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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 01, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by TAKAHIRA et al. Pub. No: US 20130265561 (Hereinafter “TAKAHIRA”).
Regarding Claim 1, TAKAHIRA discloses an illumination system for a vehicle comprising:
a first headlight (see paragraphs [0062-0063]);
a second headlight (see paragraphs [0063-0063]);
a first camera (see fig.9); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the first headlight, the second headlight, and the first camera, the processor being configured to (see fig.9 and paragraph [0152]), when operating:
control the first headlight to project a first patterned light on to an object on a roadway (see paragraphs [0175] and [0179]),
control the second headlight to project a second patterned light on to the object on the roadway (see paragraphs [0175] and [0179]),
control the first camera to capture an image of the first patterned light projected on the object and the second patterned light projected on the object (see paragraphs [0152-0153] and [0179]), and send the captured image of the first patterned light and the image of the second patterned light to another system in the vehicle for object detection (see paragraphs [0156]).
Regarding Claim 6, TAKAHIRA discloses the illumination system as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. TAKAHIRA further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to select a pattern for the first patterned light and the second pattern light based on at least one of: operating parameters of the vehicle, or the image of the first patterned light projected on the object and the second patterned light projected on the object captured by the first camera (see paragraphs [0175] and [0179]).
Regarding Claim 7, TAKAHIRA discloses the illumination system as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. TAKAHIRA further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to control the first headlight and the second headlight to project the first patterned light and the second patterned light on to the object on the roadway for a period of time that is less than a threshold of human perception (see paragraphs [0156-0157]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRA et al. Pub. No: US 20130265561 (Hereinafter “TAKAHIRA”) in view of Potter et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0253609 A1 (Hereinafter “Potter”).
Regarding Claim 4, TAKAHIRA discloses the illumination system as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
TAKAHIRA fails to disclose:
second camera that is configured to capture images of the first patterned light projected on to the object on the roadway and exclude the second patterned light projected by the second headlight, wherein the first camera is adapted to exclude the first pattern light projected by the first headlight.
In analogous art, Potter teaches:
second camera that is configured to capture images of the first patterned light projected on to the object on the roadway and exclude the second patterned light projected by the second headlight, wherein the first camera is adapted to exclude the first pattern light projected by the first headlight (see paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of TAKAHIRA with the teaching as taught by Potter in order to properly illuminate the scene in front of the vehicle in particular circumstances, such as rural roads with little to no street light presence and in rainy or foggy conditions.
Regarding Claim 5, TAKAHIRA in view of Potter disclose the illumination system as discussed in the rejection of claim 4. Potter further teaches wherein the first camera is integrated in the first headlight and the second camera is integrated in the second headlight (see paragraph [0097]).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRA et al. Pub. No: US 20130265561 (Hereinafter “TAKAHIRA”) in view of KRAUSE et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0236320 A1 (Hereinafter “Krause”).
Regarding Claim 8, TAKAHIRA discloses the illumination system as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
TAKAHIRA fails to disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to control the first headlight and the second headlight to project a non-patterned light on the roadway using at least one of the first headlight or the second headlight.
In analogous art, Krause teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to control the first headlight and the second headlight to project a non-patterned light on the roadway using at least one of the first headlight or the second headlight (see paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of TAKAHIRA with the teaching as taught by Krause in order to allow a simplified and improved three-dimensional detection of the surroundings, especially of unstructured surfaces.
Regarding Claim 10, TAKAHIRA discloses the illumination system as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
TAKAHIRA fails to disclose:
wherein the first patterned light and the second patterned light are projected at different non-overlapping times.
In analogous art, Krause teaches:
wherein the first patterned light and the second patterned light are projected at different non-overlapping times (see paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of TAKAHIRA with the teaching as taught by Krause in order to allow a simplified and improved three-dimensional detection of the surroundings, especially of unstructured surfaces.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRA et al. Pub. No: US 20130265561 (Hereinafter “TAKAHIRA”) in view of KRAUSE et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0236320 A1 (Hereinafter “Krause”),further in view of Ranjan et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0307332 A1 (Hereinafter “Ranjan’).
Regarding Claim 9, TAKAHIRA in view of Krause discloses the headlight as discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
TAKAHIRA in view of Krause fail to disclose:
wherein the non-patterned light is in a visible spectrum, the patterned light is in a non-visible spectrum, and the first camera is configured to capture images in the non-visible spectrum.
In analogous art, Ranjan teaches:
wherein the non-patterned light is in a visible spectrum, the patterned light is in a non-visible spectrum, and the first camera is configured to capture images in the non-visible spectrum (see paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the headlight of TAKAHIRA in view of Krause with the teaching as taught by Ranjan in order to identify an object within a scene and tracking a position of this object within the scene.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11, 13-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights