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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0045], line 4: “are fallen” appears instead of “fall”
Paragraph [0069], line 8: “use effect” appears; it cannot be determined what Applicant intends this expression to mean
Paragraph [0072], line 12: “configured” appears instead of, perhaps, “configuration”
Paragraph [0074], line 2: “not being” appears instead of, perhaps, “being”
Paragraph [0083], line 7: “use effect” appears; it cannot be determined what Applicant intends this expression to mean
Paragraph [0084], lines 8-10: “light . . . are uniformly adjusted … are then transmitted … are emitted out” appears instead of either “light . . . is uniformly adjusted … is then transmitted … is emitted out” or ““lights . . . are uniformly adjusted … are then transmitted … are emitted out”
Paragraph [0086], line 5: “advantageously” appears instead of “advantageous”
Paragraph [0090], line 4: “are fallen” appears instead of “falling”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzek (DE102011089421, see translation listed in PTO-8792, attached).
As to claim 1, Fitzek teaches a light unit, such as a corner light, headlight, fog light or tail light, for use as a radar device in a vehicle, having a radar sensor that is arranged behind partially transparent cover of light unit, where the cover is made of transparent material. The light unit (reference number 202) has a radar sensor (reference number 203) that is arranged behind a partially transparent cover of the light unit. The cover is made of an optically transparent material, particularly plastic or glass. The distance measurement or object recognition is carried out by the radar sensor. The radar sensor has a radome implemented as the optically transparent material. The radar sensor has an antenna, which is partially provided in the optically transparent material. The antenna is provided as a patch antenna (see Abstract, description, specific embodiments, and figures 1 and 2), and therefore suggests a lighting detection lamp assembly, comprising: an assembly body; a lighting source provided in the assembly body and configured to emit lighting light to outside; and a detection signal source provided in the assembly body and configured to transmit a detection signal to the outside to detect an orientation of an object around the assembly body.
As to claim 2, Fitzek further teaches that the detection signal source comprises a plurality of detection light sources; and the plurality of detection light sources are capable of emitting detection light for detecting the orientation of the object around the assembly body (FIG. 1, light emitting diodes 102; lighting units can be at four corners of the vehicle).
As to claim 3, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 1 as discussed above. Fitzek further teaches cornet light units on the vehicle (“corner light unit of the vehicle,” paragraph [0033], “eine Eckleuchte des Fahrzeugs”), and therefore suggests that the detection signal source comprises a first detection light source, the first detection light source is configured to emit first detection light; the first detection light source and the lighting source are combined to form a composite light source; and the composite light source is configured to emit the lighting light and the first detection light, since, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the lighting detection lamp assembly can be considered as comprising four sub-units, namely, the four cornet units.
As to claim 4, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 3 as just discussed. Moreover, the further claim limitations “wherein, the assembly body comprises a first light transmission unit; the first light transmission unit is configured to allow the lighting light and the first detection light to be transmitted through so as to be emitted outward; the lighting detection lamp assembly further comprises a first detection receiver provided in the assembly body; a light transmission area is provided on the first light transmission unit at a position corresponding to the first detection receiver; and the light transmission area is configured to allow reflected light of the first detection light to be transmitted through so as to be received by the first detection receiver” are obvious in view of application to vehicular lidar, regarded as well known.
As to claim 5, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 3 as discussed above. Fitzek further teaches cornet light units on the vehicle (“corner light unit of the vehicle,” paragraph [0033], “eine Eckleuchte des Fahrzeugs”), and therefore suggests that the detection signal source further comprises a second detection light source; the second detection light source is capable of emitting second detection light for detecting the orientation of the object around the assembly body; and a first partition is provided between the second detection light source and the composite light source, since, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the lighting detection lamp assembly can be considered as comprising four sub-units, namely, the four cornet units. i.e., at least two units.
Similar reasoning applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 6, which is thus also considered obvious over Fitzek.
As to claim 9, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 5 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not explicitly teach that the second detection light source is fixed to an inner wall of the assembly body by a first fixing base; and the first partition is formed on the first fixing base. Nonetheless such feature is an obvious choice, and well within the skill of an ordinary artisan in this technical field.
As to claim 11, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 5 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not explicitly teach a second detection receiver; wherein the second detection receiver is attached to the assembly body and is located outside the second light transmission unit, and configured to receive reflected light of the first detection light and reflected light of the second detection light. Nonetheless, the further limitation is deemed obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts (“mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA1960)”).
As to claim 12, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 5 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not explicitly teach that the assembly body further comprises a first optical design unit; the first optical design unit is configured to converge the lighting light and the first detection light to form a light beam transmitted in the assembly body; wherein the first optical design unit comprises a reflector. Nonetheless such feature is an obvious choice, and well within the skill of an ordinary artisan in this technical field.
As to claim 16, Fitzek further teaches a detection receiver configured to receive a reflected signal of the detection signal (FIG. 2, reference number 203).
As to claim 17, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not explicitly teach a third detection light source; the third detection light source is capable of emitting third detection light for detecting the orientation of the object around the assembly body; the third detection light source is separated from the lighting source. Nonetheless, the further limitation is deemed obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts (“mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA1960)”).
As to claim 21, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 17 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not explicitly teach that the third detection light source is fixed to an inner wall of the assembly body; and a second partition is provided between the third detection light source and the lighting light. Nonetheless such feature is an obvious choice, and well within the skill of an ordinary artisan in this technical field.
As to claim 22, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 5 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not explicitly teach a third detection receiver; wherein the third detection receiver is attached to the assembly body and located outside the third light transmission unit, and configured to receive reflected light of the third detection light. Nonetheless, the further limitation is deemed obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts (“mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA1960)”).
As to claim 23, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 17 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not explicitly teach that the assembly body further comprises a second optical design unit; the second optical design unit is configured to converge the lighting light to form a light beam transmitted in the assembly body; wherein the second optical design unit comprises a reflector. Nonetheless such feature is an obvious choice, and well within the skill of an ordinary artisan in this technical field.
As to claim 26, Fitzek further teaches a vehicle, comprising the lighting detection lamp assembly according to claim 1 (FIG, 2, reference number 201; claim 1).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzek in view of Hudman et al. (US 2015/0070489).
As to claim 7. Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 6 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not teach that the second light transmission unit is provided with a first adjusting area; and the first adjusting area is configured to cause the second detection light to be emitted outward according to a preset pattern; wherein the first adjusting area is located at an edge of at least part of a side of the second light transmission unit. Hudman teaches projecting patterned infrared light onto a scene to facilitate use of a depth sensor (paragraph [0035]), and therefore suggests that the second light transmission unit is provided with a first adjusting area; and the first adjusting area is configured to cause the second detection light to be emitted outward according to a preset pattern; wherein the first adjusting area is located at an edge of at least part of a side of the second light transmission unit. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 6 as taught by Fitzek, in combination with the second light transmission unit being provided with a first adjusting area; and the first adjusting area being configured to cause the second detection light to be emitted outward according to a preset pattern; wherein the first adjusting area is located at an edge of at least part of a side of the second light transmission unit as suggested by Hudman, since such combination better facilitates use of, e.g., a depth sensor or a depth camera.
As to claim 18. Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 17 as just discussed. However, Fitzek does not teach that the assembly body comprises a third light transmission unit; the third light transmission unit is configured to allow the lighting light and the third detection light to be transmitted through so as to be emitted outward; wherein the third light transmission unit is provided with a second adjusting area; and the second adjusting area is configured to cause the third detection light to be emitted outward according to a preset pattern; the second adjusting area is located at an edge of at least part of a side of the third light transmission unit. Hudman teaches projecting patterned infrared light onto a scene to facilitate use of a depth sensor (paragraph [0035]), and therefore suggests that the assembly body comprises a third light transmission unit; the third light transmission unit is configured to allow the lighting light and the third detection light to be transmitted through so as to be emitted outward; wherein the third light transmission unit is provided with a second adjusting area; and the second adjusting area is configured to cause the third detection light to be emitted outward according to a preset pattern; the second adjusting area is located at an edge of at least part of a side of the third light transmission unit. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 17 as taught by Fitzek, in combination with the assembly body comprising a third light transmission unit; the third light transmission unit being configured to allow the lighting light and the third detection light to be transmitted through so as to be emitted outward; wherein the third light transmission unit is provided with a second adjusting area; and the second adjusting area is configured to cause the third detection light to be emitted outward according to a preset pattern; the second adjusting area is located at an edge of at least part of a side of the third light transmission unit as suggested by Hudman, since such combination better enables further use of, e.g., a depth sensor or a depth camera.
Claims 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzek in view of Donovan (US 11,802,943).
As to claim 10, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 5 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not teach that an irradiation width range of one of the first detection light and the second detection light is greater than an irradiation width range of the other of the first detection light and the second detection light; and an irradiation distance of the one is less than an irradiation distance of the other. Donovan teaches *** (), and therefore suggests an irradiation width range of one of the first detection light and the second detection light being greater than an irradiation width range of the other of the first detection light and the second detection light; and an irradiation distance of the one being less than an irradiation distance of the other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 5 as taught by Fitzek, in combination with an irradiation width range of one of the first detection light and the second detection light being greater than an irradiation width range of the other of the first detection light and the second detection light; and an irradiation distance of the one being less than an irradiation distance of the other as suggested by Donovan, since such combination enables improved energy consumption management in a lidar unit.
As to claim 25, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not teach that a plurality of detection signal sources are provided; at least one detection signal source is configured to transmit a first detection signal with a first width range and a first distance range to the outside, and at least one detection signal source is configured to transmit a second detection signal with a second width range and a second distance range to the outside; wherein the first width range is greater than the second width range, and the first distance range is less than the second distance range. Donovan teaches *** (), and therefore suggests that a plurality of detection signal sources are provided; at least one detection signal source is configured to transmit a first detection signal with a first width range and a first distance range to the outside, and at least one detection signal source is configured to transmit a second detection signal with a second width range and a second distance range to the outside; wherein the first width range is greater than the second width range, and the first distance range is less than the second distance range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 1 as taught by Fitzek, in combination with a plurality of detection signal sources being provided; at least one detection signal source being configured to transmit a first detection signal with a first width range and a first distance range to the outside, and at least one detection signal source is configured to transmit a second detection signal with a second width range and a second distance range to the outside; wherein the first width range is greater than the second width range, and the first distance range is less than the second distance range as suggested by Donovan, since such combination ***enables improved energy consumption management in a lidar unit.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzek in view of Binder (US 11,255,663).
As to claim 14, Fitzek teaches the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Fitzek does not teach that the assembly body further comprises a radiator configured to fix the lighting source and provide heat dissipation for the lighting source; wherein the detection light source comprises one or more infrared lasers. Binder teaches special mounting for electrooptical sources to allow for heat dissipation (col. 17, lines 61-63), and therefore suggests that the assembly body further comprises a radiator configured to fix the lighting source and provide heat dissipation for the lighting source; wherein the detection light source comprises one or more infrared lasers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lighting detection lamp assembly of claim 1 as taught by Fitzek, in combination with the assembly body further comprising a radiator configured to fix the lighting source and provide heat dissipation for the lighting source; wherein the detection light source comprises one or more infrared lasers as suggested by Breuer, since such combination helps to avoid destructive overheating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL L MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-3194. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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 L MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645