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 .
Claims 7-12 have been presented for examination.
Claims 7-12 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s) 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar (US 20200086918 A1), in view of Koelsch (US 20140191859 A1), and further in view of Ryan (GB 2551647 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Solar discloses a method comprising:
detecting, by an environment sensor system of a vehicle, an approach, which is below a defined distance from the vehicle, of another vehicle, a person, or … [0004] “During a parking maneuver of the vehicle, and responsive to determination, via image processing by said image processor of captured image data, that the vehicle is approaching a wall or object, the parking assist system controls the light projecting device to project the alert or visual pattern onto the determined wall or object. The projected alert is viewable at the determined wall or object by a driver of the vehicle during the parking maneuver, and the projected alert is indicative of distance between the vehicle and the determined wall or object (where the distance may be determined by a distance measuring device of the vehicle, such as a RADAR sensing system of the vehicle, a LIDAR sensing system of the vehicle or an ultrasonic sensing system of the vehicle or the like).” See also [0019] “when at a first threshold distance (i.e., a defined distance) only bar(s) may be filled progressively filled as the vehicle further approaches within a second threshold distance and then a third threshold distance” [0037] “may analyze image data to detect vehicles and/or other objects”, “detect objects or other vehicles or pedestrians” Solar teaches an environment sensor system (camera/RADAR/LIDAR/ultrasonic) detecting an approach of an object/vehicle/pedestrian and determining the object is within threshold distance.;
projecting, by a lighting device of the vehicle and responsive to detecting the approach below the defined distance of the another vehicle, the person, …, …, [Abstract] “light projecting device disposed at each headlight projects an animated sequence of visual images on a wall may change as distance decreases.” [0004] “controls the light projecting device to project the alert or visual pattern onto the determined wall or object indicative of distance” [0005] “may project a light pattern or icons or indicia or colors onto objects, walls or the ground” [0018] “projected aids may comprise characters or other indicia or icons. The projections may optionally have animated film-sequences” Solar teaches “projecting a graphic onto a surface in a surrounding area,” and doing so responsive to approach/closing distance.;
Solar does not appear to explicitly teach that the projected graphic is specifically “wherein the charging state is projected as a graphic onto a surface in a surrounding area of the vehicle by the lighting device”, “identification feature”, and “terminating the projecting of the charging state responsive to a deactivation event, which is closing an open door of the vehicle, locking doors of the vehicle, entering a manual operator control action of the vehicle, activating an ignition of the vehicle, starting a drive engine of the vehicle, or decoupling the vehicle from a charging station wherein the lighting device includes at least one front headlight of the vehicle”
However, Koelsch teaches equivalent teachings wherein the charging state is projected as a graphic onto a surface in a surrounding area of the vehicle by the lighting device [Abstract] “a puddle light wherein the puddle light projects the status of charge of a drive battery of the vehicle onto a surface” Koelsch further explains that “a puddle light is used to project, the status of the drive battery on a surface” See also [0007] which provides explicit SOC graphic examples and [0027] that discloses the status is displayed “in the form of a segment display with numbers as percentage information for the state of charge” and includes “another symbol indicating connection to the charging station.” Thus, Koelsch teaches projecting a graphic onto a surface in a surrounding area of the vehicle.
Koelsch teaches that the projection is tied to vehicle access/entry events and charging-connection status such that termination upon the claimed “deactivation events” (i.e., close, lock, enter a manual operation, activating an ignition, starting s drive engine) is a predictable control action wherein terminating the projecting of the charging state responsive to a deactivation event, which is closing an open door of the vehicle, locking doors of the vehicle, entering a manual operator control action of the vehicle, activating an ignition of the vehicle, starting a drive engine of the vehicle, or decoupling the vehicle from a charging station…” Koelsch teaches [0002] “puddle lights are frequently switched on when the doors are unlocked, for example by means of a remote key fob,” and Koelsch teaches the SOC projection “can therefore be activated when the passenger car is unlocked” [0029] Koelsch also teaches the projected status includes whether the vehicle is connected/charging. Koelsch [0012] “persistent charging by means of a plug symbol” and Koelsch [0027] “whether the connection has been made to the charging station.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement a complementary “off/terminate” control for the external SOC projection when the user leaves/finishes the interaction or the display is no longer needed (e.g., when the doors are locked (complement to unlocked activation), when the vehicle transitions to driving states (ignition/engine start/manual control), and when the vehicle is decoupled from the charging station (since Koelsch’s projected symbol/status explicitly depends on charging connection), which yields predictable results (stopping projection when no longer needed or when charging state changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Solar and Koelsch to make the system terminating the projecting of the charging state responsive to a deactivation event, which is closing an open door of the vehicle, locking doors of the vehicle, entering a manual operator control action of the vehicle, activating an ignition of the vehicle, starting a drive engine of the vehicle, or decoupling the vehicle from a charging station wherein the lighting device includes at least one front headlight of the vehicle.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Solar and Koelsch to display the status of the state of charge of the drive battery of the electric vehicle [0006] “The object of the invention is to provide a puddle light for a motor vehicle, in particular, an electric vehicle that displays the status of the state of charge of the drive battery of the electric vehicle, which status display is conspicuous and functions without the vehicle being entered and activated.”
The combination of Solar and Koelsch does not appear to expressly teach the full claim limitation regarding where the detected “approach below the defined distance” is of an identification feature (as opposed to an object/vehicle/pedestrian detected by vehicle sensing), i.e., “approach of an identification feature.”
However, Ryan teaches the “identification feature” of the “approach below a defined distance” limitation by teaching proximity thresholds for a vehicle key fob. Ryan teaches that the vehicle may act [0022] “the vehicle 215 may only issue the challenge when the key fob 203 is within a predetermined distance of the vehicle 215 (as approximated via signal strength or time of flight, both of which are discussed below).” and that distance thresholds (“signal fences”) trigger actions [0045] “When the key fob 203 crosses a first signal fence 606, the vehicle 215 performs a first function. When the key fob 203 crosses a second signal fence 608, then the vehicle 215 performs a second function. The first function can be turning on the welcome lights. The second function can be unlocking the vehicle 215 doors.” Ryan further teaches such proximity-based functions include “activating the welcome lights, unlocking vehicle doors, and enabling vehicle start” [0024]–[0025]. Thus, Ryan supports the claim’s “approach of an identification feature” within a defined distance, and provides additional conventional vehicle-state events (unlocking/locking and enabling start) relevant to the claimed “deactivation events.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Koelsch’s SOC/charging-state projection content into Solar’s headlight-integrated projection system because both references address projecting user-visible information onto surrounding surfaces outside the vehicle, and Solar already teaches projecting icons/text/graphics (including animated) from headlamps, while Koelsch teaches the particular projected content (charging state of the battery) that is useful to a driver before entering/operating the vehicle. It would have further been obvious to use Ryan’s key-fob proximity (“predetermined distance/signal fence”) as an additional/alternative approach-detection trigger for Solar’s projection activation because Ryan teaches a well-known and predictable mechanism for detecting an approaching authorized user/identification feature and triggering vehicle exterior lighting behavior based on distance thresholds.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Solar, Koelsch, and Ryan to improve key fob battery life to only send signals when only within a threshold distance of the vehicle [0002] Some vehicles are paired with a wireless key fob. These vehicles typically perform an action based on commands sent from the wireless key fob. The key fob includes a battery. The key fob commands drain the battery. A solution is needed to prevent the key fobs from wasting battery by sending unnecessary commands. See also [0045] “When the key fob 203 crosses a first signal fence 606, the vehicle 215 performs a first function. When the key fob 203 crosses a second signal fence 608, then the vehicle 215 performs a second function. The first function can be turning on the welcome lights. The second function can be unlocking the vehicle 215 doors.”
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Solar, Koelsch, with Ryan teaches the method of claim 7, Solar discloses wherein the graphic includes at least one symbol, pictogram, text, number, or special character, and wherein at least two image sections of the graphic have a color, brightness, contrast, or transparency differing from each other, or at least one part of the graphic is animated [0018] “The projected aids may comprise characters, bars or arrows or other indicia or icons or the like (see FIGS. 2-5). The projections may optionally have animated film-sequences or images in sequence. Instead of the visual aids being overlayed on displayed images, the distance indicator may, for example, comprise a light projection in a shape of a fan or curtain” [0019] “the projected alert may include a “stop” alert (see FIGS. 4 and 5) that indicates to the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle is very close to the determined wall (or object) and should be stopped to avoid impact with the wall or object. The stop alert may be projected after the tallest bar (or bars) are filled or at the same time that the tallest bar (or bars) are filled. In the illustrated embodiment, the stop alert is disposed between two spaced apart sets of bars (arranged in a staircase manner with the tallest bars toward the center or stop alert and the shorter bars laterally outboard of the tallest bars and stop alert).” Solar also teaches visual differentiation by color/contrast/brightness, including adapting projection appearance for contrast [0025] discloses it may be preferred that the projection appears with “(reflected) light intensity contrast to its background,” and [0026] teaches the projection may appear “brighter” on objects of most interest. Solar also teaches color changes/blinking as distance decreases in [0023] which discloses distance indicators may “change color or blink as the vehicle moves closer.” Thus, Solar teaches a graphic including text/symbol-like characters and that may be animated and/or have sections differing in visual properties.
Koelsch reinforces the “symbol/number/color/flashing” aspects for the SOC graphic. Koelsch teaches the projected battery status includes “numbers as percentage information” [0027] and includes symbols such as a plug symbol [0012], [0027], and that the status may be displayed “in color, by a flashing light” [0013]. Therefore, Solar (graphics/icons/text/ animation/ differing color/contrast/brightness) as further supported by Koelsch (SOC graphic with numbers/symbols and color/flashing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Solar, Koelsch, and Ryan to apply Solar’s disclosed animation/color/contrast adaptations to Koelsch’s SOC projection to enhance visibility and user comprehension of charging state information, because both references are directed to externally projected visual information and Solar explicitly teaches improving visibility through color/contrast/brightness control and animation.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Solar and Koelsch to display the status of the state of charge of the drive battery of the electric vehicle [0006] “The object of the invention is to provide a puddle light for a motor vehicle, in particular, an electric vehicle that displays the status of the state of charge of the drive battery of the electric vehicle, which status display is conspicuous and functions without the vehicle being entered and activated.”
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Solar, Koelsch, with Ryan teaches the method of claim 7, Solar discloses wherein the at least one front headlight is a matrix headlight [Abstract] “A vehicular lighting system includes a light projecting device disposed at each headlight of a vehicle. The light projecting device is part of the respective headlight. The light projecting device, when operated, projects an animated sequence of visual images or a sequence of visual light patterns on a wall in front of the vehicle. The projected animated sequence of visual images or projected sequence of visual light patterns is viewable at the wall by a driver of the vehicle. The light projecting device may include a matrix of light emitting diodes. The visual images or visual light pattern projected by the light projecting device, when operated, may change as distance between the vehicle and the wall decreases.” See also [0017] “OLED or LED matrix beams”
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Solar, Koelsch, with Ryan teaches the method of claim 7, The combination of Solar and Koelsch does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein the identification feature is integrated into a vehicle key, a transponder, or a mobile end-device.”
However, Ryan teaches equivalent teachings wherein the identification feature is integrated into a vehicle key, a transponder, or a mobile end-device [0001] “wireless communication between a vehicle, and a remote device, such as a key fob.” See also [0020] “may include additional hardware such as transceivers and transponders.” [0017] “key fob unlock/lock button” [0014]–[0016] (vehicle computing system includes battery, comms, sensors) “telematics unit enables wireless communication” [0015] “It should be appreciated that communication between the key fob 203 and the vehicle 215 is an example and that the below methods can be applied to any two objects in wireless communication. For example, wireless communication between two mobile devices or wireless communication between a mobile device and a base station, such as a server, a computer, or a vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Solar, Koelsch, and Ryan to make the system wherein the identification feature is integrated into a vehicle key, a transponder, or a mobile end-device.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Solar, Koelsch, and Ryan to improve key fob battery life to only send signals when only within a threshold distance of the vehicle [0002] Some vehicles are paired with a wireless key fob. These vehicles typically perform an action based on commands sent from the wireless key fob. The key fob includes a battery. The key fob commands drain the battery. A solution is needed to prevent the key fobs from wasting battery by sending unnecessary commands. See also [0045] “When the key fob 203 crosses a first signal fence 606, the vehicle 215 performs a first function. When the key fob 203 crosses a second signal fence 608, then the vehicle 215 performs a second function. The first function can be turning on the welcome lights. The second function can be unlocking the vehicle 215 doors.”
Regarding Claim 11, The claim recites a vehicle of the parallel limitations in claim 7, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected using the same rational and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 12, The claim recites a vehicle of the parallel limitations in claim 9, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected using the same rational and reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662