alert”).
In Reference to Claim 6
The commercial vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the processing unit is configured to identity differences between images using image difference calculations (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0036] “The method 400 may then include performing 412 anomaly detection with respect to the residual image. For example, referring to FIGS. 5A to 5C. A representation of a stabilized arrival image is shown in FIG. 5A and a representation of a stabilized departure image is shown in FIG. 5B. The residual image based on these images is shown in FIG. 5C. As is apparent in FIG. 5C, a fluid stain is present that may indicate a fluid leak. The manner in which the residual image is analyzed to identify differences may include any image processing computational techniques known in the art. In some embodiments, the residual image may be processed by a machine learning algorithm trained to identify fluid leak”).
In Reference to Claim 7
The commercial vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the processing unit is configured to identify differences between images using a deep learning program (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0036] “The method 400 may then include performing 412 anomaly detection with respect to the residual image. For example, referring to FIGS. 5A to 5C. A representation of a stabilized arrival image is shown in FIG. 5A and a representation of a stabilized departure image is shown in FIG. 5B. The residual image based on these images is shown in FIG. 5C. As is apparent in FIG. 5C, a fluid stain is present that may indicate a fluid leak. The manner in which the residual image is analyzed to identify differences may include any image processing computational techniques known in the art. In some embodiments, the residual image may be processed by a machine learning algorithm trained to identify fluid leak”).
In Reference to Claim 8
The commercial vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the processing unit is configured to issue an alarm upon verification of the leak spot hypothesis (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraph [0035] “Where the classification is found 420 to be an automotive fluid, an alert may be generated 422. The alert may include illuminating a “check engine” light, displaying a textual message on a screen of an in-vehicle infotainment system, transmitting a message to a mobile phone of a driver, or other type of alert. The alert may include the classification of the type of fluid from step 418. The alert may indicate an amount of the fluid, such as determined from an area of the anomaly detected at step 414. Using the area of the anomaly and a viscosity of the detected fluid, the volume of leaked fluid may be determined. Using the elapsed time between arrival and departure and the volume, a rate of leakage may be determined. Using a known volume of the fluid in the vehicle, such as the volume of a reservoir holding the fluid or the manufacturer's recommendation for the volume of the fluid, the time until the fluid will be gone or reach a critical level may be determined from the leakage rate. The time until the level of the fluid is critical may be included in the alert”).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in view of Sarwar and further in view of Pub No. US 2019/0219241 A1 to Renaud et. al. (Renaud).
In Reference to Claim 4
Jain in view of Sarwar teaches (bolded and italic recitations below):
The commercial vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein at least one lighting unit (headlights) is configured to generate a shadow in the region of interest is arranged on the commercial vehicle (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 25-26 and 41-42) (see at least Sarwar Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 19, 33, 40, 52, 54, 64 and 69).
Jain in view of Sarwar teaches a vehicle which requires to have headlights to operate at night (as shown in Fig.1) however Jain in view of Sarwar do not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that the headlights are configured to generate a shadow in the region of interest is arranged on the commercial vehicle. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have headlights are configured to generate a shadow in the region of interest is arranged on the commercial vehicle. For example, Renaud teaches headlights are configured to generate a shadow in the region of interest is arranged on the commercial vehicle (see at least Renaud Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 3, 16, 31, 41-43). The substitution of one known element (headlight as shown in Renaud) for another (headlight as shown in Jain in view of Sarwar) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing of the claimed invention since the substitution of the headlight shown in Renaud would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing light to the driver in Jain in view of Sarwar.
In Reference to Claim 5
The commercial vehicle according to claim 4 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the at least one lighting unit (headlights) is arranged at a distance from the at least one camera (108, 110) (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 25-26 and 41-42).
In Reference to Claim 9
Jain in view of Sarwar teaches (bolded and italic recitations below):
The commercial vehicle according to claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein at least one lighting unit (headlights) is configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 25-26 and 41-42) (see at least Sarwar Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 19, 33, 40, 52, 54, 64 and 69).
Jain in view of Sarwar teaches a vehicle which requires to have headlights to operate at night (as shown in Fig.1) however Jain in view of Sarwar do not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that the headlights are configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have headlights are configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest. For example, Renaud teaches headlights are configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest (see at least Renaud Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 3, 16, 31, 41-43). The substitution of one known element (headlight as shown in Renaud) for another (headlight as shown in Jain in view of Sarwar) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing of the claimed invention since the substitution of the headlight shown in Renaud would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing light to the driver in Jain in view of Sarwar.
In Reference to Claim 10
Jain in view of Sarwar teaches (bolded and italic recitations below):
The commercial vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein at least one lighting unit (headlights) is configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest (see at least Jain Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 25-26 and 41-42) (see at least Sarwar Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 19, 33, 40, 52, 54, 64 and 69).
Jain in view of Sarwar teaches a vehicle which requires to have headlights to operate at night (as shown in Fig.1) however Jain in view of Sarwar do not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that the headlights are configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have headlights are configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest. For example, Renaud teaches headlights are configured to generate a shadow in proximity to the region of interest (see at least Renaud Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 3, 16, 31, 41-43). The substitution of one known element (headlight as shown in Renaud) for another (headlight as shown in Jain in view of Sarwar) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing of the claimed invention since the substitution of the headlight shown in Renaud would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing light to the driver in Jain in view of Sarwar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 10,586,448 B2 to Sholingar et. al. (Sholingar) teaches to determine leak from the vehicle via camera of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights