Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/704,287

LIGHT SOURCE UNIT AND VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 24, 2024
Examiner
BOYLAN, JAMES T
Art Unit
2486
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
305 granted / 487 resolved
+4.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
521
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 487 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant describes that the present invention provides for illumination which is not illuminated by conventional illumination devices provided in vehicles {See Remarks Bottom of Pg. 8 to Top of Pg. 9}. The claims do not specify this. Applicant can only argue what is currently present in the claims. Applicant describes the advantage of allowing the road around the vehicle to be uniformly illuminated {See Remarks Bottom of Pg. 8 to Top of Pg. 9}. The claims do not specify this. The claims are only defining illumination of a portion of a vehicle. Applicant can only argue what is currently present in the claims. Applicant describes that the second light-emitters (unclear why this is described in a plural sense as the independent claim being argued only defines a singular second light-emitter) are provided in addition to existing illumination devices to illuminate areas that cannot be illuminated by the existing illuminating devices {See Remarks Pg. 10}. First, the claims do not specify this. Applicant can only argue what is currently present in the claims. Second, Beev does disclose additional side light sources for illuminating side areas of a vehicle that are not usually illuminated by a vehicle {Beev, Fig. 6}. 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered. 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 and 9 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. Figs. 5/6 show an area being illuminated via a front headlight (40). It is unclear why a front headlight is being claimed/defined as a side marker lamp in the independent claim. Please clarify. 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) and in further view of Beev et al. (herein after will be referred to as Beev) (US 20210400177). 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 [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, and the second light-emitter illuminates a position rearward of a position illuminated by a side marker lamp of the vehicle or illuminates a position forward of a position illuminated by a backup lamp of the vehicle. 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 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 illuminates a position rearward of a position illuminated by a side marker lamp of the vehicle or illuminates a position forward of a position illuminated by a backup lamp of the vehicle. However, Beev 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 Beev [Figs. 5-6] Two light emitters (which illuminate the side of the vehicle and the front left portion of the vehicle). Also, see 0020, lighting system with at least one image capturing device.] the second light-emitter illuminates a position rearward of a position illuminated by a side marker lamp of the vehicle or illuminates a position forward of a position illuminated by a backup lamp of the vehicle. [See Beev [Fig. 4 and Fig. 6] Emitter (3) illuminates a front side of a vehicle. Also, see Fig. 6, The side emitter (3) illuminates a position of the front side of the vehicle at a forward position as compared to a position illuminated by the vehicle’s taillights (illumination via taillight not shown in the drawing).] 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 Beev, in order to improve upon vehicle lighting systems [See Beev [0011-0012]]. 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 Beev (US 20210400177) 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 and Beev) 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 and Beev) 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 and Beev) 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 Beev (US 20210400177) 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 and Beev) 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 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 Beev (US 20210400177) 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 and Beev) 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 and Beev) 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 over Liu (US 20200213486) in view of Gao (US 20180334099) in view of Beev (US 20210400177) and in further view of Takagaki (US 20140145612). Regarding claim 6, Liu (modified by Gao and Beev) 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 and Beev) to add the teachings of Takagaki, in order to incorporate a shielding mechanism such that other vehicles do not receive too much illumination. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20200213486) in view of Gao (US 20180334099) in view of Beev (US 20210400177) and in further view of Guidi (US 20200207252). Regarding claim 9, Liu (modifed by Gao and Beev) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the second light-emitter is attached to an overhang surface of the vehicle body. However, Guidi does disclose wherein the second light-emitter is attached to an overhang surface of the vehicle body. [See Guidi [Fig. 4[ Light source (404) attached to bumper of the vehicle. The bumper is curved in respect to the vertical direction.] 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 (modifed by Gao and Beev) to add the teachings of Guidi, in order to incorporate the lighting/imaging system of Liu on any type of vehicle. Some of the vehicles (such as shown in Guidi) incorporate a bumper that is not vertical. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180311206 – Figs. 12A-12D and 0138 – illuminating a 360 degree of the road surface in respect to a vehicle using a plurality of illumination devices. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2024
Application Filed
May 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 19, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598400
LIGHT FIELD MICROSCOPE-BASED IMAGE ACQUISITION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587635
AFFINE MERGE MODE WITH TRANSLATIONAL MOTION VECTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587752
TENSORIAL TOMOGRAPHIC FOURIER PTYCHOGRAPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581196
GUIDED REAL-TIME VEHICLE IMAGE ANALYZING DIGITAL CAMERA WITH AUTOMATIC PATTERN RECOGNITION AND ENHANCEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579616
ENHANCED EXTENDED DEPTH OF FOCUSING ON BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+11.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 487 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month