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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (British filed Application 2206528.8 filed on May 5th, 2022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1 and 15 beyond formalities and Claim Objections including the amendment being unanticipated (e.g. inclusion of “actively” language).
The pending claims are 1 – 19 [Page 6 lines 1 – 7].
Applicant's arguments filed February 4th, 2026 [Page 6 line 8 – Page 7 line 8] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed features are understood to one of ordinary skill in the art and thus are not required to be shown [Page 6 lines 8 – 20] and further contends the claimed cover is shown [Page 6 lines 21 – 24] and alleges the Objection is overcome [Page 7 lines 1 – 8]. The Objection is not to the cover itself but the claimed functionality of the cover now amended as the Specification is silent regarding the “arranged to actively obscure” requirement as no such description is given or the Drawings show how to achieve such an arrangement as merely the amended claim language is the only such guidance given [“While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure” MPEP2163 IB].
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees in view of the amended claims and thus the Objection is maintained.
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s Claim Objection [Page 7 lines 9 – 23]. The Examiner reconsiders the Objection in view of the amended claims.
Applicant contents the amended feature should be afforded patentable weight now as amended and is more than Intended Use language [Page 7 lines 9 – 23]. In view of the amended claim language, the Examiner amends the Objection to a Rejection for lack of Written Description support [“While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure” MPEP2163 IB].
Applicant's arguments filed February 4th, 2026 [Regarding Examiner’s 103 Rejection] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant recites the cited references [Page 8 lines 1 – 7].
Second, the Applicant recites an additional feature in amended independent claim 1 [Page 8 lines 8 – 10] with alleged Specification support [Page 8 lines 11 – 13] and portions of the previous Office Action [Page 8 lines 14 – 29].
Third, the Applicant refers to Specification Paragraph 46 for alleged support of the amendment [Page 9 lines 1 – 7]. Applicant mainly recites the alleged benefits of the cover which are not claimed, but refers to previous arguments rendering such arrangement / function as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Fourth, the Applicant contends the references do not render obvious the features of the claimed cover [Page 9 lines 8 – 10].
Fifth, the Applicant contends Noble does not teach the amended features of amended independent claim 1 by attempting to argue the “housing “ is only mentioned twice [Page 9 lines 11 – 29] and attempts to assert their interpretation of the amended claim arguing the feature is not obvious as taught by Noble [Page 10 lines 1 – 11]. However, Noble was cited in combination with Smits. Further, in view of the alleged Specification support (Paragraph 46) Noble teaching the mountable housing (thus obvious to locate in many places) or in the dash would render obvious the actively obscuring feature claimed based on the allegedly high level of one of ordinary skill in the art argued against the Examiner’s Drawing Objections. Further Smits in at least the cited sections (e.g. at least Figure 7 and Paragraphs 7 and 37 – 45) contemplates the same problems addressed by the Applicant’s, has the claimed cover, and can be incorporated into the base references / modify the base reference Noble.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (Noble and Smits cited). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references (Smits not argued).
Sixth, the Applicant contends Lyman does not readily render obvious the amended features claimed [Page 10 lines 12 – 15].
Seventh, the Applicant similarly argues for amended independent claim 15 [Page 10 lines 16 – 22] and contends the dependent claims are similarly Allowable [Page 11 lines 1 – 3].
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; however, in the interest of clarity, the Examiner updates the Rejection in view of the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 25th, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the Final Rejection (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 18th, 2023; February 14th, 2024; and May 10th, 2024 were filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed March 13th, 2025). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 “a cover arranged to actively obscure the motor vehicle cabin sensing system from a view of a user sitting within the motor vehicle cabin” [Claims 1 and similarly in claim 15] 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim was amended to recite an “actively obscure” requirement, but the Specification (in particular Paragraph 46 does not readily describe what constitutes “obscure” for the cover and additionally how to achieve the “actively” feature required [“While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure” MPEP2163 IB]. Thus, the claims lack adequate Written Description support.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 2 – 14 and 16 – 19, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 9, and 12 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble, et al. (WO2019/119025 A1 referred to as “Noble” throughout) [First Cited in the Office Action mailed March 13th, 2025], and further in view of Chng, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0116517 A1 referred to as “Chng” throughout) [Cited in the September 18th, 2023 IDS as US PG PUB Item #1], Smits, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0231482 A1 referred to as “Smits” throughout), and Pinter, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0299879 A1 referred to as “Pinter” throughout).
Regarding claim 15, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 1, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
an image sensor operable to capture at least one image, the image sensor having a field of view of a motor vehicle cabin [Noble Figures 1 – 2 (FOV of imager is in a vehicle cabin) and 4 (see at least reference characters 200, 106, and 206) as well as Paragraphs 17 – 21 (camera / imaging system in a car cabin) and 24 – 26 (imaging during vehicle operation of the driver / cabin in various lighting conditions)];
an illumination source operable to transmit light rays towards the motor vehicle cabin [Noble Figures 1 – 2 and 4 (see at least reference characters 108, 202, and 204) as well as Paragraphs 17, 20 – 21, and 24 – 27 (VCSEL / laser illumination source which in view of Paragraphs 39 and 47 – 51 the beam renders obvious generating a plurality of rays in Figures 6 – 7 to one of ordinary skill in the art (Smits Figure 3 for a plurality of beams / rays)];
an illumination lens array operable to diffuse the light rays emitting from the illumination source towards the motor vehicle cabin [Noble Figures 1 – 2, 4 – 5 (see at least reference character 201) as well as Paragraphs 24 – 27 to be modified by Smits Figures 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 15 or 16) as well as Paragraphs 54 – 59 (micro-lens array for the diffuser / ray control / generation)]; and
a cover arranged to actively obscure the motor vehicle cabin sensing system from a view of a user sitting within the motor vehicle cabin [Noble Figures 1 and 2 as well as Paragraphs 20 – 21 (suggested locations of the camera / imager housing including light sources rendering obvious moving the imager to obscure from the driver’s view) combinable with Smits Figures 1 – 2 and 5 – 7 (see at least reference characters 11 and 12) as well as Paragraphs 7 (similar problems to solve as the claimed intended use language), 17 – 18 (materials for housing / covering), and 37 – 45 (housing and issues solved in Paragraphs 41 – 45 with eye safety considerations rendering obvious the “obscures” feature claimed), and 65 – 68 (housing and imaging considerations as in Figure 7 and recesses to obscure from human / driver eyes being imaged (as contemplated in Specification Paragraph 46 relied on for support and thus renders obvious the claimed “actively obscure” to one of ordinary skill in the art))];
wherein the illumination lens array further comprises a plurality of single lens elements [Chng Figure 4 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 109 – 115 (microlens array (Paragraphs 4 and 25) to diffuse course light from LEDs / NIR sources (Paragraphs 109 – 110)) or alternatively Smits Figures 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 15 or 16) as well as Paragraphs 54 – 59 (micro-lens array for the diffuser / ray control)], comprising at least one prism which are each operable to diffuse the light rays emitting from the illumination source to one or more photoreceptor cells of a retina [See previous limitation and additionally Noble Figures 4 – 7 (see at least the dots in reference character 600 in which the dots may align on the driver’s eyes and at least reference character 201) as well as Paragraphs 23 – 27 (eye gaze detection / imaged and meta surface rendering obvious a sheet / layer to be patterned as modified by Smits Figures 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 15 or 16) as well as Paragraphs 39 (optics to diverge the beam incoming rendering obvious the “divergent lens” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art) which is combined with Printer’s use of prisms (see below)), 41 – 43 (dots patterns), 45 – 49 (glare reduction to image the driver / control of illumination emitting from the source), and 54 – 59 (micro-lens array); Smits Figures 4 and 8 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 47 (addressing red glow issues in imaging people in cabin / monitoring behaviors) and 49 – 52 (imaging eyes in people); Printer Figure 1 as well as Paragraphs 623 – 628 and 648 (use of prism in directing light such as glass prisms)];
wherein each of the plurality of single lens elements is operable to detect a radiant intensity representing a red glow [See previous citations for the “lens element” claimed and additionally Chng Paragraphs 105 – 112 (intensity ranges suggested for imaging / illumination from LEDs and situations affecting illumination to use for imaging rendering obvious the range claimed) and 121 – 125 (intensity control for imaging a vehicle cab); Smits Figures 4 and 8 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 47 (addressing red glow issues in imaging people in cabin / monitoring behaviors) and 49 – 52 (imaging eyes in people to detect red glow / defects in imaging / harm to subject imaged)]; and
wherein the radiant intensity is 0% to 50% of the light rays emitting from the illumination source [Noble Figures 6 – 7 (the dot pattern / location / optical power control (combine with Chng) renders obvious the range claimed) as well as Paragraphs 41 – 43 and 45 – 49; Chng Paragraphs 105 – 112 (intensity ranges suggested for imaging / illumination from LEDs and situations affecting illumination to use for imaging rendering obvious the range claimed and adjustment of the optical power / intensity of the illumination and Paragraph 9 renders obvious 0% of light rays from the illumination source for imaging) and 121 – 125 (intensity control for imaging a vehicle cab); Alternatively Smits in at least Figures 3 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 47 and 49 – 52 (renders obvious less than 50% intensity by spreading out the light wider / modification of the optical power as suggested / taught by Chng)].
The motivation to combine Chng with Noble is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of imaging in a vehicle cabin [Chng Paragraph 4] in order to improve imaging in dark / low light situations [Chng Paragraphs 2 – 3 and 7 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Smits with Chng and Noble is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of red glow prevention in driver imaging system [Smits Paragraphs 1 – 3] in order to reduce glare to better deter the retinas / pupils of a driver [Smits Paragraphs 3 – 7 and where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Printer with Smits, Chng, and Noble is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of multi-function illumination sources [Printer Paragraphs 1 – 4] which includes vehicle interiors [Printer Paragraph 312] in order to improve image contrast features and improving imaging in low light situations [Printer Paragraphs 3 and 374 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination lens array is positioned forward of the illumination source [See claim 1 for citations regarding the “lens array” and additionally Noble Figures 1 – 2, 4 – 5 (see at least reference character 201 placed in front of reference character 108 (illumination source)) as well as Paragraphs 24 – 27 (arrangement of VCSEL illumination source); Smits Figures 5 – 6 (lens is in front of the source)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 3, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination lens array comprises the plurality of single lens elements integrated on a single lens sheet [Noble Figures 1 – 2, 4 – 5 (see at least reference character 201) as well as Paragraphs 24 – 27 (meta surface rendering obvious a sheet / layer to be patterned as modified by Smits Figures 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 15 or 16 in which either 15 or 16 renders obvious the “single lens sheet” claimed) as well as Paragraphs 54 – 59 (micro-lens array for the diffuser / ray control)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 4, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination lens array is a micro lens array [Noble Figures 1 – 2, 4 – 5 (see at least reference character 201) as well as Paragraphs 24 – 27 (meta surface rendering obvious a sheet / layer to be patterned as modified by Smits Figures 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 15 or 16) as well as Paragraphs 54 – 59 (micro-lens array for the diffuser / ray control)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 6, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein each of the plurality of single lens elements further comprises a diverging lens, or a combination thereof with the prism [Noble Figures 1 – 2, 4 – 5 (see at least reference character 201) as well as Paragraphs 24 – 27 (meta surface rendering obvious a sheet / layer to be patterned as modified by Smits Figures 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 15 or 16) as well as Paragraphs 39 (optics to diverge the beam incoming rendering obvious the “divergent lens” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art) and 54 – 59 (micro-lens array); Printer Figure 1 as well as Paragraphs 623 – 628 and 648 (use of prism in directing light such as glass prisms)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 7, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination source comprises a near infrared illumination source [Noble Paragraphs 3 (NIR imaging / source) and 17 (IR source to combine with Paragraph 3 or Smits Paragraphs 3, 41, and 52 – 53 (NIR diodes used or other NIR sources)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 8, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination source is a near infrared (NIR) light emitting diode [Smits Paragraphs 3, 41, and 53 (NIR diodes / NIR LEDs for sources used in the VCSEL where Noble Paragraph 17 renders obvious LEDs for the light diodes)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 9, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination source is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser [Noble Figures 2 – 5 (see at least reference character 108) as well as Paragraphs 17 – 18 and 25 (VCSEL source taught combinable with Smits Paragraphs 41 and 52 – 53 (VCSEL in the NIR range)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 12, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the image sensor is operable within a near infrared wavelength [Noble Figures 1 – 2 and 4 (see at least reference character 106) as well as Paragraphs 3 and 53 (image sensor operates in the NIR range rendering obvious the range claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 13, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination lens array has a dimension of 0.1cm to 10cm (1mm — 100mm) [Smits Figures 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 48 – 53 (in at least Paragraph 48 the array size is rendered obvious to be 2 mm x 2 mm rendering obvious the range claimed)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 14, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the radiant intensity detected by each of the two or more single lens element is 0% to 50% of the light rays emitting from the illumination source [Noble Figures 6 – 7 (the dot pattern / location / optical power control (combine with Chng) renders obvious the range claimed) as well as Paragraphs 41 – 43 and 45 – 49; Chng Paragraphs 105 – 112 (intensity ranges suggested for imaging / illumination from LEDs and situations affecting illumination to use for imaging rendering obvious the range claimed and adjustment of the optical power / intensity of the illumination and Paragraph 9 renders obvious at least 0% of light rays from the illumination source for imaging and the control renders obvious other ranges claimed) and 121 – 125 (intensity control for imaging a vehicle cab); Alternatively Smits in at least Figures 3 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 47 and 49 – 52 (renders obvious less than 50% intensity by spreading out the light wider / modification of the optical power as suggested / taught by Chng)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 16, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination lens array has a dimension of 5 cm to 9 cm (50 mm to 90 mm) [Smits Figures 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 46 (the ratio given of dimensions and an area of 12.6 square mm would render obvious selection of a dimension within the claimed range to one of ordinary skill in the art) in view of Chng Paragraph 114 and Printer Paragraph 149 (suggests a 53 mm dimension for imaging / lens which is within the range claimed].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 17, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination lens array has a dimension of 0.1 to 0.2 cm (1 mm to 2 mm) [Smits Figures 4 – 5 as well as Paragraphs 48 – 53 (in at least Paragraph 48 the array size is rendered obvious to be 2 mm x 2 mm rendering obvious the preferred range claimed); Chng Paragraph 114 (rendering obvious a 1 mm x 1 mm size)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 18, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the radiant intensity detected by each of the two or more single lens element is 0.1% to 30% of the light rays emitting from the illumination source [Noble Figures 6 – 7 (the dot pattern / location / optical power control (combine with Chng) renders obvious the range claimed) as well as Paragraphs 41 – 43 and 45 – 49; Chng Paragraphs 105 – 112 (intensity ranges suggested for imaging / illumination from LEDs and situations affecting illumination to use for imaging rendering obvious the range claimed and adjustment of the optical power / intensity of the illumination and Paragraph 9 renders obvious at least 0% of light rays from the illumination source for imaging and the control renders obvious other ranges claimed) and 121 – 125 (intensity control for imaging a vehicle cab); Alternatively Smits in at least Figures 3 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 47 and 49 – 52 (renders obvious less than 50% intensity by spreading out the light wider / modification of the optical power as suggested / taught by Chng thus rendering obvious the range claimed which is within a 0 – 50% range to one of ordinary skill in the art or where 10% intensity is taught / suggested in Printer Paragraph 588)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Regarding claim 19, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, and the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer. The combination teaches
wherein the radiant intensity detected by each of the two or more single lens element is 1% – 10% of the light rays emitting from the illumination source [Noble Figures 6 – 7 (the dot pattern / location / optical power control (combine with Chng) renders obvious the range claimed) as well as Paragraphs 41 – 43 and 45 – 49; Chng Paragraphs 105 – 112 (intensity ranges suggested for imaging / illumination from LEDs and situations affecting illumination to use for imaging rendering obvious the range claimed and adjustment of the optical power / intensity of the illumination and Paragraph 9 renders obvious at least 0% of light rays from the illumination source for imaging and the control renders obvious other ranges claimed) and 121 – 125 (intensity control for imaging a vehicle cab); Alternatively Smits in at least Figures 3 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 47 and 49 – 54 (renders obvious less than 50% intensity by spreading out the light wider / modification of the optical power as suggested / taught by Chng thus rendering obvious the range claimed in further view of the range / control of intensities in Figure 4 as well or to 10% in view of Printer Paragraph 588)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble, Chng, Smits, Printer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lynam, et al (US PG PUB 2017/0297490 A1 referred to as “Lynam” throughout).
Regarding claim 5, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits. Lynam teaches the use of Fresnel optics and other implementation details and to use reflective material in the source housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer, and optics and housing considerations as taught by Lynam. The combination teaches
wherein the illumination lens array is a Fresnel lens [See claim 1 for citation regarding the “lens array” and additionally Lynam Paragraphs 93, 161, and 217 (Fresnel optic lens)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, and Printer.
The motivation to combine Lynam with Printer, Smits, Chng, and Noble is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of illumination in vehicles with imaging applications as well [Lynam Paragraphs 2 – 3 and 7] in order to improve lighting in a vehicle and increasing imaging capabilities [Lynam at least Paragraphs 8, 13, and 20 – 22 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable.
This is the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, Printer, and Lynam which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 10, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits. Lynam teaches the use of Fresnel optics and other implementation details and to use reflective material in the source housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer, and optics and housing considerations as taught by Lynam. The combination teaches
wherein the system further comprises a reflective panel [Smits Figures 1 – 2 and 5 – 6 (see at least reference character 11) in which the housing includes reflective materials as Chng Figure 4 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 114 – 116 (suggesting the housing has reflective element further suggested by Lynam Figure10 – 14 (see at least reference character 214) as well as Paragraphs 132 – 135 (reflective elements to direct light) and 213 – 217 (reflectors in the housing))].
See claim 5 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, Printer, and Lynam.
Regarding claim 11, Noble teaches a driver monitoring system with illumination considerations. Chng teaches vehicle cabin imaging systems using various illumination sources and motivates limiting the red glow intensity during imaging of the vehicle cabin / interior. Smits teaches illumination and imaging considerations to modify Noble’s and Chng’s teachings regarding imaging the eye of a driver including the use of microlens arrays, Fresnel optics, and housings (e.g. reflective or to obscure the imager). Printer teaches the use of prisms in similar systems to Noble, Chng, and Smits. Lynam teaches the use of Fresnel optics and other implementation details and to use reflective material in the source housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imager of Noble to include sources, lenses, and imaging considerations as taught by Chng and the optics (e.g. microlens array), housings (including coverings), eye imaging considerations taught by Smits, the use of prisms and sizing considerations of Printer, and optics and housing considerations as taught by Lynam. The combination teaches
wherein the reflective panel further comprises a first end and a second end; and wherein the first end of the reflective panel is displaced adjacent to the illumination light source [See next limitation for citations], and the second end of the reflective panel is displaced adjacent to the illumination lens array [See claim 10 for citations concerning “reflective panel) and additionally Smits Figures 1 – 2 and 5 – 6 (see at least reference characters 11 or 17 as the housing is adjacent to the source and optics to form the beam/ rays)].
See claim 5 for the motivation to combine Noble, Chng, Smits, Printer, and Lynam.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leontevich (RU-2607822-C1 referred to as “Leon” throughout) [First Cited in the Office Action mailed March 13th, 2025] in the 5th and 9th page teach considerations for adjusting illumination based on red-eye effects. Dacha, et al. (US PG PUB 2019/0268068 A1 referred to as “Dacha” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s September 18th, 2023 IDS] in Figure 2 teaches a VCSEL illumination source and a lens with a hexagonal design on a sheet / single layer. teaches / renders obvious dimensions / sizing in claim 13.
References found in updated search and consideration: Li, et al. (US Patent #7,205,527 B2 referred to as “Li” throughout) teaches in Figure 7 prisms used to direct light in a car / driver imaging application. Sobecki, et al. (US PG PUB 2024/0409032 A1 referred to as “Sobecki” throughout) in which Figure 25 has similar embodiments / teachings of Noble (Paragraph 31) or Lynam regarding the claimed “cover” feature claimed. Rodriguez Barros (US PG PUB 2025/0222857 A1 referred to as “Rod” throughout) teaches in Paragraphs 440 – 450, 495, and 765 – 795 various embodiments for housing of the imager device to obscure the device from the driver / person being imaged.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487