DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 5/22/2024 and the preliminary amendment filed on 7/24/2024.
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “22” has been used to designate both the static symbols on fig. 2 and the first hologram on fig. 4a,
reference character “24” has been used to designate both the small mini LED display on fig. 3 and the second hologram on fig. 4b, and
reference numeral “23” had been used in the specifications to designate the static symbols on fig. 2. But is not shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
As indicated with respect to the drawings above,
reference character “22” has been used to designate both the static symbols on fig. 2 and the first hologram on fig. 4a,
reference character “24” has been used to designate both the small mini LED display on fig. 3 and the second hologram on fig. 4b, and
reference numeral “23” had been used in the specifications to designate the static symbols on fig. 2. But is not shown in the drawings.
Corresponding correction is required in the specifications.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-11 and 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7, 11 and 13, replace … configured to use …with … further configured to use …
Claim 8, replace … configured …with … further configured …
Claim 9, replace … and in that the apparatus is configured to switch on a plurality of the plurality of semiconductor light sources … with … wherein the apparatus is configured to switch on
Claim 10, replace … for a short time in the case of the gesture-controlled closing of the tailgate is the reverse of that in the case of the gesture-controlled opening … with … for a short time in a case of a gesture-controlled closing of the tailgate is the reverse of that in a case of a gesture-controlled opening … for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14, replace … gesture sensor system … with … sensor system … for proper antecedent basis.
Claims 15-17, replace … gesture recognition sensor system … with … sensor system … for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17, replace … configured to recognize …with … further configured to recognize …
Claim 19, replace … one of the following functions: opening/closing of the tailgate, activating/deactivating of the position light or the welcome function, personalizing of the taillamp signature, interacting with the light, in the case of the mini LED display in the taillamp: displaying information, battery charge level, weather; switching on of the reversing light in order to illuminate the area behind the car, opening/closing of the vehicle windows with … one of the following functions: opening/closing of a tailgate, activating/deactivating of a position light or a welcome function, personalizing of a taillamp signature, interacting with a light, displaying information, battery charge level, or weather using a mini LED display in a taillamp, switching on of a reversing light in order to illuminate an area behind the vehicle, and opening/closing of the vehicle windows for proper antecedent basis and proper linguistics.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a sensor system which is configured to recognize gestures of a user and which is configured to monitor at least a sub-area of an environment of the motor vehicle … and, if the sensor system recognizes a performance of the gesture, …” in claim 1, and “a gesture sensor system configured to recognize the hand movement” in claims 5 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
As per Applicant’s specifications on p. 5, the sensor system can comprise any of the following:
a camera and/or a radar sensor and/or a LiDAR sensor and/or a time-of-flight sensor,
an optical infrared sensor, at least two infrared light-emitting diodes, and a sensor control unit,
sensor sensitive to visible light, at least two light-emitting diodes with which visible light can be emitted, and a sensor control unit, and
a capacitive sensor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8-10 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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "may, for example, be …" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, the term “short time” in each of claims 9 and 10 is a relative term which renders each of these claims indefinite. The term “short time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes that the duration for switching on the plurality of semiconductor light sources is rendered indefinite, and thus renders these claims indefinite.
Examiner Comments
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiura et al., US Patent No. 10,597,927 B2 (hereinafter as Sugiura).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sugiura discloses an apparatus for the contactless triggering of at least one function of a motor vehicle [note the backdoor opening and closing apparatus in col. 1, lines 54-56], the apparatus comprising a sensor system which is configured to recognize gestures of a user and which is configured to monitor at least a sub-area of an environment of the motor vehicle for a predetermined gesture being performed by a user of the motor vehicle [note the sensor’s detection area at a lateral rear portion of the vehicle in col. 1, lines 58-59; note the detection areas and the detection of an input operation by a user indicated in col. 4, lines 49-60; note the indication of predetermined gestures such as hand waving from a lower position to an upper position and from the upper to the lower in col. 9, lines 12-20] and, if the sensor system recognizes a performance of the gesture, to trigger a performance of the function of the motor vehicle, wherein the gesture is a hand movement [again, see col. 9, lines 12-20 indicating a function of opening the backdoor of a vehicle and a function of closing it responsive to a recognition of a certain hand movement for each].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sugiura further discloses that the function comprises an opening of a tailgate of the motor vehicle by an upward hand movement [see col. 9, lines 12-15 indicating the opening of the backdoor responsive to the waving of a user hand from a lower to an upper position (i.e. an upward hand movement); Examiner notes that the specification of the instant application uses a tailgate and a trunk of a vehicle interchangeably].
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sugiura further discloses that the function comprises a closing of the tailgate by a downward hand movement [see col. 9, lines 16-20 indicating the closing of the backdoor responsive to the waving of a user hand from the upper to the lower position (i.e. an downward hand movement); Examiner notes that the specification of the instant application uses a tailgate and a trunk of a vehicle interchangeably].
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sugiura further discloses a lamp or a central brake lamp or door handles or windows or a windshield or a rear-view mirror, which comprises a gesture sensor system configured to recognize the hand movement [see e.g. col. 4, lines 33-36 indicating the sensors (for detecting user input) being provided within the lamp 32; see the rejection of claim 1 for recognizing hand movement as a user operation input].
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sugiura further discloses that the sensor system comprises an optical infrared sensor, at least two infrared light-emitting diodes, and a sensor control unit [note in col. 4, lines 29-41 the ECU 12, the sensors 33 and 34, and the two LED light sources 35 and 35 as shown in fig. 4; note the option of infrared sensors in col. 10, lines 6-8 which requires infrared LEDS].
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sugiura further discloses that the sensor system comprises a capacitive sensor [see e.g. col. 4, lines 37-38].
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sugiura further discloses recognizing a plurality of different gestures and thus to make it possible to trigger a plurality of different functions of the motor vehicle to be performed [again, see col. 9, lines 12-20 indicating a function of opening the backdoor of a vehicle and a function of closing it responsive to a recognition of a certain hand movement for each; Examiner notes that the phrase “thus to make it possible to trigger a plurality of different functions of the motor vehicle to be performed” is a recitation of an intended result that is not recited with sufficient detail to add further limitations to the claim and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction].
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Sugiura further discloses that plurality of functions includes at least one of the following functions: opening/closing of a tailgate [again, see col. 9, lines 12-20 indicating a function of opening the backdoor of a vehicle and a function of closing it responsive to a recognition of a certain hand movement for each; again, Examiner notes that the specification of the instant application uses a tailgate and a trunk of a vehicle interchangeably], activating/deactivating of a position light or a welcome function, personalizing of a taillamp signature, interacting with a light, displaying information, battery charge level, or weather using a mini LED display in a taillamp, switching on of a reversing light in order to illuminate an area behind the vehicle, and opening/closing of the vehicle windows.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bussis et al., US Patent No. 10,822,845 B2 (hereinafter as Bussis).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bussis discloses an apparatus for the contactless triggering of at least one function of a motor vehicle [note the apparatus in fig. 1 and related description], the apparatus comprising a sensor system which is configured to recognize gestures of a user and which is configured to monitor at least a sub-area of an environment of the motor vehicle for a predetermined gesture being performed by a user of the motor vehicle and, if the sensor system recognizes a performance of the gesture, to trigger a performance of the function of the motor vehicle, wherein the gesture is a hand movement [note the object detection module 12 shown in fig. 2 and described e.g. in col. 5, line 52 – col. 6, line 9; note the sensing region; see e.g. col. 25, line 63-col. 26, line 2 describing the opening of a rear access closure of a vehicle responsive to the detection of a predefined hand waving gesture within a detection range of the object detection assembly]. Examiner notes that this a duplicate rejection.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bussis further discloses that the function comprises a locking and/or unlocking of vehicle doors [see col. 12, lines 31-34 indicating a function of unlocking or locking a door of the vehicle] and/or vehicle windows and/or sunroofs, and/or an activating of welcome effects and/or farewell effects, and/or a switching on of a reversing lamp.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bussis further discloses a lamp or a central brake lamp or door handles or windows or a windshield or a rear-view mirror, which comprises a gesture sensor system configured to recognize the hand movement [see e.g. col. 27, lines 5-26 indicating that the object detection module may be integrated into a lamp, window, or handle, as shown in fig. 34]. Examiner notes that this a duplicate rejection.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bussis further discloses a motor vehicle taillamp which comprises a gesture sensor system configured to recognize the hand movement [see e.g. col. 27, lines 5-26 indicating that the object detection module may be integrated into a rear lamp assembly as shown in fig. 34].
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bussis further discloses that the sensor system comprises a camera and/or a radar sensor [see e.g. col. 16, lines 9-11] and/or a LiDAR sensor and/or a time-of-flight sensor.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bussis further discloses that the sensor system comprises an optical infrared sensor, at least two infrared light-emitting diodes, and a sensor control unit [note in col. 5, line 52 – col. 6, line 9 the controller 14, the two or more infrared LEDs and the IR sensors]. Examiner notes that this a duplicate rejection.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bussis further discloses recognizing a plurality of different gestures and thus to make it possible to trigger a plurality of different functions of the motor vehicle to be performed [see e.g. col. 12, line 34 indicating multiple different predefined gestures; note in col. 14, lines 31-40 indicating a plurality of functions; Examiner notes that the phrase “thus to make it possible to trigger a plurality of different functions of the motor vehicle to be performed” is a recitation of an intended result that is not recited with sufficient detail to add further limitations to the claim and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction]. Examiner notes that this a duplicate rejection.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Bussis further discloses that plurality of functions includes at least one of the following functions: opening/closing of a tailgate [again, see col. 12, lines 31-34 indicating a function of opening a tailgate of the vehicle], activating/deactivating of a position light or a welcome function, personalizing of a taillamp signature, interacting with a light, displaying information, battery charge level, or weather using a mini LED display in a taillamp, switching on of a reversing light in order to illuminate an area behind the vehicle, and opening/closing of the vehicle windows. Examiner notes that this a duplicate rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussis (as applied to claim 6) in view of KIM, US PGPUB 2016/0332562 Al (hereinafter as Kim).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated.
Bussis further teaches using semiconductor light sources of the gesture sensor system in order to signal a position of the gesture sensor system [see e.g. col. 14, lines 20-25 indicating the use of the illumination devices 112 (which can be – as per col. 7, lines 21-30– an array of LEDS that are semiconductor light sources) to visually direct the user to a particular location; see also col. 26, lines 6-23 indicating using the illumination devices 112 to direct the user to the position to open the enclosure].
Bussis further teaches that the gesture sensor system is integrated into the motor vehicle taillamp [again, see e.g. col. 27, lines 5-26 indicating that the object detection module may be integrated into a rear lamp assembly as shown in fig. 34].
Bussis, however, does not explicitly teach using the semiconductor light sources of the motor vehicle taillamp in order to do the signaling.
Kim teaches a rear combination lamp of a vehicle that has a plurality of semiconductor light sources [see e.g. [0069] as well as [0054] indicating LED elements in the display; see also figs. 1B and 1] and that is used both for functions of a rear lamp such as braking, etc., as well as for delivering various information [see e.g. [0004] and [0006]; see also [0071]].
All of the features included in the claim limitations are known on Bussis and Kim. The only difference is the combination of these different elements/features into a single apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bussis and Kim before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly utilize the semiconductor light sources in the rear combination lamp of the vehicle taught by Kim to do the function of signaling a position of the gesture sensor system performed by the semiconductor light sources of the gesture sensor system taught by Bussis, since these features are mere additional features that are in-line with the other functionalities taught by Kim and can be performed by the semiconductor light sources in the rear combination lamp. Therefore, the result of the combination would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, also allowing for utilizing the already existing light sources in the rear combination lamp to deliver various additional information, as suggested by Kim [see [0004]-[0006]]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bussis and Kim to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP 2143 I.A.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated.
Bussis further teaches, after a hand movement has been recognized , to use semiconductor light sources of the gesture sensor system in order to signal to the user, by lighting up the semiconductor light sources, that the hand movement has been recognized [see e.g. col. 12, lines 53-58 and col. 13, lines 1-2 and 9-17 indicating the use of the illumination devices 112 (which can be – as per col. 7, lines 21-30– an array of LEDS that are semiconductor light sources) to indicate to the user that the gesture has been recognized; note the hand wave gesture indicated in col. 26, lines 1-2 and see fig. 5; Examiner refers to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and notes that the exemplary hand movement of upward and downward swipe is not considered to be an essential part recited by the claim].
Bussis further teaches that the gesture sensor system is integrated into the motor vehicle taillamp [again, see e.g. col. 27, lines 5-26 indicating that the object detection module may be integrated into a rear lamp assembly as shown in fig. 34].
Bussis, however, does not explicitly teach using the one or more semiconductor light sources already present for taillamp light functions of the motor vehicle taillamp, in order to do the signaling.
Kim teaches a rear combination lamp of a vehicle that has a plurality of semiconductor light sources [see e.g. [0069] as well as [0054] indicating LED elements in the display; see also figs. 1B and 1] and that is used both for functions of a rear lamp such as braking, etc., as well as for delivering various information [see e.g. [0004] and [0006]; see also [0071]].
All of the features included in the claim limitations are known on Bussis and Kim. The only difference is the combination of these different elements/features into a single apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Bussis and Kim before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly utilize the semiconductor light sources in the rear combination lamp of the vehicle taught by Kim to do the function of signaling to the user, by lighting up the semiconductor light sources, that the hand movement has been recognized performed by the semiconductor light sources of the gesture sensor system taught by Bussis, since these features are mere additional features that are in-line with the other functionalities taught by Kim and can be performed by the semiconductor light sources in the rear combination lamp. Therefore, the result of the combination would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, also allowing for utilizing the already existing light sources in the rear combination lamp to deliver various additional information, as suggested by Kim [see [0004]-[0006]]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bussis and Kim to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP 2143 I.A.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is fully incorporated.
Kim further teaches that the taillamp comprises a plurality of semiconductor light sources lined up along a line, as light sources for the taillamp light functions [see e.g. [0167] indicating an array of a plurality of LED elements in a taillight].
Bussis further teaches, switching on a plurality of semiconductor light sources sequentially for a short time in order to produce the optical effect of a swipe movement so that the impression of the swiping movement of a bright area is given [see e.g. col. 12, lines 53-58 and col. 13, lines 1-2 and 9-17 indicating the use of the illumination devices 112 (which can be – as per col. 7, lines 21-30– an array of LEDS that are semiconductor light sources) to provide an indication to the user by sequentially activating and deactivating the illumination devices with a predefined frequency and/or duty cycle; see also fig. 5; Examiner notes that the phrase “in order to produce the optical effect of a swipe movement so that the impression of the swiping movement of a bright area is given” is a recitation of an intended result that is not recited with sufficient detail to add further limitations to the claim and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction].
Again, Bussis further teaches that the gesture sensor system is integrated into the motor vehicle taillamp [again, see e.g. col. 27, lines 5-26 indicating that the object detection module may be integrated into a rear lamp assembly as shown in fig. 34]. Refer to the rejection of claim 8 for combining the teachings of Bussis and Kim to use the plurality of semiconductor light sources of the taillight to do the sequential switching on.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussis (as applied to claim 6) in view of McMahon et al., US PGPUB 2018/0170309 Al (hereinafter as McMahon).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Bussis does not explicitly teach using static symbols to signal the position of the gesture sensor system and to inform the user about the available gestures.
McMahon teaches using static symbols to signal the position of a gesture sensor system and to inform the user about available gestures [note indicator 28 shown in figs. 2-9 and described in [0037] which can be an icon and informs the user of the appropriate location to make an activation gesture; further note that the indicator can inform the user if an incorrect or invalid gesture are made (thus providing information about available gestures); again, Examiner notes that the phrase “to signal the position of the gesture sensor system and to inform the user about the available gestures” is a recitation of an intended result that is not recited with sufficient detail to add further limitations to the claim and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Bussis and McMahon before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bussis’ apparatus by explicitly indicating the use of static symbols to signal the position of the gesture sensor system and to inform the user about the available gestures, as taught by McMahon. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate communicating with the user thus illuminating the guessing process when trying to make an activation gesture to control a vehicle member, as suggested by McMahon [again see e.g. [0037]].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussis in view of McMahon, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of HALLITSCHKE, US PGPUB 2018/0170309 Al (hereinafter as HALLITSCHKE).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach a mini LED display which is integrated into the taillamp and which makes dynamic interaction with the user possible.
HALLITSCHKE teaches a mini LED display which is integrated into the taillamp and which makes dynamic interaction with the user possible [see e.g. [0031]-[0032] and fig. 3-4 indicating mini-LEDs integrated into a tail light; see also the second half of [0037] as well as [0040] and [0042] indicating the display of a pictogram, animation or designated pattern to users; again, Examiner notes that the phrase “which makes dynamic interaction with the user possible” is a recitation of an intended result that is not recited with sufficient detail to add further limitations to the claim and therefore does not provide a patentable distinction].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and HALLITSCHKE before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bussis’ apparatus that has been modified by McMahon by explicitly specifying a mini LED display which is integrated into the taillamp and which makes dynamic interaction with the user possible, as taught by HALLITSCHKE. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable providing superior appearance and design versatility, as suggested by HALLITSCHKE [again see e.g. [0037]].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussis in view of McMahon, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of DE 102014114049 A1 for which a machine translation is provided (hereinafter as Dirk).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The previously combined art does not explicitly teach using static holographic 3D symbols to interact with the user.
Dirk teaches using static holographic 3D symbols to interact with the user [see e.g. figs. 1a-b, and figs. 9-13 indicating the use of static holographic 3D symbols to interact with the user].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Dirk before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bussis’ apparatus that has been modified by McMahon’s teaching by explicitly specifying using static holographic 3D symbols to interact with the user, as taught by Dirk. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to provide a more entertaining and immersive user interaction regarding gestures, thus providing more clarity and engagement [see e.g. the description in [0062]-[0063] as well as [0027] in the translated document].
Claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura in view of Herthan, US PGPUB 2015/0009062 A1 (hereinafter as Herthan).
Examiner notes that this a duplicate rejection.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Sugiura does not explicitly teach that the sensor system comprises a camera and/or a radar sensor and/or a LiDAR sensor and/or a time-of-flight sensor.
Herthan teaches a sensor system comprising a radar sensor (for recognizing gestures for triggering vehicle function performance) [see e.g. [0008]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Sugiura and Herthan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensor system comprising a radar sensor taught by Herthan for the sensor system taught by Sugiura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make a simple substitution of one known sensor for another to generate the predictive result of enabling the detection of small movements which is possible using some radar-based sensor systems, as also suggested by Herthan [see [0014] and [0019]].
See MPEP 2143 I B.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura in view of Peterson, US Patent No. 11,597,315 B2 (hereinafter as Peterson).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Sugiura further teaches that the sensor system comprises a sensor, at least two light-emitting diodes, and a sensor control unit [note in col. 4, lines 29-41 the ECU 12, the sensors 33 and 34, and the two LED light sources 35 and 35 as shown in fig. 4].
Sugiura, however, does not explicitly teach that the sensor is sensitive to visible light. Neither does it teach that the light-emitting diodes are ones with which visible light can be emitted.
Peterson teaches a sensor system comprising a sensor sensitive to visible light and light-emitting diodes with which visible light can be emitted (for recognizing gestures for triggering vehicle function performance) [see e.g. fig. 4 and the corresponding description indicating LEDs and detectors (sensors); see also col. 3, lines 12-31 indicating visible light ranges]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Sugiura and Peterson before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the type of sensor and LED taught by Peterson for the corresponding elements in the sensor system taught by Sugiura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make a simple substitution of infrared sensor and LEDS for visible-light sensors and LEDS to generate the predictive result of allowing spectral sensitivity similar to that of the human eye, as also suggested by Peterson [see col. 3, lines 14-16].
See MPEP 2143 I B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, as well as address the claim objections, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes the following cited art:
Chaterlea et al., US Patent No. 8,348,484 B2, which teaches a running taillamp function including a selective illumination and unillumination of the LEDS in a predetermined fashion [see col. , lines 7-49 and figs. 6-8].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172