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 .
Priority
The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: The instant application, filed on 03/06/2024, claims foreign priority to DE Application No. 102021004516.5, filed on 09/07/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (lDS) submitted on 03/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered.
Specification
The abstract exceeds 150 words. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b)C.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 4 and 7-10 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 4, the phrase “in particular a road to be observed” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether the surface is required to be a road or whether a road is merely an example of the recited surface. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “spatially, in particular vertically, distanced from one another” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether the functional positions must be vertically spaced or whether vertical spacing is merely exemplary of spatial spacing. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the illumination elements are arranged in one functional position each” is unclear as to whether each illumination element is arranged in a respective, different functional position or whether multiple illumination elements are arranged in the same functional position. Accordingly, the relationship between the illumination elements and the functional positions is unclear rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claims 8-10 are further rejected by virtue of dependency.
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)(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.
(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, 3, 6-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mano (US 20190025432 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mano discloses a motor vehicle (Fig. 7, host vehicle; ¶¶ 62-63) with a gated camera (Fig. 6, image acquisition device 102), the gated camera with an illumination device (Fig. 6, lamps 105A+105B), an optical sensor (Fig. 6, camera 108; ¶¶ 66-67, camera 108 employing “shutter (gate)”) and a control device (Fig. 6, timing controller 109),
wherein the illumination device has at least two functional positions, wherein the at least two functional positions are spatially, in particular vertically, distanced from one another (Fig. 7 & ¶¶ 62-63, lamp 105A occupies the right headlamp position and lamp 105B occupies the left headlamp position),
wherein the control device operates the gated camera having the illumination device and the optical sensor (¶¶ 61-70), wherein
the illumination device and the optical sensor are time-coordinated with each other (¶¶ 66-67, timing controller 109 causes selected lamp 105A or 105B to emit and subsequently gates camera 108 after corresponding reflection time tD1 or tD2),
wherein a visible distance range is assigned to a first time coordination (¶ 67, near area of 0-100 m is assigned to emission by lamp 105A followed by gating camera 108 after reflection time tD1; Fig. 8, process f+1;),
wherein a property of the visible distance range is provided (¶ 67, timing controller 109 operates using the near-range target distance property of 0-100 m and corresponding reflection time tD1),
wherein the illumination device has at least two functional positions (Fig. 7 & ¶¶ 62-63, lamp 105A occupies the right headlamp position and lamp 105B occupies the left headlamp position), so that the visible distance range can be selectively illuminated by means of the illumination device from at least one functional position of the at least two functional positions (¶¶ 62, 67, lamp 105A selectively illuminates near-area irradiation range 100A from its right headlamp position; Figs. 7-8, process f+1),
wherein the at least two functional positions are spatially distanced from one another (Fig. 7 & ¶¶ 62-63, lamp 105A occupies the right headlamp position and lamp 105B occupies the left headlamp position),
wherein based on the property of the visible distance range, a functional position of the at least two functional positions for illuminating the visible distance range is selected (¶¶ 66-67, timing controller 109 selects lamp 105A at the right headlamp position for the near area and lamp 105B at the left headlamp position for the distant area; Fig. 8, processes f and f+1).
Claim 7 corresponds to the gated camera described as part of the motor vehicle in claim 10. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 10.
Claim 6 corresponds to the control device described as part of the gated camera in claim 7. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 7.
Claim 1 is a method corresponding to the device of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 6.
Regarding claim 3, Mano discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses: the illumination device has at least two illumination elements (Fig. 6, lamps 105A and 105B; ¶ 61), wherein a first illumination element of the at least two illumination elements is arranged in a first functional position of the at least two functional positions (¶ 62, lamp 105A in the right headlamp), wherein a second illumination element of the at least two illumination elements is arranged in a second functional position of the at least two functional positions (¶ 63, lamp 105B in the left headlamp), wherein based on the property of the visible distance range, the first illumination element or the second illumination element is controlled to illuminate the visible distance range (¶¶ 66-67, timing controller 109 operates lamp 105A for the near area and lamp 105B for the distant area; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Mano discloses the gated camera of claim 7, and further discloses: wherein the illumination device has at least two illumination elements (Fig. 6, lamps 105A and 105B; ¶ 61), wherein the illumination elements are arranged in one functional position each (¶¶ 62-63, lamp 105A in the right headlamp position and lamp 105B in the left headlamp position).
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 2, 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano in view of Koiso (US 20180266643 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mano discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the illumination device has an illumination element (Fig. 6, 105A), wherein the illumination element is selectively [activated] into one of the at least two functional positions based on the property of the visible distance range (¶¶ 62, 67, lamp 105A selectively illuminates near-area irradiation range 100A from its right headlamp position; Figs. 7-8, process f+1). However, Mano does not disclose: [the illumination element is selectively] “displaced” [into one of the at least two functional positions based on the property of the visible distance range]. Koiso teaches the limitation, specifically: Fig. 1, right headlight 12R, as further detailed in Fig. 3 by light source unit 120R and actuator 121R; ¶ 64, actuator 121R “moves the position of the light source unit 120R” and changes its position relative to reflector 122R; ¶ 65, actuator 121R is operated “on the basis of data relating to the position of a vanishing point”; ¶ 66, actuator operation changes both “the position of the light source unit 120R” and its light emitting position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mano with the teachings of Koiso with a reasonable expectation of success in order to selectively reposition the illumination element, thereby yielding a method with dynamically adjusted illumination directed toward the relevant road region and an improved field of view while reducing glare to oncoming vehicles (Koiso, ¶¶ 64-66, 69-70).
Regarding claim 4, Mano discloses the method of claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein a vertical deviation of a surface to be observed, in particular a road to be observed, from a horizontal course is used as the property of the visible distance range. Koiso teaches the limitation, specifically: Fig. 4 and ¶ 68 establishes a substantially horizontal road reference condition; Fig. 5 and ¶ 69 teaches that, for an uphill road, “the position of a horizon 50U is displaced upward” and vanishing point 20A is above the image center; Fig. 6 and ¶ 70 teach that, for a downhill road, horizon 50D is displaced downward and vanishing point 20B is below the image center; ¶ 90 states that the uphill and downhill vanishing points differ in vertical position and that headlight emission is controlled based on those calculated positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mano with the teachings of Koiso with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use the vertical displacement of the road horizon or vanishing point to identify an uphill or downhill road and control illumination accordingly, thereby yielding a system with appropriate upward or downward illumination, reduced unnecessary illumination, and a more optimal field of view (Koiso, ¶¶ 69-70, 90).
Regarding claim 5, Mano discloses the method of claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein the at least two functional positions are vertically distanced from one another. Koiso teaches the limitation, specifically: Fig. 3, source unit 120R and actuator 121R; ¶ 64, actuator 121R moves source unit 120R in the “y-axis direction” defined as the “direction perpendicular to the road surface”; ¶ 65, actuator 121R is operated “on the basis of data relating to the position of a vanishing point”; ¶ 66, actuator operation changes both “the position of the light source unit 120R” and its light emitting position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mano with the teachings of Koiso with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide vertically separated illumination element positions along an axis perpendicular to the road surface, thereby yielding a system capable of adjusting its illumination upward or downward to accommodate changes in road grade (Koiso, ¶¶ 64, 69-70).
Regarding claim 8, Mano discloses the gated camera of claim 7, and further discloses: wherein the illumination device comprises an illumination element (Fig. 6, 105A), wherein the illumination element is [activated on] the at least two functional positions (¶¶ 62, 67, lamp 105A selectively illuminates near-area irradiation range 100A from its right headlamp position; Figs. 7-8, process f+1). However, Mano does not disclose: [the illumination element is] “displaceable between” [the at least two functional positions]. Koiso teaches the limitation, specifically: Fig. 1, right headlight 12R, as further detailed in Fig. 3 by light source unit 120R and actuator 121R; ¶ 64, actuator 121R “moves the position of the light source unit 120R” and changes its position relative to reflector 122R; ¶ 65, actuator 121R is operated “on the basis of data relating to the position of a vanishing point”; ¶ 66, actuator operation changes both “the position of the light source unit 120R” and its light emitting position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination device of Mano with the teachings of Koiso with a reasonable expectation of success in order to selectively reposition the illumination element, thereby yielding a system with dynamically adjusted illumination directed toward the relevant road region and an improved field of view while reducing glare to oncoming vehicles (Koiso, ¶¶ 64-66, 69-70).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Braun (US 20040114921 A1) which discloses a vehicle-mounted gated 3D camera with synchronized pulsed illumination and sensing, with adaptive control of spatially distributed illumination elements based on roadway scene properties. Mano2 (US 20200271786 A1) which disclose a vehicle employing a gated camera that time-coordinates pulsed illumination and imaging for near and far distance ranges using spatially separated light sources. Grauer (US 20150296200 A1) which discloses a vehicle employing time-synchronized gated illumination and imaging for selected distance slices, with the light source repositioned according to road slope or curvature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights