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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9-10, they include the following unclear claim limitations:
(a) “light beam emission manner”
The claim term light beam emission manner is so broad that it could refer to almost any aspect of light beam emission. For example, this claim term could refer to the beam being on or off, bright or dim, diffuse or direct, etc. While [0039] states this term could refer to a direction of emission of the light beam, the paragraph very specifically avoids defining the term. Amending this limitation throughout the claims to describe instead determining / controlling an angle or inclination at which to emit the light beam would help to overcome this rejection.
(b) “adjusting a light spot focusing parameter of a light beam spot in a light spot focusing manner matching the light beam emission manner“
(i) This limitation appears to be circular since “a light spot focusing manner” is described in [0047] of the instant specification as an adjustment manner of the light spot focusing parameter. The term light spot focusing manner should be either removed or amended to help clarify the scope of claim 1.
(ii) While the term, a light spot focusing manner matching the light beam emission manner, is found throughout the instant specification, the instant specification is silent as to what this actually means.
(c) “light dropping point”
The term light dropping point does not appear to have a recognized meaning in the art and is not defined in the specification. Examiner suggests replacing this term by incorporating limitations supported by the example of a light dropping point from [0047] of the instant specification.
(d) “left and right radio frequency mechanisms”
The left and right radio frequency mechanisms are described as emitting a light beam. Radio frequency mechanisms are not known to emit light beams. MPEP 2173.05(a) states that an Applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, but a patentee using a term inconsistent with its ordinary meaning must clearly redefine the term. While [0042] describes how radio frequency mechanisms may be mechanisms that emit a light beam and gives an example of the radio frequency mechanisms being disposed on the left and right vehicle lamps, this does not constitute a definition nor does it even give a clear example of what the mechanism could be, only a high level description of its function.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, they include the following unclear claim limitations:
(a) “an included angle between the light beam and the vehicle is 90 degrees”
While [0040] of the instant specification gives an example where this claim limitation refers to a light beam emitted parallel to the ground, this limitation could refer to almost any direction since vehicles generally include surfaces with all kinds of different angles, thereby leaving the scope of this claim unclear.
(b) “a reference line corresponding to an obstacle”
While [0058] describes a line extending between two points of the obstacle closest to the vehicle, the reference line limitation of claim 2 as drafted does not limit the scope of the claim at all since the location of the line is not defined at all with respect to the obstacle. Examiner also notes that claiming the reference line as described in [0058] of the instant specification may not be supported under 112(a) as it’s unclear how an imaging sensor would identify the two points of the obstacle closest to the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 4, it includes the following unclear claim limitation:
(a) “focusing parameter threshold”
The instant specification is silent as to what a focusing parameter is and only provides at [0086] an example where the threshold value is one that enables the laser spot to be displayed. As described in the instant specification, meeting this threshold doesn’t even necessarily result in the laser spot being displayed only that its display is enabled. It is entirely unclear how a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would understand the scope of this claim term even if it were given its narrowest meaning described in the instant specification. The focusing parameter isn’t tied to any structure nor is there any exemplary range of values given to help understand the intended scope of coverage.
Regarding Claim 5, it includes the following unclear claim limitation:
(a) “extracting spot clarity”
The instant specification is unclear as to the meaning of extracting spot clarity. While the instant specification at [0082] mentions the use of a clarity standard no quantitative clarity standard is described and consequently it’s not clear what standard must be met to achieve an image in which the light beam spot is clearly displayed.
Regarding Claims 3, 6-8, 11 and 13-20, they are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG PUB 20010039469 (hereinafter Nishimura) in view of US 4647193 (hereinafter Rosenfeld).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishimura teaches an obstacle ranging method, comprising:
determining obstacle region information of an obstacle, when it is determined that the obstacle exists in a driving direction of a vehicle according to a captured first driving image ([0027] describes the use of a CCD camera for detecting information about an obstacle in the form of another vehicle driving in front of the vehicle, which would place the obstacle in the driving direction of the vehicle);
determining a light beam emission manner ([0030] describes utilizing a relative speed when determining a location {reference point S} at which to aim the headlights) according to a current vehicle speed and the obstacle region information (the relative speed is a function of the vehicle speed and the speed of the obstacle/other vehicle);
controlling left and right side radio frequency mechanisms on the vehicle to emit a light beam in the light beam emission manner ([0038], when referencing step S111 from FIG. 3, describes the use of actuators to change the horizontal and inclination angles of the headlamps to target the reference point S on the obstacle);
adjusting a light spot focusing parameter of a light beam spot in a light spot focusing manner matching the light beam emission manner ([0044] describes widening the light beam which would be accomplished by some kind of focusing change), and obtaining a second driving image containing the adjusted light beam spot ([0027] describes how the CCD camera is positioned to monitor objects in front of the vehicle, which would subsequently generate at least one additional image with the detected vehicle illuminated by the headlights); and
determining a spacing distance between the vehicle and the obstacle according to the second driving image ([0030] describes the use of a CCD camera, which generates imagery, in conjunction with a radar to determine the spacing distance);
wherein the light beam spot is a light dropping point (headlamps when aimed at an object will create a spot are the object they are pointed at) of the light beam in an emission direction of the light beam (the light spot will be created on the object which is in the direction that the light beam is directed).
While Nishimura teaches each of the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above, Rosenfeld more specifically teaches the limitation of determining a spacing distance between objects according to an image. In particular, Rosenfeld describes a light emitting and receiving assembly (see FIG. 2) that emits light to create an illuminated spot on a target (see illuminated spot 24 reflected off target 26 in FIG. 2) and then when the reflected light arrives back at the assembly, the receiving optics generate a blurred circle 42/92/94 (see FIG. 4) whose size is captured by photodetectors 52 and 56 and the measured diameter is used to determine a distance to the target.
Nishimura and Rosenfeld both describe target distance determination systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the system of Nishimura by replacing the EHF radar system of Nishimura with the light based distance measurement system taught by Rosenfeld and incorporating it into the light based distance measurement system into the adaptive headlamps for tracking distance of objects illuminated by the headlamps. Doing so would have been obvious in light of Rosenfeld’s teaching of incorporating a light-weight, inexpensive, yet reliable distance measurements system that is achieved with Rosenfeld’s teachings allow for lower cost and complexity (even relative to the conventional lidar system described in Nishimura) since the location of signal transmission and phase of light transmission do not need to be collected and utilized for distance measurement (see Col 1 lines 18-22 and 47-55 of Rosenfeld). Furthermore, incorporating the distance sensors into the headlamps allows for the distance measurement sensors to benefit from the existing beam steering system described in Nishimura.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nishimura and Rosenfeld teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the light beam emission manner according to the current vehicle speed and the obstacle region information comprises:
acquiring the current vehicle speed of the vehicle ([0025] of Nishimura describes the vehicle including a vehicle speed sensor that continuously collects vehicle speed);
in a case where the current vehicle speed is greater than a preset speed threshold ([0031] of Nishimura describes basing the inclination angle of the vehicle detection process on speed from the speed sensor), using a manner that an included angle between the light beam and the vehicle is 90 degrees (this limitation is construed broadly in light of the issues raised in the 112(b) rejection of claim 2 above, consequently [0031] of Nishimura also teaches this limitation given that inclination angle is based on speed and at some threshold speed the light beam would be set to a particular angle. Examiner notes that the instant specification is entirely silent as to what the threshold speed would be. For example, as claimed, the threshold speed could be 1 mph or 100 mph and the claim is also not specific as to whether the included angle would be set to 90 degrees for all speeds above the threshold speed or just for a narrow range band above the threshold) as the light beam emission manner; or
in a case where the current vehicle speed is less than or equal to a preset speed threshold, determining a reference line corresponding to the obstacle according to the obstacle region information, and using a manner that a light spot dropping point corresponding to the light beam is located on the reference line as the light beam emission manner (in light of the OR limitation, this second limitation need not be taught by the combination of references).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nishimura and Rosenfeld teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the left and right side radio frequency mechanisms on the vehicle to emit the light beam in the light beam emission manner comprises:
controlling, by a radio frequency rotation member (ECU 20, see FIG. 1 & [0026] describing its responsibility for adjusting headlight optical axis direction), the left and right side radio frequency mechanisms on the vehicle to emit the light beam in the light beam emission manner;
wherein the radio frequency rotation member is connected to the left and right side radio frequency mechanisms (FIG. 1 shows ECU 20 connected to headlights 30).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nishimura and Rosenfeld teaches the method of claim 2, wherein when the light beam emission manner is the manner that the included angle between the light beam and the vehicle is 90 degrees, the light spot focusing manner is performing light spot focusing (Col 2 lines 66-68 of Rosenfeld describe the emitted light taking the form of a laser and being collimated {i.e. focused} so as to illuminate a small spot on a target) according to the obstacle region information; and
when the light beam emission manner is the manner that the light spot dropping point corresponding to the light beam is located on the reference line ([0030] of Nishimura describes orienting the light beam at a reference point on an obstacle that could coincide with a reference line & it should be noted that, as described in the 112(b) rejection of claim 4 above, the reference line imitation as pending does not appear to be limiting), the light spot focusing manner is performing the light spot focusing by using a preset focusing parameter threshold (see 112(b) rejection above pointing out how focusing parameter threshold does not appear to be limiting).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nishimura and Rosenfeld teaches the method of claim 4, wherein when the light spot focusing manner is performing the light spot focusing according to the obstacle region information, adjusting the light spot focusing parameter of the light beam spot and obtaining the second driving image containing the adjusted light beam spot comprises:
extracting spot clarity (Col 3 lines 9-11 of Rosenfeld describes how the use of a monochrome laser allows for ambient light rejection improving the clarity and ease of detecting the spot projected by the light source) of the light beam spot in the obstacle region information;
when the spot clarity does not satisfy a preset first spot clarity standard, adjusting the light spot focusing parameter through a light spot focusing chip ([0049] of Nishimura describes changing brightness of light output based on the range to the obstacle); and
obtaining the captured second driving image containing the adjusted light beam spot (Rosenfeld at Col 40 lines 40-44 describes how measuring device 60 receives blurred circular image 42 for determination of its diameter) .
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nishimura and Rosenfeld teaches the method of claim 4, wherein when the light spot focusing manner is performing the light spot focusing by using the preset focusing parameter threshold, adjusting the light spot focusing parameter of the light beam spot and obtaining the second driving image containing the adjusted light beam spot comprises:
extracting spot clarity of the light beam spot in the obstacle region information (Rosenfeld describes receiving and measuring the light reflected off the obstacle);
adjusting, through a light spot focusing chip, the light spot focusing parameter based on the focusing parameter threshold ([0049] of Nishimura describes adjusting the brightness of the emitted light based on the distance to the target);
when the spot clarity does not satisfy a preset second spot clarity standard, performing a secondary adjustment on the light spot focusing parameter through the light spot focusing chip (Col 5 lines 31-34 describe how measurement quality can be improved by adjusting the orientation of slit area 46 to prevent shifting of the imaged spot); and
obtaining the captured second driving image containing the adjusted light beam spot (Col 40 lines 40-44 of Rosenfeld describes how measuring device 60 receives blurred circular image 42 for determination of its diameter).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nishimura and Rosenfeld teaches the method of claim 5, wherein determining the spacing distance between the vehicle and the obstacle according to the second driving image comprises:
determining an area value of the light beam spot according to the second driving image (Col 4 lines 62-65 of Rosenfeld describes how the area of the light beam is calculated from the measured diameter of image 42); and
determining the spacing distance between the vehicle and the obstacle according to the area value (Eq (2) at Col 2 line 68 of Rosenfeld shows how the measured diameter of ds is used in conjunction with parameters of the lens receiver to determine the spacing distance, this calculation is based on the area of the beam since the diameter of the beam is directly proportional to its area).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nishimura and Rosenfeld teaches the method of claim 6, wherein determining the spacing distance between the vehicle and the obstacle according to the second driving image comprises:
acquiring installation height information of the left and right side radio frequency mechanisms ([0031] describes the use of height sensor 11 to determine the height h2 of the headlights 30 above the road surface);
determining included angle information between the left and right side radio frequency mechanisms and the vehicle according to the second driving image ([0031] and Eq(1) of Nishimura describes how the inclination angle of the headlight optical axis is determined); and
determining the spacing distance between the vehicle and the obstacle according to the included angle information and the installation height information (Eq(2) at Col 2 line 68 of Rosenfeld shows the formula for determining the spacing between the vehicle and obstacle and the emission angle of the light is a function of the headlight optical axis and headlight installation height).
Regarding Claims 9-11, they are each rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 12-18, they are rejected for the same reasons as respective claims 2-8.
Regarding Claims 19-20, they are rejected for the same reasons as respective claims 2-3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, Bae et al, “Development of New Laser Algorithm in the SFF system using a SLS process”, 10/17/2007, describes how a laser can include optics for focusing/changing its spot size.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights