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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould (2022/0375059) in view of Lee (KR101381931B1).
Regarding claim 1, Gould discloses a semicylindrical vehicle tunnel (Fig. 3), comprising:
a semicylindrical vehicle tunnel entrance area (20);
a semicylindrical vehicle tunnel exit area (18) including a plurality of semicylindrical vehicle tunnel exit area cameras (RC1, RC2);
a first semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection (22, 34, 40) between the semicylindrical vehicle tunnel entrance area and the semicylindrical vehicle tunnel exit area, the first semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection configured to accommodate a vehicle (12) passing through the vehicle tunnel, the first semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection being substantially free of edges and corners, the first semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection including a plurality of first semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection cameras (52);
a second semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection (areas around 64, 60 and RC1) between the first semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection and the semicylindrical vehicle tunnel exit area, the second semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection configured to accommodate a vehicle passing through the vehicle tunnel, the second semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection including a plurality of second semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection cameras (60);
a plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels (22, 34) included in the first semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection, the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels configured to emit light and illuminate a plurality of vehicle surfaces of the vehicle passing through the vehicle tunnel (note light boxes in par. 58); and
a plurality of striped lighting pattern panels (64) included in the second semicylindrical vehicle tunnel midsection, the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels comprising a plurality of light stripes and dark stripes, the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels configured to project lighting onto the plurality of vehicle surfaces of the vehicle passing through the vehicle tunnel, the lighting forming alternating light and dark geometric patterns on the plurality of vehicle surfaces;
wherein the plurality of first vehicle tunnel midsection cameras are configured to capture a first plurality of vehicle surface images when illuminated by the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels and the plurality of second vehicle tunnel midsection cameras are configured to capture a second plurality of vehicle surface images when illuminated by the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels, wherein the first plurality of vehicle surface images and the second plurality of vehicle surface images are analyzed to detect vehicle imperfections (note par. 43).
However, Gould does not disclose that the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels comprise LEDs and a diffuser configured to distribute light uniformly over a large area of the vehicle surface, reducing glare and shadow, and that the vehicle 12 is traveling from “18” to “20”, which is opposite that of the claimed invention.
As to the missing LEDs and diffuser limitation, Gould teaches that the light sources 22 and 34 can be any conventional light box (note par. 58).
Lee, from the similar field of endeavor, discloses a conventional light box (note Fig. 2), which includes LEDs (120-122) and a diffuser (146). The light box can be installed on a wall or ceiling (note TECHNICAL-FIELD of the translated text).
Thus, in view of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Lee into Gould to perform the well known functions as claimed.
As to the traveling direction of the vehicle, Gould teaches that the entrance and exit arrangement of invention is not limited to any particular arrangement and the vehicle can travel in both forward and reverse directions when under a single opening situation (note par. 54). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the traveling direction of the vehicle so that vehicle could be inspected in the order as claimed since the inspection works in either direction.
Regarding claim 2, Gould discloses images captured by the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels are intended to be used to generate a Multiview Interactive Digital Media Representation (MVIDMR).
Regarding claim 3, Gould discloses a plurality of MVIDMRs are generated for a plurality of different components of the vehicle. That is Gould can be used to capture different components of the vehicle.
Regarding 4, Gould discloses each of the plurality of MVIDMRs is user navigable along at least two different axes. That is the image captured and generated can be navigated by the user at a computer terminal.
Regarding claim 5, Gould discloses a plurality of MVIDMRs are intended to generate for a plurality of vehicle components including damaged components.
Regarding claim 6, Gould discloses the damaged components are navigable along at least two different axes. That is, the images captured and generated are in two dimensional space.
Regarding claim 7, Gould discloses images captured by the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels are used to detect damage to a first component of the vehicle (par. 46).
Regarding claim 8, Gould discloses images captured by the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels are used to analyze the extent of damage to the first component of the vehicle (note structured light source 26).
Regarding claim 9, Gould does not disclose that capture of additional images by the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels is triggered if damage is detected by images captured using the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels. However, Gould can be used to take more images by either camera 52 or 60 if defects are detected by either camera. This would have ensured the defects are being further inspected closely.
Regarding claim 10, Gould discloses the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels are striped lighting pattern filters (note par. 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 11, Gould discloses the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels are uniform lighting pattern diffusers (note par. 10 and 15).
Regarding claims 12-20, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner disagrees with the following applicant’s argument:
Lee is non-analogous art. Lee is directed to a generic LED fixture "installed on a ceiling or a wall inside a building" for indoor illumination. It says nothing about vehicles, tunnels, or damage inspection. Gould, by contrast, is directed to "a vehicle imaging station for capturing images of scratches on a vehicle" whose illumination is architected specifically to produce "a relatively bright image" and "a relatively dark image" reflected to a camera array (Gould 10007). Lee is neither in Gould's field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to Gould's problem, and the Office Action's bare assertion that Lee is from "the similar field of endeavor" does not establish otherwise.
Gould and Lee provide no motivation to combine. The Office Action's rationale for combining Lee with Gould, "to perform the well-known functions as claimed," is conclusory and does not articulate a reason a skilled artisan would have made the combination. Lee discloses a generic architectural LED fixture "installed on a ceiling or a wall inside a building" for general indoor illumination, with no disclosure touching vehicles, tunnels, or damage detection, and is therefore neither in Gould's field of endeavor (vehicle scratch/dent imaging) nor reasonably pertinent to the problem Gould addresses (producing controlled bright/dark reflections for optical scratch detection).
In page 2 of the translated text, Lee states, “In general, provide light at night or indoors, or various types of illumination device in order to investigate the object is used.” This statement basically means the illumination device is being used to investigate an object. Since the illumination device in Gould is also configured to investigate an object, Lee is clearly an analogous art.
Applicant further argues the following:
Gould actually teaches away from a combination with Lee. Gould ¶ 0061 expressly requires that "any general light sources may not be directly visible to the cameras 26, 30 when a vehicle is being imaged," whereas Lee's diffuser is designed precisely to make light "uniformly spread over the entire surface of the diffusion plate" for broad, general-purpose brightness. Introducing Lee's uniform, broadly-diffused illumination into Gould's tunnel would directly conflict with Gould's own design constraint on general lighting, meaning a skilled artisan would have been discouraged from, rather than motivated toward, the proposed combination.
The examiner disagrees. In par. 58, Gould states that one or both of the reflection surfaces 22, 34 can be illuminating surfaces such as light boxes and where both are illuminating surfaces, one is brighter than the other in terms of illumination. This means the reflection surfaces 22 and 34 can also be active illuminating light sources. With this teaching statement, Gould clearly invites Lee to perform the illumination task. Thus, the combination would have been obvious.
Applicant’s last argument:
The Office Action acknowledges that for dependent claims 9 and 20, "Gould does not disclose that capture of additional images by the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels is triggered if damage is detected by images captured using the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels." The Office Action instead only offers the conclusory statement that using either camera to "take more images... if defects are detected" "would have ensured the defects are being further inspected closely." This does not articulate a reason, grounded in either reference, for the specific claimed trigger that damage detected under uniform lighting triggers capture under striped lighting. Lee is not cited as to claims 9 or 20 at all.
The examiner disagrees. The cameras as claimed are being used to capture plurality of images. The cameras in Gould are also being used to captured a plurality of images. The number of images being captured are dictated by the user. That is, the user can use the camera to capture more images if he determines it is necessary to. Therefore, the use of cameras in Gould clearly meets the additional image capturing actions as claimed.
In view of above arguments, it is clear that applicant fails to overcome Gould in view of Lee. As a result, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
