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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites the limitation "map a first set of image pixels to the left zonal area and a second set of image pixels to the right zonal area based on the distance" in lines 9-10. However, from the claim language it is not clear whether the claimed “first set of image pixels” and “a second set of image pixels” corresponds to claimed obtained “image” from the front camera or a different image, hence rendering claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-15, indefinite. Similar issue exist in independent claim 16 and 20 and their respective dependent claims and are indefinite on the similar grounds of rejection as being explained with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, and 15-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagbrant (US PGPUB 2025/0074291 A1) and further in view of Kubitza (WO 2018/095718 A1) and further in view of Du (US PGPUB 2019/0064811 A1).
As per claim 1, Jagbrant discloses a vehicle (Jagbrant, Fig. 1:135, and Fig. 3:135) comprising:
a front camera (Jagbrant, Fig. 1:116, and Fig. 3:116) configured to capture an image of an external surface in front of the vehicle (Jagbrant, paragraphs 24 and 42), wherein the vehicle is located at a distance away from the external surface (Jagbrant, paragraphs 24-25, 37 and 41);
a left headlight configured to illuminate a left zonal area of the external surface when the left headlight is illuminated (Jagbrant, Fig. 3:165), and a right headlight configured to illuminate a right zonal area of the external surface when the right headlight is illuminated (Jagbrant, Fig. 3:175); and
a processor (Jagbrant, Fig. 1:105 and Fig. 3:105) configured to:
obtain the image from the front camera (Jagbrant, paragraphs 24 and 42);
Jagbrant does not explicitly disclose map a first set of image pixels to the left zonal area and a second set of image pixels to the right zonal area based on the distance;
determine a first illumination intensity associated with the left zonal area based on the first set of image pixels and a second illumination intensity associated with the right zonal area based on the second set of image pixels, when the left headlight and the right headlight are illuminated; and
perform a predefined action when a first difference between the first illumination intensity and the second illumination intensity is greater than a first threshold.
Kubitza discloses map a first set of image pixels to the left zonal area and a second set of image pixels to the right zonal area based on the distance (Kubitza, please see Fig. 1, and related description, and also please see page 9, which discloses When viewing the projected light distribution on a surface (eg. Wall or street) will result in illuminated areas, each generated by one or more light modules. Ie. the influence of individual pixels or light modules on the total light distribution is distance-dependent and can be taken into account accordingly in the calculation of the total light distribution);
determine a first illumination intensity associated with the left zonal area based on the first set of image pixels (Kubitza, please see pages 5-6) and a second illumination intensity associated with the right zonal area based on the second set of image pixels (Kubitza, pages 5-6, discloses Each headlight or light module has individually addressable (controllable) pixels that can be switched on, off or dimmed accordingly. Based on the specification of a desired total light distribution, nominal values for the light intensity or light distribution of the pixels of the respective headlight module can be calculated), when the left headlight and the right headlight are illuminated (Kubitza, Fig. 1, and page 9); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jagbrant teachings by implementing illumination intensity calculator to the system, as taught by Kubitza.
The motivation would be to provide an improved method for an alignment and position of the headlight module in the vehicle (page 7), as taught by Kubitza.
Although Kubitza discloses calculating first and second illumination intensity as explained above however Jagbrant in view of Kubitza does not explicitly disclose perform a predefined action when a first difference between the first illumination intensity and the second illumination intensity is greater than a first threshold.
Du discloses perform a predefined action when a first difference between the first illumination intensity and the second illumination intensity is greater than a first threshold (Du, paragraphs 46 and 48, discloses When the headlamp illuminates (312)(1), a second light intensity datapoint is captured and reported (314), and the first and second light intensity datapoints are compared to determine whether there is a difference in intensities that is greater than a threshold value (316). If the difference in intensities is greater than the threshold value (316)(1), the routine reports that there is no fault with the spatial sensor (318) and this iteration ends).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jagbrant in view of Kubitza teachings by implementing a controller to the system, as taught by Du.
The motivation would be to reduce data processing complexity, data collection and data storage costs (paragraph 33), as taught by Du.
As per claim 2, Jagbrant in view of Kubitza in view of Du further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a front camera characteristic (Jagbrant, paragraph 24); and
determine the first illumination intensity and the second illumination intensity based on the front camera characteristic (Kubitza, pages 5-6 and 9).
As per claim 3, Jagbrant in view of Kubitza in view of Du further discloses the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the front camera characteristic comprises at least one of a front camera exposure time or a front camera gain (Jagbrant, paragraph 24).
As per claim 4, Jagbrant in view of Kubitza in view of Du further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the predefined action comprises automatically adjusting an alignment of at least one of the left headlight or the right headlight (Jagbrant, paragraph 76).
As per claim 8, Jagbrant in view of Kubitza in view of Du further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the predefined action comprises outputting an alert notification via a vehicle human-machine interface (HMI) or a user device (Du, paragraph 48).
As per claim 9, Jagbrant in view of Kubitza in view of Du further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a first ambient illumination intensity based on all image pixels associated with the image, when the left headlight and the right headlight are illuminated (Du, paragraphs 31, 46 and 48).
As per claim 15, Jagbrant in view of Kubitza in view of Du further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to map the first set of image pixels with the left zonal area and the second set of image pixels with the right zonal area based on vehicle design information (Kubitza, pages 7-9).
As per claim 16, please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 17, please see the analysis of claim 4.
As per claim 18, please see the analysis of claim 8.
As per claim 19, Jagbrant in view of Kubitza in view of Du further discloses the method of claim 16 further comprising determining the first illumination intensity and the second illumination intensity (Kubitza, pages 5-6 and 9) based on at least one of a front camera exposure time or a front camera gain (Jagbrant, paragraph 24).
As per claim 20, Jagbrant discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by a processor (Jagbrant, paragraph 70), cause the processor to:
and wherein the vehicle is located a predefined distance away from the external surface (Jagbrant, Fig. 3:135, and paragraphs 41 and 44);
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
Examiner’s Note: An indication of allowable subject matter with respect to claims 5-7, and 10-14, is being held in abeyance pending the response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633