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 .
Response to Arguments
The Examiner agrees that all prior informalities raised by the objections have been resolved, and therefore, those objections are hereby withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees that almost all of the prior art rejections are overcome by the present amendment narrowing the scope of the claimed invention, except for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0406821 A1 (“Salter”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0218212 A1 (“Nykerk”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0348164 A1 (“Manickam”). As will be discussed below, all of the newly claimed features alleged to be missing from Salter are taught in either one of Nykerk and Manickam, and any feature missing from Salter and Nykerk is explicitly taught by Manickam, with evidence of a reason to combine the references available as well (all of which will be discussed in greater detail in the rejection below).
With respect to Manickam, the Applicant only provides the following remarks:
Manickam merely discloses camera-based user authentication (facial recognition, gesture) for liftgate operation. See paragraphs 0004, 0012-0013 of Manickam.
(Response 12).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Manickam teaches all of the elements missing from Salter and Nykerk, and several overlapping elements, including:
a communicator configured to communicate with an obstacle detector and an external device;
Vehicle 10 is equipped with NFC®, Bluetooth®, or Wi-Fi® to provide communication with an external “mobile device (e.g., a key fob, mobile phone, etc.).” Manickan ¶ 12.
a camera configured to obtain an image of surrounding environments;
“[A] vehicle 10 includes an imaging system or vision system 12 that includes at least one exterior viewing imaging sensor or camera, such as a rearward viewing imaging sensor or camera 14a (and the system may optionally include multiple exterior viewing imaging sensors or cameras, such as a forward viewing camera 14b at the front (or at the windshield) of the vehicle, and a sideward/rearward viewing camera 14c, 14d at respective sides of the vehicle), which captures images exterior of the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 10.
a processor communicatively connected to the communicator and configured to:
An ECU 18 is connected to each of the aforementioned components via a vehicle network bus. Manickam ¶ 10.
recognize a person based on the image;
The ECU includes “a data processor or image processor that is operable to process image data captured by the camera or cameras, whereby the ECU may detect or determine presence of objects.” Manickam ¶ 10.
determine whether the person is a user based on body information of the person and pre-stored body information of the user;
“[T]he ECU uses facial recognition to determine an identity of the individual and then determines whether the identity of the individual matches an identity authorized to access to the vehicle. The ECU may access a database at the vehicle or remote from the vehicle (via wireless communication) that stores a list of identities of users authorized to access the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 13.
determine a distance to the user based on the image and based on determining that the person is the user;
“[B]ased at least in part on processing of the captured image data, the ECU may determine that the user has moved beyond a threshold distance from the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 14.
the lighting instruction based on . . . a distance to the external device which is less than or equal to a first reference distance, and the distance to the user which is less than or equal to the first reference distance.
“Referring now to FIG. 3, when the individual is within the threshold distance of the rear of the vehicle and ECU determines that the individual is authorized to access the vehicle, the ECU may command the rear lift gate (or rear door or tailgate or decklid or the like) to open.” Manickam ¶ 14.
With respect to detecting the distance, Manickam teaches that “the system may determine whether a user is authorized when the user is a first threshold distance from the vehicle via any of the means discussed above,” Manickam ¶ 15, which include “determin[ing] the individual is authorized based on detection of a device 24 (e.g., via NFC, BLUETOOTH, etc.) carried by the individual” and “determin[ing] that the individual is authorized to access the vehicle using the captured image data.” Manickam ¶ 13. Notably, both of these means further involve determining the distance of the individual to the vehicle. See Manickam ¶ 14 (“For example, based at least in part on processing of the captured image data, the ECU may determine that the user has moved beyond a threshold distance from the vehicle”) and Manickam ¶ 12 (“[a] wake trigger [for the camera] may be generated when . . . a mobile device (e.g., a key fob, mobile phone, etc.) is detected (e.g., via NFC, BLUETOOTH, WIFI, etc.), and/or any other appropriate sensor determines an individual is within a threshold distance of the rear of the vehicle.”).
Accordingly, for these reasons, and for the additional reasons set forth in the rest of this Office Action, Claims 1, 2, 4, 7–9, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0406821 A1 (“Salter”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0218212 A1 (hereafter “Nykerk”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0348164 A1 (“Manickam”); Claims 3, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam, as applied to claims 2 and 9, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0190318 A1 (“Imamura”); Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam as applied to claims 4 and 9, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0290594 A1 (“Abdel-Rahman”); Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam as applied to claim 8, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0056749 A1 (“Kim 749”); and Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0028296 A1(“Masudaya”).
Accordingly, since all of the claims are rejected, the Applicant’s request for a notice of allowance is respectfully denied.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 28, the verb “communicate” (“For communicate …”) is the wrong tense. It should be changed to “communicating”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claims 1 and 8 for having the following informalities: the use of a simple present tense, “which is,” in the last few lines of each claim (“… based on the vehicle which is in the parked state, an ambient illumination which is less than or equal to a reference illumination, and a distance to the external device which is less than or equal to a first reference distance, and the distance to the user which is less than or equal to the first reference distance”) disagrees with the present continuous tense necessitated by the term “based on,” because the conditions that follow “based on” are all present continuous states of the vehicle (or its sensors/components).
In other words, each instance of “which is” must be replaced with “being” in order to place each of the recited conditions into the appropriate present continuous form.
Appropriate correction is required, but please note that it is not enough to simply replace “which is” with “being,” as such an amendment would still contain new matter for the reasons set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 *** 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
I. First Ground of Rejection — The puddle lamp in the disclosure is not capable of performing all of the conditional logic described in the claims.
The Written Description does not disclose a “puddle lamp configured to generate light . . . based on a vehicle which is in a parked state, an ambient illumination which is less than or equal to a reference illumination, and a distance to the external device which is less than or equal to a first reference distance, and the distance to the user which is less than or equal to the first reference distance,” as recited in claims 1 and 8.
Instead, the processor is consistently described as the component that determines conditions such as vehicle state (parked/driving), distances to the user/obstacles, and ambient illumination levels. Spec ¶¶ 57, 58, 158, and 289. The puddle lamp merely receives the instruction to turn on from the processor. See Spec. ¶¶ 57–58. The processor makes the decision to control the side mirror or the puddle lamp based on these determined conditions. See Spec. ¶¶ 14, 20, 227, and 228.
For example, the specification states: “The puddle lamp 118 may be turned on in response to a control instruction of the processor 180 when the distance between the vehicle 1 and the remote controller 2 is less than or equal to the first reference distance.” Spec. ¶ 156. The same applies to the terminal (user’s phone). Spec. ¶ 157.
Another section confirms that the processor identifies the ambient illumination information and controls the lighting of the puddle lamp “upon concluding that the ambient illumination is less than or equal to the reference illumination.” Spec. ¶ 289.
The puddle lamp (118) is described as a lamp "configured for performing a welcome function” (Spec. ¶¶ 54 and 155) and capable of generating light to project a logo image (Spec. ¶ 160), but none of the paragraphs cited in the Applicant’s Response describe the puddle lamp containing the logic for checking the environmental and distance conditions itself.
Therefore, since claims 1 and 8 each recite this new matter, they are both rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Additionally, claims 2–5, 7–11, and 13–20 each depend from one of claims 1 or 8, and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because they incorporate the new matter of their parent claims by reference.
II. Second Ground of Rejection — The external device distance and the camera-based distance to the user are not compared to the same “first reference distance” threshold.
Regardless of whether the Written Description discloses the logic on the processor or the puddle lamp, the Written Description also fails to disclose using both communication with the external device and the camera 130, as a simultaneous check for the exact same "first reference distance" threshold. Both may be used to determine a user’s distance and location, but the specification presents them as alternative methods for the processor to achieve the same goal.
The Applicant alleges that support for all amendments comes from paragraphs 58, 67, and 207, but none of those paragraphs explicitly describe both the external device and the camera-based distances of the user being compared to the same “first reference distance.
Therefore, since claims 1 and 8 each recite this new matter, they are both rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Additionally, claims 2–5, 7–11, and 13–20 each depend from one of claims 1 or 8, and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because they incorporate the new matter of their parent claims by reference.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
I. Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam teach claims 1, 2, 4, 7–9, and 13–15.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7–9, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0406821 A1 (“Salter”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0218212 A1 (hereafter “Nykerk”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0348164 A1 (“Manickam”).
Claim 1
Salter teaches:
An apparatus for controlling a vehicle convenience equipment, the apparatus comprising:
“FIG. 1 illustrates an example vehicle 100,” which includes “one or more computers 110.” Salter ¶ 25.
a communicator configured to communicate with an obstacle detector and an external device;
“[V]arious controllers and/or sensors may provide data to the computer 110 via the vehicle communication network.” Salter ¶ 30. One such sensor includes “an object detection sensor” included in “the housing 210 of the mirror assembly 140.” Salter ¶ 35. Another such sensor includes means for communicating with or sensing a “user key fob (or transponder).” Salter ¶ 50.
a
The vehicle 100 further includes “exterior lights.” Salter ¶ 28.
a camera configured to obtain an image of surrounding environments; and
“Vehicle 100 sensors may provide data encompassing at least some of an exterior of the vehicle 100, e.g., a . . . camera.” Salter ¶ 32.
a processor communicatively connected to the communicator
“The computer 110 includes a processor and a memory such as are known.” Salter ¶ 26. “The computer 110 is generally arranged for communications on a vehicle communication network such as a bus in the vehicle such as a controller area network (CAN) or the like.” Salter ¶ 29.
and configured to:
“The computer 110 may be programmed to execute blocks of the process 700,” illustrated in FIGS. 7A–7B. Salter ¶ 57.
recognize a person based on the image;
“The computer 110 may be programmed to detect object(s) 180 from data received from object detection sensors such as camera, radar, etc.” Salter ¶ 32.
obtain distance information with the external device during communication with the external device;
During step 710, the computer 110 may consider certain “preconditions” that include “determining that a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58.
determine whether a side obstacle exists based on obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector;
“If the computer 110 determines that the precondition(s) is/are met, then the process 700 proceeds to a decision block 720,” Salter ¶ 58, where “the computer 110 determines whether a rate of change of a capacitance of a cover 250, 260 of the right and/or left mirror housing 210 exceeds the second threshold.” Salter ¶ 59. “A capacitance of a capacitor, e.g., a capacitance between the first capacitive cover 250 and the first electric ground path 255, may change when an object 180 enters the electric field 150.” Salter ¶ 46.
obtain distance information with the side obstacle upon concluding that the side obstacle exists;
After folding the mirrors responsive to exceeding the second threshold in block 730, see Salter ¶ 60, process 700 directs the computer 110 to flow to block 760, where the computer 110 continues to compare the rate of change of the covers’ capacitances to the second threshold. Salter ¶ 63. “Objects 180 type, dimensions, location, direction of movement, etc., may be estimated using capacitive sensing techniques.” Salter ¶ 46.
control a side mirror in a folded state to an unfolded state thereof or to maintain the folded state thereof based on the distance information with the external device and the distance information with the side obstacle; and
“If the computer 110 determines that that no object 180 is within the electric fields 150, 160, then the process 700 proceeds to a block 770; otherwise the process 700 ends, or alternatively returns to the decision block 710, although not shown in FIGS. 7A–7B.” Salter ¶ 63. “In the block 770, the computer 110 actuates the mirror housing to unfold,” Salter ¶ 64, meaning that in cases where object 180 remains within the electric fields, the computer 110 refrains from executing block 770 of unfolding the mirrors.
transmit, based on controlling the side mirror to be in the unfolded state, a lighting instruction to a
As will be discussed below, claim 1 is rejected over the combination of Salter with Nykerk, together. Specifically, Salter teaches a computer 110 that commands the side mirrors to unfold in response to receiving a signal indicating a “user key fob (or transponder) is outside a distance threshold, e.g., 5 meters, of the vehicle 100.” Salter ¶ 50, while Nykerk teaches a similar controller (ECU 80) that responds to a similar signal by illuminating a puddle lamp.
and wherein the
“The computer 110 may include programming to operate . . . interior and/or exterior lights.” Salter ¶ 28. Salter does not explicitly say whether the exterior lights generate a “logo” image, but a “logo” is not functionally related to the claimed invention, and therefore, any difference between the prior art and the non-functional content of the light will not distinguish the claim from the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.05.
That said, the Salter’s exterior light differs from the claimed puddle lamp in two respects: (1) Salter does not specify whether the exterior light is a “puddle” lamp per se, and (2) Salter’s exterior lighting is not condition upon any of the thresholds recited in the claim, and (3) Salter’s processor does not use the camera image to determine whether the person is a user based on body information and pre-stored body information.
However, these two differences are also unpatentable, because they were known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and obvious to combine with Salter’s vehicle, for the reasons given herein.
Specifically, Nykerk teaches:
An apparatus for controlling a vehicle convenience equipment, the apparatus comprising:
As shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, Nykerk teaches a vehicle comprising a body with a side mirror assembly 10. Nykerk ¶¶ 19–20 and FIGS. 1A–1B.
a communicator configured to communicate with an obstacle detector and an external device;
“The vehicle may be equipped with an antenna 82 (onboard the vehicle) which may receive wireless transmissions from the associated vehicle keyfob 84.” Nykerk ¶ 53.
a puddle lamp;
The side mirror assembly 10 includes “a lamp assembly 24.” Nykerk ¶ 20. The lamp assembly is specifically for a puddle lamp. See Nykerk ¶¶ 1, 3, 8, and 19.
a processor communicatively connected to the communicator and configured to
The vehicle further includes an ECU 80 and/or controller 26 (Nykerk teaches that the two are interchangeable, and may comprise a single unit), which is coupled to antenna 82 by way of signal lines D, E, and M shown in FIG. 5. See Nykerk ¶¶ 42, 48, and 49.
transmit, based on controlling the side mirror to be in the unfolded state, a lighting instruction to a puddle lamp provided in the side mirror,
The ECU 80 and/or controller 26 are each configured to send a command to activate the lamp assembly 24. Nykerk ¶ 50.
and wherein the puddle lamp is configured to generate light so that a logo image is projected onto the ground based on the lighting instruction
“The sensor may detect the presence of a hazard, such as a puddle of water, in a predetermined region on the ground adjacent to the vehicle, and the lamp assembly may have a light source for emitting or projecting light onto a least part or portion of the predetermined region on the ground.” Nykerk ¶ 19.
based on a vehicle which is in a parked state,
“FIG. 1A is a perspective view of a vehicle having an exemplary vehicle lighting system parked near a water puddle” while in operation. Nykerk ¶ 8.
an ambient illumination which is less than or equal to a reference illumination,
“In one embodiment, an ambient light detector (ALD) may be included,” which “is capable of determining an exterior lighting condition (i.e., a condition where vehicle lighting may be useful), such as occurs outdoors between sunset and sunrise, and indoors in situations of no or low ambient light.” Nykerk ¶ 23. “If the threshold is met, the sensor may determine an exterior lighting condition exists and may indicate or provide a LIGHTING state at a sensor output (e.g., to the controller 26 and/or other devices, as will be discussed in greater detail below). If the threshold is not met, a NONLIGHTING state may be indicated.” Nykerk ¶ 23.
a distance to the external device which is less than or equal to a first reference distance
“[W]hen the ECU receives a command via a wireless transmission from the keyfob 84, the ECU 80 may issue a light activation command to the controller, as previously described.” Nykerk ¶ 53. Importantly, that phrase “as previously described” refers back to the operation of the ALD and the parked state shown in FIG. 1A, as mentioned above. “The keyfob may include any electronic device capable of wirelessly commanding an associated vehicle to perform a vehicle operation or action,” Nykerk ¶ 46, meaning there is a limit to the distance one may be from the vehicle for the antenna to receive the wireless command from the keyfob 84. This distance, whatever it may be, falls within the broadly claimed scope of “a first reference distance.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Salter’s vehicle with the puddle lamp from Nykerk, and the functionality/logic for controlling the same. One would have been motivated to improve Salter’s vehicle with Nykerk’s puddle lamp because it “provide[s] illumination to enable the driver to operate the vehicle in dimly lit environments and may increase the conspicuity of the vehicle.” Nykerk ¶ 2.
Accordingly, the only remaining difference between the Salter-Nykerk combination and the claimed invention is that the combination does not further use its camera to determine a distance to a confirmed user, and compare that distance to the first reference distance as a condition to the lighting instruction.
Manickan, however, teaches an apparatus comprising:
a communicator configured to communicate with an obstacle detector and an external device;
Vehicle 10 is equipped with NFC®, Bluetooth®, or Wi-Fi® to provide communication with an external “mobile device (e.g., a key fob, mobile phone, etc.).” Manickan ¶ 12.
a camera configured to obtain an image of surrounding environments;
“[A] vehicle 10 includes an imaging system or vision system 12 that includes at least one exterior viewing imaging sensor or camera, such as a rearward viewing imaging sensor or camera 14a (and the system may optionally include multiple exterior viewing imaging sensors or cameras, such as a forward viewing camera 14b at the front (or at the windshield) of the vehicle, and a sideward/rearward viewing camera 14c, 14d at respective sides of the vehicle), which captures images exterior of the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 10.
a processor communicatively connected to the communicator and configured to:
An ECU 18 is connected to each of the aforementioned components via a vehicle network bus. Manickam ¶ 10.
recognize a person based on the image;
The ECU includes “a data processor or image processor that is operable to process image data captured by the camera or cameras, whereby the ECU may detect or determine presence of objects.” Manickam ¶ 10.
determine whether the person is a user based on body information of the person and pre-stored body information of the user;
“[T]he ECU uses facial recognition to determine an identity of the individual and then determines whether the identity of the individual matches an identity authorized to access to the vehicle. The ECU may access a database at the vehicle or remote from the vehicle (via wireless communication) that stores a list of identities of users authorized to access the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 13.
determine a distance to the user based on the image and based on determining that the person is the user;
“[B]ased at least in part on processing of the captured image data, the ECU may determine that the user has moved beyond a threshold distance from the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 14.
the lighting instruction based on . . . a distance to the external device which is less than or equal to a first reference distance, and the distance to the user which is less than or equal to the first reference distance.
“Referring now to FIG. 3, when the individual is within the threshold distance of the rear of the vehicle and ECU determines that the individual is authorized to access the vehicle, the ECU may command the rear lift gate (or rear door or tailgate or decklid or the like) to open.” Manickam ¶ 14.
With respect to detecting the distance, Manickam teaches that “the system may determine whether a user is authorized when the user is a first threshold distance from the vehicle via any of the means discussed above,” Manickam ¶ 15, which include “determin[ing] the individual is authorized based on detection of a device 24 (e.g., via NFC, BLUETOOTH, etc.) carried by the individual” and “determin[ing] that the individual is authorized to access the vehicle using the captured image data.” Manickam ¶ 13. Notably, both of these means further involve determining the distance of the individual to the vehicle. See Manickam ¶ 14 (“For example, based at least in part on processing of the captured image data, the ECU may determine that the user has moved beyond a threshold distance from the vehicle”) and Manickam ¶ 12 (“[a] wake trigger [for the camera] may be generated when . . . a mobile device (e.g., a key fob, mobile phone, etc.) is detected (e.g., via NFC, BLUETOOTH, WIFI, etc.), and/or any other appropriate sensor determines an individual is within a threshold distance of the rear of the vehicle.”).
It is acknowledged that Manickam’s command to allow access to the vehicle is not quite the same as the claimed lighting instruction, but, as was already explained earlier in this rejection, the use of a vehicle unlocking command to further trigger a puddle lamp was prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, in view of this and the foregoing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique that Manickam used for his vehicle’s key fob and camera to Salter’s key fob and camera arrangement, i.e., by using the key fob to activate the camera, and then using the activated camera to better identify the location of a nearby user.
The use of a known technique to improve similar, known devices in the same way is considered prima facie obvious when doing so yields predictable results. Consistent with the guidance in MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(C.)), the relevant findings of fact and evidence for those findings is as follows:
(1) The prior art contained a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement.” The evidence for this finding is provided in the rejections of claims 8 and 13 above, via each and every citation from the Salter reference and their mappings to each respective prior art element.
(2) The prior art contained a “comparable” device that is not the same as the base device, but that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. The evidence for this finding is provided in the mapping of each respective additional element in claim 13 to each corresponding disclosure from the Manickam reference.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The evidence for this finding is that both the base device and the comparable device utilize the same components for substantially the same reasons, so the only thing left to do is simply copy the known technique from Manickam while making Salter’s known device.
Consequently, in view of the foregoing findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique that Manickam used for his vehicle’s key fob and camera to Salter’s key fob and camera arrangement.
Claim 2
Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine whether a distance with the external device is less than or equal to a first reference distance based on the distance information with the external device;
“The process 700 begins in a decision block 710, in which the computer 110 determines whether one or more preconditions are satisfied,” including whether or not “a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58.
determine whether a distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to a second reference distance based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector;
“Next, in a decision block 760, the computer determines whether no object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160. The computer 110 may be programmed to determine whether the rate of change of capacitance of the covers 250, 270 is less than the second threshold.” Salter ¶ 63.
and control the side mirror to maintain the folded state thereof upon concluding that the distance with the external device is less than or equal to the first reference distance and the distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance.
After reaching block 760 and receiving a “no” answer (meaning object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160), then process 700 “returns to the decision block 710, although not shown in FIGS. 7A–7B,” instead of unfolding the mirror at block 770. Salter ¶ 63.
Returning to block 710 with the mirror remaining folded (because computer 110 skipped block 770), computer 110 checks whether “a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58. As shown in FIG. 7A, whenever the answer to block 710 is “NO” (because the key fob is within the threshold distance), process 700 repeatedly loops at block 710 without executing any other blocks. Salter ¶ 58. Since the computer 110 doesn’t execute any other blocks while the key fob is nearby, it refrains from executing any of the folding or unfolding blocks discussed above.
Claim 4
Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam teach the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the external device includes at least one of a remote controller or a terminal.
“In one example, the computer 110 may be programmed to determine that the preconditions are satisfied upon determining that (i) a vehicle 100 user key fob (or transponder) is outside a distance threshold.” Salter ¶ 50.
Nykerk and Manickam provide overlapping teachings of this, for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 7
Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam teach the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the side obstacle exists on a position facing the side mirror.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a position facing the side mirror” includes any position on the same side of the vehicle as the side mirror. (Spec. ¶ 238). In other words, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “side mirror” is not limited to the actual reflective portion/glass of the mirror, because specification repeatedly uses the term “side mirror 120” to refer to the entire assembly of the side mirror. See Spec. FIG. 2 (using an arrow to point to the entire side mirror assembly as “120”).1
Likewise, “as shown in FIG. 6, the computer 110 may actuate the housing 210 to fold based on determining that (i) a first rate of change of capacitance of the first cover 250 is greater than a second threshold, or (ii) a second rate of change of capacitance of the second cover 260 is greater than a second threshold.” Salter ¶ 51.
Claim 8
Salter teaches:
A vehicle, comprising:
“FIG. 1 illustrates an example vehicle 100.” Salter ¶ 25.
a vehicle body;
“The vehicle 100 includes a body 105.” Salter ¶ 25.
a side mirror disposed on the vehicle body;
“The vehicle 100 includes . . . one or more side-view mirror assemblies 140.” Salter ¶ 25. “A mirror assembly 140 includes an anchor element 200 mountable to a vehicle 100 exterior, e.g., an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105, and a foldable housing 210.” Salter ¶ 33.
an adjusting member provided on the side mirror and configured to rotationally move the side mirror into a folded state or an unfolded state;
“The vehicle 100 may include actuators 120 to fold and/or unfold a side-view mirror housing 210 (FIG. 2).” Salter ¶ 31.
a communicator configured to communicate with an external device;
“The vehicle 100 includes . . . one or more computers 110.” Salter ¶ 25. Computer 110 is programmed to communicate with or sense a “user key fob (or transponder).” Salter ¶¶ 50 and 58.
an obstacle detector configured to detect an obstacle;
“[V]arious controllers and/or sensors may provide data to the computer 110 via the vehicle communication network.” Salter ¶ 30. One such sensor includes “an object detection sensor” included in “the housing 210 of the mirror assembly 140.” Salter ¶ 35.
a
The vehicle 100 further includes “exterior lights.” Salter ¶ 28.
a camera configured to obtain an image of surrounding environments; and
“Vehicle 100 sensors may provide data encompassing at least some of an exterior of the vehicle 100, e.g., a . . . camera.” Salter ¶ 32.
and a processor communicatively connected to the communicator
“The computer 110 includes a processor and a memory such as are known.” Salter ¶ 26. “The computer 110 is generally arranged for communications on a vehicle communication network such as a bus in the vehicle such as a controller area network (CAN) or the like.” Salter ¶ 29.
and configured to:
“The computer 110 may be programmed to execute blocks of the process 700,” illustrated in FIGS. 7A–7B. Salter ¶ 57.
recognize a person based on the image;
“The computer 110 may be programmed to detect object(s) 180 from data received from object detection sensors such as camera, radar, etc.” Salter ¶ 32.
obtain distance information with the external device based on the vehicle which is in a parked state and in a state in which communication with the external device is available;
During step 710, the computer 110 may consider certain “preconditions” that include “determining that a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58.
determine whether the obstacle exists on a side of the vehicle body based on obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector;
“If the computer 110 determines that the precondition(s) is/are met, then the process 700 proceeds to a decision block 720,” Salter ¶ 58, where “the computer 110 determines whether a rate of change of a capacitance of a cover 250, 260 of the right and/or left mirror housing 210 exceeds the second threshold.” Salter ¶ 59. “A capacitance of a capacitor, e.g., a capacitance between the first capacitive cover 250 and the first electric ground path 255, may change when an object 180 enters the electric field 150.” Salter ¶ 46.
obtain distance information with the obstacle upon concluding that the obstacle exists;
After folding the mirrors responsive to exceeding the second threshold in block 730, see Salter ¶ 60, process 700 directs the computer 110 to flow to block 760, where the computer 110 continues to compare the rate of change of the covers’ capacitances to the second threshold. Salter ¶ 63. “Objects 180 type, dimensions, location, direction of movement, etc., may be estimated using capacitive sensing techniques.” Salter ¶ 46.
control the adjusting member to switch the side mirror in a folded state to an unfolded state thereof or to maintain the folded state thereof based on the distance information with the external device and the distance information with the obstacle,
“If the computer 110 determines that that no object 180 is within the electric fields 150, 160, then the process 700 proceeds to a block 770; otherwise the process 700 ends, or alternatively returns to the decision block 710, although not shown in FIGS. 7A–7B.” Salter ¶ 63. “In the block 770, the computer 110 actuates the mirror housing to unfold,” Salter ¶ 64, meaning that in cases where object 180 remains within the electric fields, the computer 110 refrains from executing block 770 of unfolding the mirrors.
control lighting of the
As will be discussed below, claim 1 is rejected over the combination of Salter with Nykerk, together. Specifically, Salter teaches a computer 110 that commands the side mirrors to unfold in response to receiving a signal indicating a “user key fob (or transponder) is outside a distance threshold, e.g., 5 meters, of the vehicle 100.” Salter ¶ 50, while Nykerk teaches a similar controller (ECU 80) that responds to a similar signal by illuminating a puddle lamp.
and wherein the puddle lamp is configured to generate light so that a logo image is projected
“The computer 110 may include programming to operate . . . interior and/or exterior lights.” Salter ¶ 28. Salter does not explicitly say whether the exterior lights generate a “logo” image, but a “logo” is not functionally related to the claimed invention, and therefore, any difference between the prior art and the non-functional content of the light will not distinguish the claim from the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.05.
That said, the Salter’s exterior light differs from the claimed puddle lamp in two respects: (1) Salter does not specify whether the exterior light is a “puddle” lamp per se, and (2) Salter’s exterior lighting is not condition upon “when the vehicle is in a parked state, an ambient illumination is less than or equal to a reference illumination, and a distance to the external device is less than or equal to a first reference distance.”
However, these two differences are also unpatentable, because they were known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and obvious to combine with Salter’s vehicle, for the reasons given herein.
Specifically, Nykerk teaches:
A vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body; a side mirror disposed on the vehicle body;
As shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, Nykerk teaches a vehicle comprising a body with a side mirror assembly 10. Nykerk ¶¶ 19–20 and FIGS. 1A–1B.
a communicator configured to communicate with an external device;
“The vehicle may be equipped with an antenna 82 (onboard the vehicle) which may receive wireless transmissions from the associated vehicle keyfob 84.” Nykerk ¶ 53.
a puddle lamp disposed in the vehicle body;
The side mirror assembly 10 includes “a lamp assembly 24.” Nykerk ¶ 20. The lamp assembly is specifically for a puddle lamp. See Nykerk ¶¶ 1, 3, 8, and 19.
and a processor communicatively connected to the communicator and configured to
The vehicle further includes an ECU 80 and/or controller 26 (Nykerk teaches that the two are interchangeable, and may comprise a single unit), which is coupled to antenna 82 by way of signal lines D, E, and M shown in FIG. 5. See Nykerk ¶¶ 42, 48, and 49.
control lighting of the puddle lamp based on switching the side mirror to the unfolded state,
The ECU 80 and/or controller 26 are each configured to send a command to activate the lamp assembly 24. Nykerk ¶ 50.
and wherein the puddle lamp is configured to generate light so that a logo image is projected onto the ground based on a control instruction
“The sensor may detect the presence of a hazard, such as a puddle of water, in a predetermined region on the ground adjacent to the vehicle, and the lamp assembly may have a light source for emitting or projecting light onto a least part or portion of the predetermined region on the ground.” Nykerk ¶ 19.
based on the vehicle which is in the parked state,
“FIG. 1A is a perspective view of a vehicle having an exemplary vehicle lighting system parked near a water puddle” while in operation. Nykerk ¶ 8.
an ambient illumination which is less than or equal to a reference illumination,
“In one embodiment, an ambient light detector (ALD) may be included,” which “is capable of determining an exterior lighting condition (i.e., a condition where vehicle lighting may be useful), such as occurs outdoors between sunset and sunrise, and indoors in situations of no or low ambient light.” Nykerk ¶ 23. “If the threshold is met, the sensor may determine an exterior lighting condition exists and may indicate or provide a LIGHTING state at a sensor output (e.g., to the controller 26 and/or other devices, as will be discussed in greater detail below). If the threshold is not met, a NONLIGHTING state may be indicated.” Nykerk ¶ 23.
a distance to the external device which is less than or equal to a first reference distance
“[W]hen the ECU receives a command via a wireless transmission from the keyfob 84, the ECU 80 may issue a light activation command to the controller, as previously described.” Nykerk ¶ 53. Importantly, that phrase “as previously described” refers back to the operation of the ALD and the parked state shown in FIG. 1A, as mentioned above. “The keyfob may include any electronic device capable of wirelessly commanding an associated vehicle to perform a vehicle operation or action,” Nykerk ¶ 46, meaning there is a limit to the distance one may be from the vehicle for the antenna to receive the wireless command from the keyfob 84. This distance, whatever it may be, falls within the broadly claimed scope of “a first reference distance.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Salter’s vehicle with the puddle lamp from Nykerk, and the functionality/logic for controlling the same. One would have been motivated to improve Salter’s vehicle with Nykerk’s puddle lamp because it “provide[s] illumination to enable the driver to operate the vehicle in dimly lit environments and may increase the conspicuity of the vehicle.” Nykerk ¶ 2.
Accordingly, the only remaining difference between the Salter-Nykerk combination and the claimed invention is that the combination does not further use its camera to determine a distance to a confirmed user, and compare that distance to the first reference distance as a condition to the lighting instruction.
Manickan, however, teaches an apparatus comprising:
a communicator configured to communicate with an external device;
Vehicle 10 is equipped with NFC®, Bluetooth®, or Wi-Fi® to provide communication with an external “mobile device (e.g., a key fob, mobile phone, etc.).” Manickan ¶ 12.
a camera configured to obtain an image of surrounding environments;
“[A] vehicle 10 includes an imaging system or vision system 12 that includes at least one exterior viewing imaging sensor or camera, such as a rearward viewing imaging sensor or camera 14a (and the system may optionally include multiple exterior viewing imaging sensors or cameras, such as a forward viewing camera 14b at the front (or at the windshield) of the vehicle, and a sideward/rearward viewing camera 14c, 14d at respective sides of the vehicle), which captures images exterior of the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 10.
a processor communicatively connected to the communicator and configured to:
An ECU 18 is connected to each of the aforementioned components via a vehicle network bus. Manickam ¶ 10.
recognize a person based on the image;
The ECU includes “a data processor or image processor that is operable to process image data captured by the camera or cameras, whereby the ECU may detect or determine presence of objects.” Manickam ¶ 10.
determine whether the person is a user based on body information of the person and pre-stored body information of the user;
“[T]he ECU uses facial recognition to determine an identity of the individual and then determines whether the identity of the individual matches an identity authorized to access to the vehicle. The ECU may access a database at the vehicle or remote from the vehicle (via wireless communication) that stores a list of identities of users authorized to access the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 13.
determine a distance to the user based on the image and based on determining that the person is the user;
“[B]ased at least in part on processing of the captured image data, the ECU may determine that the user has moved beyond a threshold distance from the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 14.
a control instruction based on . . . a distance to the external device which is less than or equal to a first reference distance, and the distance to the user which is less than or equal to the first reference distance.
“Referring now to FIG. 3, when the individual is within the threshold distance of the rear of the vehicle and ECU determines that the individual is authorized to access the vehicle, the ECU may command the rear lift gate (or rear door or tailgate or decklid or the like) to open.” Manickam ¶ 14.
With respect to detecting the distance, Manickam teaches that “the system may determine whether a user is authorized when the user is a first threshold distance from the vehicle via any of the means discussed above,” Manickam ¶ 15, which include “determin[ing] the individual is authorized based on detection of a device 24 (e.g., via NFC, BLUETOOTH, etc.) carried by the individual” and “determin[ing] that the individual is authorized to access the vehicle using the captured image data.” Manickam ¶ 13. Notably, both of these means further involve determining the distance of the individual to the vehicle. See Manickam ¶ 14 (“For example, based at least in part on processing of the captured image data, the ECU may determine that the user has moved beyond a threshold distance from the vehicle”) and Manickam ¶ 12 (“[a] wake trigger [for the camera] may be generated when . . . a mobile device (e.g., a key fob, mobile phone, etc.) is detected (e.g., via NFC, BLUETOOTH, WIFI, etc.), and/or any other appropriate sensor determines an individual is within a threshold distance of the rear of the vehicle.”).
It is acknowledged that Manickam’s command to allow access to the vehicle is not quite the same as the claimed lighting instruction, but, as was already explained earlier in this rejection, the use of a vehicle unlocking command to further trigger a puddle lamp was prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, in view of this and the foregoing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique that Manickam used for his vehicle’s key fob and camera to Salter’s key fob and camera arrangement, i.e., by using the key fob to activate the camera, and then using the activated camera to better identify the location of a nearby user.
The use of a known technique to improve similar, known devices in the same way is considered prima facie obvious when doing so yields predictable results. Consistent with the guidance in MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(C.)), the relevant findings of fact and evidence for those findings is as follows:
(1) The prior art contained a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement.” The evidence for this finding is provided in the rejections of claims 8 and 13 above, via each and every citation from the Salter reference and their mappings to each respective prior art element.
(2) The prior art contained a “comparable” device that is not the same as the base device, but that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. The evidence for this finding is provided in the mapping of each respective additional element in claim 13 to each corresponding disclosure from the Manickam reference.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The evidence for this finding is that both the base device and the comparable device utilize the same components for substantially the same reasons, so the only thing left to do is simply copy the known technique from Manickam while making Salter’s known device.
Consequently, in view of the foregoing findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique that Manickam used for his vehicle’s key fob and camera to Salter’s key fob and camera arrangement.
Claim 9
Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam teach the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine whether a distance with the external device is less than or equal to a first reference distance based on the distance information with the external device;
“The process 700 begins in a decision block 710, in which the computer 110 determines whether one or more preconditions are satisfied,” including whether or not “a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58.
determine whether a distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to a second reference distance based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector;
“Next, in a decision block 760, the computer determines whether no object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160. The computer 110 may be programmed to determine whether the rate of change of capacitance of the covers 250, 270 is less than the second threshold.” Salter ¶ 63.
and control the side mirror to maintain the folded state thereof upon concluding that the distance with the external device is less than or equal to the first reference distance and the distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance.
After reaching block 760 and receiving a “no” answer (meaning object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160), then process 700 “returns to the decision block 710, although not shown in FIGS. 7A–7B,” instead of unfolding the mirror at block 770. Salter ¶ 63.
Returning to block 710 with the mirror remaining folded (because computer 110 skipped block 770), computer 110 checks whether “a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58. As shown in FIG. 7A, whenever the answer to block 710 is “NO” (because the key fob is within the threshold distance), process 700 repeatedly loops at block 710 without executing any other blocks. Salter ¶ 58. Since the computer 110 doesn’t execute any other blocks while the key fob is nearby, it refrains from executing any of the folding or unfolding blocks discussed above.
Claim 13
Salter teaches the vehicle of claim 8, further including:
a camera,
“Vehicle 100 sensors may provide data encompassing at least some of an exterior of the vehicle 100, e.g., a . . . camera.” Salter ¶ 32.
wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether a distance with the external device is less than or equal to a predetermined distance based on the distance information with the external device;
“[T]he computer 110 determines whether one or more preconditions are satisfied,” including whether or not “a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58.
and recognize a location of a user based on image information obtained by the activated camera.
“The computer 110 may be programmed to detect object(s) 180 from data received from object detection sensors such as camera.” Salter ¶ 32.
Salter does not appear to explicitly disclose activating its camera based on the determined distance to the user key fob; instead, Salter merely teaches that both the camera and the key fob are available as means for detection.
Manickam, however, teaches a vehicle including:
a camera,
“[A] vehicle 10 includes an imaging system or vision system 12 that includes at least one exterior viewing imaging sensor or camera, such as a rearward viewing imaging sensor or camera 14a (and the system may optionally include multiple exterior viewing imaging sensors or cameras, such as a forward viewing camera 14b at the front (or at the windshield) of the vehicle, and a sideward/rearward viewing camera 14c, 14d at respective sides of the vehicle), which captures images exterior of the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 10.
wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether a distance with the external device is less than or equal to a predetermined distance based on the distance information with the external device;
An ECU in the vehicle is configured to determine that an individual 22 is within a threshold distance of the vehicle when “a mobile device (e.g., a key fob, mobile phone, etc.) is detected (e.g., via NFC, BLUETOOTH, WIFI, etc.), and/or any other appropriate sensor determines an individual is within a threshold distance of the rear of the vehicle.” Manickam ¶ 12.
activate the camera upon concluding that the distance with the external device is less than or equal to the predetermined distance;
Detection of the mobile device causes the ECU to generate a “wake trigger,” and “[w]hen the wake trigger is received, the system and/or camera enters an awake or high-powered mode (e.g., with an increased rate of image capturing and/or processing of the image data).” Manickam ¶ 12.
and recognize a location of a user based on image information obtained by the activated camera.
Upon waking the camera, “the ECU determines (via the processing of the image data captured by the rearward viewing camera) that an individual is within the threshold distance of the vehicle (e.g., within three feet of the rear bumper of the vehicle).” Manickam ¶ 12.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique that Manickam used for his vehicle’s key fob and camera to Salter’s key fob and camera arrangement, i.e., by using the key fob to activate the camera, and then using the activated camera to better identify the location of a nearby user.
The use of a known technique to improve similar, known devices in the same way is considered prima facie obvious when doing so yields predictable results. Consistent with the guidance in MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(C.)), the relevant findings of fact and evidence for those findings is as follows:
(1) The prior art contained a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement.” The evidence for this finding is provided in the rejections of claims 8 and 13 above, via each and every citation from the Salter reference and their mappings to each respective prior art element.
(2) The prior art contained a “comparable” device that is not the same as the base device, but that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. The evidence for this finding is provided in the mapping of each respective additional element in claim 13 to each corresponding disclosure from the Manickam reference.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The evidence for this finding is that both the base device and the comparable device utilize the same components for substantially the same reasons, so the only thing left to do is simply copy the known technique from Manickam while making Salter’s known device.
Consequently, in view of the foregoing findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique that Manickam used for his vehicle’s key fob and camera to Salter’s key fob and camera arrangement.
Claim 14
Salter and Manickam teach the vehicle of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine whether a distance with the user is less than or equal to a first reference distance based on the recognized location of the user;
“[T]he computer 110 determines whether one or more preconditions are satisfied,” including whether or not “a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58.
Furthermore, as explained in the rejection of claim 13, this determination may be supplemented using the camera technique taught by Manickam.
determine, upon concluding that the distance with the user is less than or equal to the first reference distance, whether a distance with the obstacle is less than or equal to a second reference distance based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector;
“Next, in a decision block 760, the computer determines whether no object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160. The computer 110 may be programmed to determine whether the rate of change of capacitance of the covers 250, 270 is less than the second threshold.” Salter ¶ 63.
and control the adjustment member to maintain the folded state of the side mirror upon concluding that the distance with the obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance.
After reaching block 760 and receiving a “no” answer (meaning object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160), then process 700 “returns to the decision block 710, although not shown in FIGS. 7A–7B,” instead of unfolding the mirror at block 770. Salter ¶ 63.
Returning to block 710 with the mirror remaining folded (because computer 110 skipped block 770), computer 110 checks whether “a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58. As shown in FIG. 7A, whenever the answer to block 710 is “NO” (because the key fob is within the threshold distance), process 700 repeatedly loops at block 710 without executing any other blocks. Salter ¶ 58. Since the computer 110 doesn’t execute any other blocks while the key fob is nearby, it refrains from executing any of the folding or unfolding blocks discussed above.
Claim 15
Salter and Manickam teach the vehicle of claim 14,
wherein the processor is further configured to control the adjustment member to switch the side mirror to be in the unfolded state upon concluding that the distance with the user is less than or equal to the first reference distance and the distance with the obstacle exceeds the second reference distance.
“If the computer 110 determines that that no object 180 is within the electric fields 150, 160, then the process 700 proceeds to a block 770; otherwise the process 700 ends, or alternatively returns to the decision block 710, although not shown in FIGS. 7A–7B.” Salter ¶ 63. “In the block 770, the computer 110 actuates the mirror housing to unfold,” Salter ¶ 64.
II. Salter, Nykerk, Mannickam, and Imamura teach claims 3, 10, 16, and 17.
Claims 3, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam, as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0190318 A1 (“Imamura”).
Claim 3
Salter teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to
control the side mirror to be in the unfolded state upon concluding that the distance with the external device is
As shown in FIGs. 7A–7B and discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 2, the computer 110 that is programmed to execute blocks of process 700 must pass blocks 710 and 760 as conditions precedent for executing block 770 of actuating the mirror housing to unfold.
Block 760 satisfies the “distance with the side obstacle exceeds the second reference distance” requirement of claim 3, see Salter ¶ 63, and thus, the only difference between claim 3 and Salter is that Salter’s block 710 fails to account for what happens when the user key fob returns to being within a threshold distance of the vehicle, after previously exceeding the threshold distance.
Imamura, however, teaches an apparatus with a processor (ECU 10) configured to:
control the side mirror to be in the unfolded state upon concluding that the distance with the external device is less than or equal to the first reference distance
“When the mobile device moves closer to the vehicle within the predetermined distance, the mirror position control unit 61 changes the mirror from a folded state to an unfolded state.” Imamura ¶ 92.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Salter’s process 700 by supplementing block 710’s preconditions with Imamura’s check that a mobile device carried by the user has returned to within a predetermined distance of the vehicle. One would have been motivated to supplement Salter’s process 700 with Imamura’s logic because Imamura’s logic “improv[es] convenience for a user who moves closer to a vehicle.” Imamura ¶ 11.
Claim 10
Salter and Nykerk teach the vehicle of claim 9,
wherein the processor is further configured to control the adjusting member to switch the side mirror to be in the unfolded state upon concluding that the distance with the external device is
As shown in FIGs. 7A–7B and discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 2, the computer 110 that is programmed to execute blocks of process 700 must pass blocks 710 and 760 as conditions precedent for executing block 770 of actuating the mirror housing to unfold.
Block 760 satisfies the “distance with the side obstacle exceeds the second reference distance” requirement of claim 3, see Salter ¶ 63, and thus, the only difference between claim 3 and Salter is that Salter’s block 710 fails to account for what happens when the user key fob returns to being within a threshold distance of the vehicle, after previously exceeding the threshold distance.
Imamura, however, teaches an apparatus with a processor (ECU 10) configured to:
control the adjusting member to switch the side mirror to be in the unfolded state upon concluding that the distance with the external device is less than or equal to the first reference distance
“When the mobile device moves closer to the vehicle within the predetermined distance, the mirror position control unit 61 changes the mirror from a folded state to an unfolded state.” Imamura ¶ 92.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Salter’s process 700 by supplementing block 710’s preconditions with Imamura’s check that a mobile device carried by the user has returned to within a predetermined distance of the vehicle. One would have been motivated to supplement Salter’s process 700 with Imamura’s logic because Imamura’s logic “improv[es] convenience for a user who moves closer to a vehicle.” Imamura ¶ 11.
Claim 16
Salter and Nykerk teach the vehicle of claim 8,
wherein the side mirror includes a first side mirror disposed on a driver seat side door and a second side mirror disposed on a passenger side door,
“The vehicle 100 may include a right side-view mirror assembly 140 and a left side-view mirror assembly 140. A mirror assembly 140 includes an anchor element 200 mountable to a vehicle 100 exterior, e.g., an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105, and a foldable housing 210.” Salter ¶ 33; see also Salter FIG. 1.
and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the distance information with the external device, whether a distance with the external device is
“The process 700 begins in a decision block 710, in which the computer 110 determines whether one or more preconditions are satisfied,” including whether or not “a vehicle 100 user key fob is more than a threshold distance threshold, e.g., 5 m, from an exterior surface of the vehicle 100 body 105.” Salter ¶ 58.
obtain, upon concluding that the distance with the external device is
“Next, in a decision block 760, the computer determines whether no object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160.” Salter ¶ 63. As shown in FIG. 1, the electric fields 150, 160 are generated by both the left and the right mirror assemblies 170.
determine, based on the obtained distance information with the left obstacle, whether a distance with the left side obstacle is less than or equal to a second reference distance; determine, based on the obtained distance information with the right obstacle, whether a distance with the right side obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance; identify a location of the side obstacle determined to be less than or equal to the second reference distance;
“The computer 110 may be programmed to determine whether the rate of change of capacitance of the covers 250, 270 is less than the second threshold.” Salter ¶ 63.
As shown in FIG. 6, the computer 110 makes this determination individually and independently for each side mirror. See also Salter ¶ 60.
and control the adjustment member so that the side mirror corresponding to the identified location of the side obstacle is maintained in the folded state.
After reaching block 760 and receiving a “no” answer (meaning object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160), then process 700 “returns to the decision block 710, although not shown in FIGS. 7A–7B,” instead of unfolding the mirror at block 770. Salter ¶ 63.
Since block 760 satisfies the “distance with the side obstacle exceeds the second reference distance” requirement of the claim, see Salter ¶ 63, the only difference between claim 16 and Salter is that Salter’s block 710 fails to account for what happens when the user key fob returns to being within a threshold distance of the vehicle, after previously exceeding the threshold distance.
Imamura, however, teaches an apparatus with a processor (ECU 10) configured to perform the step of :
concluding that the distance with the external device is less than or equal to the first reference distance
“When the mobile device moves closer to the vehicle within the predetermined distance, the mirror position control unit 61 changes the mirror from a folded state to an unfolded state.” Imamura ¶ 92.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Salter’s process 700 by supplementing block 710’s preconditions with Imamura’s check that a mobile device carried by the user has returned to within a predetermined distance of the vehicle. One would have been motivated to supplement Salter’s process 700 with Imamura’s logic because Imamura’s logic “improv[es] convenience for a user who moves closer to a vehicle.” Imamura ¶ 11.
Claim 17
Salter, Nykerk, and Imamura teach the vehicle of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify the location of the side obstacle determined to exceed the second reference distance;
“Next, in a decision block 760, the computer determines whether no object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160. The computer 110 may be programmed to determine whether the rate of change of capacitance of the covers 250, 270 is less than the second threshold.” Salter ¶ 63.
and control the adjusting member to switch the side mirror corresponding to the identified location of the side obstacle to the unfolded state.
“If the computer 110 determines that that no object 180 is within the electric fields 150, 160, then the process 700 proceeds to a block 770,” where “the computer 110 actuates the mirror housing to unfold.” Salter ¶¶ 63–64.
III. Salter, Nykerk, Manickam, and Abdel-Rahman teach claims 5 and 11.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam as applied to claims 4 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0290594 A1 (“Abdel-Rahman”).
Claim 5
Salter teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to:
upon concluding that an unfolding instruction for the side mirror is received
As shown in FIGs. 7A–7B and discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 2, computer 110 is programmed to execute block 760 of determining whether an object is near the side mirror only if the preconditions in block 710 are met. Thus, the only difference between Salter and claim 5 is that receiving an instruction “from the remote controller or the terminal” is not one of the preconditions Salter accounts for in block 710.
and control the side mirror to maintain the folded state thereof upon concluding that the distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance.
“If the computer 110 determines that that no object 180 is within the electric fields 150, 160, then the process 700 proceeds to a block 770,” Salter ¶ 63, wherein “the computer 110 actuates the mirror housing to unfold.” Salter ¶ 64.
As mentioned above, the only difference between Salter and claim 5 is that receiving an instruction “from the remote controller or the terminal” is not one of the preconditions Salter accounts for in block 710.
Abdel-Rahman, however, teaches a processor 142 configured to perform a method 200 (FIG. 2), including:
upon concluding that an unfolding instruction for the side mirror is received from the remote controller or the terminal, determine whether the distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance based on the distance information with the side obstacle;
As part of method 200, “data and information continues to be collected and updated as part of steps 204–210,” which the processor 142 uses to determine whether there are any “remaining mirror conditions that would warrant continued placement of the side mirrors 102 in the second (e.g., folded) position.” Abdel-Rahman ¶ 52.
Notably, this includes “user inputs [that] pertain to a user’s preference as to a desired position for the side mirrors 102 of FIG. 1 (e.g., as to an unfolded position versus a folded position),” obtained in step 210, “via a smart phone or other electronic device of the user.” Abdel-Rahman ¶ 40.
and control the side mirror to maintain the folded state thereof upon concluding that the distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance.
Before unfolding the mirrors, “the processor 142 determines whether there are no remaining mirror conditions that would warrant continued placement of the side mirrors 102 in the second (e.g., folded) position.” Abdel-Rahman ¶ 52. Since Abdel-Rahman is combined with Salter, and since Salter teaches that one such mirror condition should include a determination of whether or not an obstacle is within a threshold distance of the mirrors, it follows that in combination, Salter’s block 760 prevents the mirrors from unfolding under these circumstances. See Salter ¶¶ 63–64.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Salter’s arrangement by allowing a user to manually send an unfolding instruction to the vehicle as taught by Abdel-Rahman, while still maintaining all of Salter’s rules for deciding whether or not to unfold the side mirrors. One would have been motivated to combine Abdel-Rahman with Salter because “in certain instances standard mirror position and operation may not be optimal for all uses.” Abdel-Rahman ¶ 2.
Claim 11
Salter, as combined with Nykerk, teaches the vehicle of claim 9,
wherein the processor is further configured to:
upon concluding that an unfolding instruction for the side mirror is received
As shown in FIGs. 7A–7B and discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 2, computer 110 is programmed to execute block 760 of determining whether an object is near the side mirror only if the preconditions in block 710 are met. Thus, the only difference between Salter and claim 5 is that receiving an instruction “from the remote controller or the terminal” is not one of the preconditions Salter accounts for in block 710.
and control the side mirror to maintain the folded state thereof upon concluding that the distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance.
“If the computer 110 determines that that no object 180 is within the electric fields 150, 160, then the process 700 proceeds to a block 770,” Salter ¶ 63, wherein “the computer 110 actuates the mirror housing to unfold.” Salter ¶ 64.
As mentioned above, the only difference between Salter-Nykerk and claim 11 is that receiving an instruction “from the remote controller or the terminal” is not one of the preconditions Salter accounts for in block 710.
Abdel-Rahman, however, teaches a processor 142 configured to perform a method 200 (FIG. 2), including:
upon concluding that an unfolding instruction for the side mirror is received from the remote controller or the terminal, determine whether the distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance based on the distance information with the side obstacle;
As part of method 200, “data and information continues to be collected and updated as part of steps 204–210,” which the processor 142 uses to determine whether there are any “remaining mirror conditions that would warrant continued placement of the side mirrors 102 in the second (e.g., folded) position.” Abdel-Rahman ¶ 52.
Notably, this includes “user inputs [that] pertain to a user’s preference as to a desired position for the side mirrors 102 of FIG. 1 (e.g., as to an unfolded position versus a folded position),” obtained in step 210, “via a smart phone or other electronic device of the user.” Abdel-Rahman ¶ 40.
and control the side mirror to maintain the folded state thereof upon concluding that the distance with the side obstacle is less than or equal to the second reference distance.
Before unfolding the mirrors, “the processor 142 determines whether there are no remaining mirror conditions that would warrant continued placement of the side mirrors 102 in the second (e.g., folded) position.” Abdel-Rahman ¶ 52. Since Abdel-Rahman is combined with Salter, and since Salter teaches that one such mirror condition should include a determination of whether or not an obstacle is within a threshold distance of the mirrors, it follows that in combination, Salter’s block 760 prevents the mirrors from unfolding under these circumstances. See Salter ¶¶ 63–64.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Salter’s arrangement by allowing a user to manually send an unfolding instruction to the vehicle as taught by Abdel-Rahman, while still maintaining all of Salter’s rules for deciding whether or not to unfold the side mirrors. One would have been motivated to combine Abdel-Rahman with Salter because “in certain instances standard mirror position and operation may not be optimal for all uses.” Abdel-Rahman ¶ 2.
IV. Salter, Nykerk, Manickam, and Kim 749 teach claims 18 and 19.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0056749 A1 (“Kim 749”).
Claim 18
Salter, as combined with Nykerk and Manickam, teach the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine
“Next, in a decision block 760, the computer determines whether no object 180 is within the electric field 150, 160. The computer 110 may be programmed to determine whether the rate of change of capacitance of the covers 250, 270 is less than the second threshold.” Salter ¶ 63.
and control the adjusting member to switch the side mirror in the folded state to the unfolded state upon concluding that the distance with the obstacle exceeds the second reference distance.
“If the computer 110 determines that that no object 180 is within the electric fields 150, 160, then the process 700 proceeds to a block 770; otherwise the process 700 ends, or alternatively returns to the decision block 710, although not shown in FIGS. 7A–7B.” Salter ¶ 63.
Salter does not appear to explicitly disclose performing the above determination “when the vehicle is changed from a parking state to a driving state.”
Kim 749, however, teaches a vehicle 100 configured to:
determine, when the vehicle is changed from a parked state to a driving state while the side mirror is maintained in the folded state, whether a distance with the obstacle exceeds the second reference distance based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector;
As shown in FIG. 16A, a controller 850 of vehicle 100 may perform the process shown in FIG 9 to “generate a route for the vehicle 100 to depart from a parked state, based on the information related to the object OB1610, OB1611, and OB1612” obtained from the vehicle 100’s cameras. Kim 749 ¶ 497.
Then, to execute the planned route that departs from the parked state, “in case the distance between the vehicle 100 and the other vehicles OB1611 and OB1612 is less than a set value when the vehicle 100 travels along the generated route, the controller 850 may control the interface 870 to provide a signal to the mirror driving unit 670 so that the side mirror 110 of the vehicle 100 may be folded when the distance to the other vehicles OB1611 and OB1612 is less than the set value.” Kim 749 ¶ 501 (referring to FIG. 16B).
and control the adjusting member to switch the side mirror in the folded state to the unfolded state upon concluding that the distance with the obstacle exceeds the second reference distance.
Finally, “[r]eferring to FIG. 16C, when the vehicle 100 continues to travel along the generated route and the distance between the vehicle 100 and the other vehicles OB1611 and OB1612 is equal to or greater than a set value, the controller 850 may control the interface 870 to provide a signal to the mirror driving unit 670 so that the side mirror 110 of the vehicle 100 may be unfolded.” Kim 749 ¶ 502.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement Salter’s programming logic with Kim 749’s programming logic for exiting a parked space, including retaining the mirrors in the folded position until there is enough room to pass. One would have been motivated to improve Salter’s programming logic with Kim 749’s technique because Kim 749’s technique “has an advantage of improving the user’s convenience by quickly and accurately generating a route,” Kim 749 ¶ 340, since the retention and unfolding of mirrors provides the vehicle with more options for escaping a tight space.
Claim 19
Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam teach the vehicle of claim 8, but do not necessarily say whether vehicle 100 uses its camera to recognize obstacles, let alone recognize them “when the vehicle is changed from a parking state to a driving state.”
Kim 749, however, teaches a vehicle 100 with a camera (camera 810) and a processor (controller 850), wherein the processor is further configured to:
when the vehicle is changed from a parked state to a driving state while the side mirror is maintained in the folded state, recognize the obstacle on left and right front sides of the vehicle body based on image information obtained by the camera;
As shown in FIG. 16A, a controller 850 of vehicle 100 may perform the process shown in FIG 9 to “generate a route for the vehicle 100 to depart from a parked state, based on the information related to the object OB1610, OB1611, and OB1612” obtained from the vehicle 100’s cameras. Kim 749 ¶ 497; see also Kim 749 ¶¶ 494–495 (explaining that the objects are detected “through the image processing of the first image and the second image” obtained from the cameras).
Then, to execute the planned route that departs from the parked state, “in case the distance between the vehicle 100 and the other vehicles OB1611 and OB1612 is less than a set value when the vehicle 100 travels along the generated route, the controller 850 may control the interface 870 to provide a signal to the mirror driving unit 670 so that the side mirror 110 of the vehicle 100 may be folded when the distance to the other vehicles OB1611 and OB1612 is less than the set value.” Kim 749 ¶ 501 (referring to FIG. 16B).
and control the adjusting member to switch the side mirror in the folded state to the unfolded state based on the recognized obstacle.
Finally, “[r]eferring to FIG. 16C, when the vehicle 100 continues to travel along the generated route and the distance between the vehicle 100 and the other vehicles OB1611 and OB1612 is equal to or greater than a set value, the controller 850 may control the interface 870 to provide a signal to the mirror driving unit 670 so that the side mirror 110 of the vehicle 100 may be unfolded.” Kim 749 ¶ 502.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement Salter’s programming logic with Kim 749’s programming logic for exiting a parked space, including retaining the mirrors in the folded position until there is enough room to pass. One would have been motivated to improve Salter’s programming logic with Kim 749’s technique because Kim 749’s technique “has an advantage of improving the user’s convenience by quickly and accurately generating a route,” Kim 749 ¶ 340, since the retention and unfolding of mirrors provides the vehicle with more options for escaping a tight space.
V. Salter, Nykerk, Manickam, and Masudaya teach claim 20.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salter, Nykerk, and Manickam as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0028296 A1(“Masudaya”).
Claim 20
Salter teaches the vehicle of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose the remaining elements of claim 20.
Masudaya, however, teaches a vehicle 1 further including:
a plurality of antennae configured for communicate with the external device,
“As shown in FIG. 1, the on-vehicle transmitting and receiving device 10 is formed of a control section (CPU) 1, a first low-frequency-signal (LF) transmitting section 2T1, a second low-frequency-signal (LF) transmitting section 2T2, a third low-frequency-signal (LF) transmitting section 2T3, a fourth low-frequency-signal (LF) transmitting section 2T4, a fifth low-frequency-signal (LF) transmitting section 2T5, a first transmitting antenna 3F1, a second transmitting antenna 3F2, a third transmitting antenna 3B, a fourth transmitting antenna 3R1, a fifth transmitting antenna 3R2, a high-frequency-signal (RF) receiving section 4, [and] a receiving antenna 5.” Masudaya ¶ 38.
wherein the processor is further configured to: recognize, based on a communication order of the plurality of antennae communicating with the external device, a direction and a walking path of a user; and detect approach of the user based on the recognized direction and the recognized walking path of the user.
“The first transmitting antenna 3F1, the second transmitting antenna 3F2, and the third transmitting antenna 3B form a first transmitting group, and the fourth transmitting antenna 3R1 and the fifth transmitting antenna 3R2 form a second transmitting group. The first to third transmitting antennas 3F1, 3F2, and 3B, belonging to the first transmitting group, intermittently transmit request signals within a first period by the first to third low-frequency-signal transmitting sections 2T1 to 2T3 connected thereto. The fourth and fifth transmitting antennas 3R1 and 3R2, belonging to the second transmitting group, intermittently transmit request signals within a second period which differs from the first period by the fourth and fifth low-frequency-signal transmitting sections 2T4 and 2T5 connected thereto. Therefore, the first transmitting group and the second transmitting group do not send intermittent request signals at the same time.” Masudaya ¶ 43.
A receiving device 20 receives one of these signals first, and transmits a response back to the vehicle, thereby indicating which transmitting antenna was closest to the receiving device 20. See Masudaya ¶ 74.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Salter’s key fob with the technique taught by Masudaya. One would have been motivated to improve Salter with Masudaya because selectively unlocking only the closest part of the vehicle to the user is safer than simply unlocking the entire vehicle. See Masudaya ¶¶ 9–11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James K Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 In a patent drawing, a freestanding arrow “indicate[s] the entire section towards which it points.” 37 C.F.R § 1.84(r)(1)