DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 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.
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 1-6 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a second light-emitter to be attached to at least one of a front part or a rear part of a vehicle body of the vehicle”, and the claim also recites “the second light emitter includes at least one of a front light-emitter that emits near infrared light to the road in the front area of the vehicle and a rear light-emitter that emits near infrared light to the road in the rear area of the vehicle” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For example, based on Fig. 4, it appears that the limitation “a second light-emitter to be attached to at least one of a front part or a rear part of a vehicle body of the vehicle” should be written as “a plurality of second light-emitters to be attached to be attached to a front part and a rear part of a vehicle body of the vehicle”. In other words, the claim needs to define the second light emitter to be a plurality of second light emitters (i.e. since the claim further defines the second light emitter to include a front and rear light-emitter) and that these plurality of second light-emitters are attached to a front part and a rear part of a vehicle body of the vehicle (i.e. since the claim further defines a front and rear light-emitter and their respective illumination coverage).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20200213486) in view of Gao et al. (herein after will be referred to as Gao) (US 20180334099) in view of Englander (US 20080106908) and in further view of Tatara et al. (herein after will be referred to as Tatara) (US 20180312106).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a light source unit comprising:
a light-emitting device to be attached to a vehicle together with an image capturing device, wherein the light-emitting device emits near infrared light to (i) a road in a lateral area of the vehicle and (ii) a road in at least one of a front area or a rear area of the vehicle, [See Liu [Fig. 4] Illuminators (20) with cameras (22) on front, sides and rear of vehicle. Also, see claim 2, near infrared illumination.]
the light-emitting device includes: a first light-emitter to be attached to a side front part or a rear part of a vehicle body of the vehicle, the first light-emitter emits near infrared light to the road in the lateral area of the vehicle, and the second light-emitter includes at least one of a front light-emitter that emits near infrared light to the road in f the front area of the vehicle and a rear light-emitter that emits near infrared light to the road in the rear area of the vehicle, [See Liu [Fig. 4] Illuminators (20) with cameras (22) on front, sides and rear of vehicle. Also, see claim 2, near infrared illumination.]
Liu does not explicitly disclose
the image capturing device detects the near infrared light emitted from the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter and reflected off the road, and the second light-emitter is attached to the vehicle body at a location more vertically downward than the image capturing device,
the second light-emitter is attached to an overhang surface of the vehicle body,
the front light-emitter illuminates a position rearward of a position of a side marker lamp of the vehicle and a position forward of the position of the side marker lamp, and
the rear light-emitter illuminates a position forward of a position of a backup lamp of the vehicle and a position rearward of the position of the backup lamp.
However, Gao does disclose
[See Gao [Fig. 1] Side mirror illuminator.]
the second light-emitter is attached to the vehicle body at a location more vertically downward than the image capturing device. [See Gao [Fig. 1] Multiple illumination devices, where (26) is positioned vertically lower than (14).]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Liu to add the teachings of Gao, in order to perform a repositioning of parts in regards to the side illuminator in Liu to the side mirror location for performing the same function of providing illumination to the side of the vehicle.
Liu (modified by Gao) do not explicitly disclose
the second light-emitter is attached to an overhang surface of the vehicle body,
the image capturing device detects the near infrared light emitted from the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter and reflected off the road, and
the front light-emitter illuminates a position rearward of a position of a side marker lamp of the vehicle and a position forward of the position of the side marker lamp, and
the rear light-emitter illuminates a position forward of a position of a backup lamp of the vehicle and a position rearward of the position of the backup lamp.
However, Englander does disclose
the image capturing device detects the near infrared light emitted from the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter and reflected off the road, and [See Englander [0046] The cameras are mounted at the four corners of the bus along with the floodlights. Therefore, the cameras will detect the light emitted and reflected. Also, see 0046, cameras to observe the area surrounding the school bus including the illuminated areas.]
the front light-emitter illuminates a position rearward of a position of a side marker lamp of the vehicle and a position forward of the position of the side marker lamp, and [See Englander [Fig. 2] shows the illumination area (30) of a lighting device (25a-c) (i.e. arc shaped coverage). Also, see 0046, the floodlights (25a-c) are mounted on the arms located at the four corners of the bus. Therefore, when mounted at the corner of the vehicle, the illumination area of these corner illumination devices will include the claimed limitations above (i.e. the arc shaped coverage will include a position in front of the side marker lamp position and a position in behind of the side marker lamp position).]
the rear light-emitter illuminates a position forward of a position of a backup lamp of the vehicle and a position rearward of the position of the backup lamp. [See Englander [Fig. 2] shows the illumination area (30) of a lighting device (25a). Also, see 0046, the floodlights (25a-c) are mounted on the arms located at the four corners of the bus. Therefore, when mounted at the corner of the vehicle, the illumination area of these corner illumination devices will include the claimed limitations above (i.e. the arc shaped coverage will include a position in front of the backup lamp position and a position in behind of the backup lamp position).]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Liu (modified by Gao) to add the teachings of Englander, in order to provide a good illumination of the area around a vehicle [See Englander [0007]].
Liu (modified by Gao and Englander) do not explicitly disclose
the second light-emitter is attached to an overhang surface of the vehicle body,
However, Tatara does disclose
the second light-emitter is attached to an overhang surface of the vehicle body, [See Tatara [Fig. 9B or 9D and/or Fig. 12a-2d] Illumination devices attached to front or rear bumper of the vehicle.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Liu (modified by Gao and Englander) to add the teachings of Tatara, in order to incorporate additional illumination devices (i.e. as compared to the 4 in Liu) such that the entire circumference (360 degrees) outside the vehicle is illuminated.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20200213486) in view of Gao (US 20180334099) in view of Englander (US 20080106908) in view of Tatara (US 20180312106) and in further view of Copeland et al. (herein after will be referred to as Copeland) (US Patent No. 11,805,726).
Regarding claim 2, Liu (modified by Gao, Englander and Tatara) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Liu does not explicitly disclose
wherein each of the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter emits near infrared light that illuminates the road at an illuminance of at least 1.0×1.0.sup.−3 W/m.sup.2.
However, Copeland does disclose
wherein each of the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter emits near infrared light that illuminates the road at an illuminance of at least 1.0×1.0.sup.−3 W/m.sup.2. [See Copeland [Col. 2 line 29] Light array with 0.5 watt/m2. Also, see Col. 23 line 66, light arrays (i.e. plural).]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Liu (modified by Gao, Englander and Tatara) to add the teachings of Copeland, in order to supply the light sources at a specific intensity or power per area depending on the distance and/or area the light source needs to illuminate such that improved imaging capturing is achieved.
Regarding claim 3, Liu (modified by Gao, Englander and Tatara) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Liu does not explicitly disclose
wherein each of the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter emits near infrared light that illuminates the road at an illuminance of at most 0.5 W/m.sup.2.
However, Copeland does disclose
wherein each of the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter emits near infrared light that illuminates the road at an illuminance of at most 0.5 W/m.sup.2. [See Copeland [Col. 2 line 29] Light array with 0.5 watt/m2. Also, see Col. 23 line 66, light arrays (i.e. plural).]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 2.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20200213486) in view of Gao (US 20180334099) in view of Englander (US 20080106908) in view of Tatara (US 20180312106) and in further view of Yamakage et al. (herein after will be referred to as Yamakage) (US Patent No. 11,050,912).
Regarding claim 4, Liu (modified by Gao, Englander and Tatara) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Liu does not explicitly disclose
a control device that controls the light-emitting device and the image capturing device, wherein the control device causes a timing of emitting near infrared light by the light-emitting device to be same as a timing of capturing an image by the image capturing device.
However, Yamakage does disclose
a control device that controls the light-emitting device and the image capturing device, wherein the control device causes a timing of emitting near infrared light by the light-emitting device to be same as a timing of capturing an image by the image capturing device. [See Yamakage [Claim 1] Controller to cause synchronization between illumination and camera.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Liu (modified by Gao, Englander and Tatara) to add the teachings of Yamakage, in order to incorporate synchronization between illuminator and camera such that improved image capturing is achieved.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20200213486) in view of Gao (US 20180334099) in view of Englander (US 20080106908) in view of Tatara (US 20180312106) and in further view of Erdl et al. (herein after will be referred to as Erdl) (US 20220146817).
Regarding claim 5, Liu (modified by Gao, Englander and Tatara) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Liu does not explicitly disclose
wherein each of the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter includes a light source and a lens that controls distribution of light emitted from the light source, wherein the lens includes a recessed portion located on a vehicle side of an outer surface of the lens when viewed from the light source, when the lens is attached to the vehicle, the recessed portion being recessed toward the light source, the outer surface being opposite to an inner surface located closer to the light source.
However, Erdl does disclose
wherein each of the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter includes a light source and a lens that controls distribution of light emitted from the light source, wherein the lens includes a recessed portion located on a vehicle side of an outer surface of the lens when viewed from the light source, when the lens is attached to the vehicle, the recessed portion being recessed toward the light source, the outer surface being opposite to an inner surface located closer to the light source. [See Erdl [Fig. 1] Concave lens (12) with a light source (2) for a vehicle. Also, see 0012, light sources.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Liu (modified by Gao, Englander and Tatara) to add the teachings of Erdl, in order to incorporate obvious optics for an illuminator. This will improve upon how the illumination is emitted.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20200213486) in view of Gao (US 20180334099) in view of Englander (US 20080106908) in view of Tatara (US 20180312106) and in further view of Takagaki (US 20140145612).
Regarding claim 6, Liu (modified by Gao, Englander and Tatara) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Liu does not explicitly disclose
wherein each of the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter includes a light source and a light-shielding component that shields part of near infrared light emitted from the light source, and when the light-shielding component is attached to the vehicle, the light-shielding component is disposed from a vehicle side of the light source to continuously extend beyond a point directly below the light source when viewed from the light source.
However, Takagaki does disclose
wherein each of the first light-emitter and the second light-emitter includes a light source and a light-shielding component that shields part of near infrared light emitted from the light source, and when the light-shielding component is attached to the vehicle, the light-shielding component is disposed from a vehicle side of the light source to continuously extend beyond a point directly below the light source when viewed from the light source. [See Takagaki [Fig. 2] Shade (70) extending beyond the optical axis of the light source (80). Also, see Fig. 1, plural light sources.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Liu (modified by Gao, Englander and Tatara) to add the teachings of Takagaki, in order to incorporate a shielding mechanism such that other vehicles do not receive too much illumination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights