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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 25. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim 12-18, 22-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bonfim Gripp et al (11,024,020).
Regarding claims 12, 25, 26 and 28 de Bonfim Gripp discloses,
Positioning the vehicle (note fig. 8b, block 820, vehicle material) in front of a reflective surface (note fig. 8b block 800, optical inspection system) to create a reflection of the vehicle in the reflective surface within a detection region of a camera (note col. 14 lines 29-43, fig. 8a shows block 800, light reflect on inspection material, automotive body, captured by image capturing device) or detecting that the vehicle is positioned in front of the reflected surface such that the reflection of the vehicle is within the detection region of the camera;
Recording an image of the reflection of the vehicle using at least in part the camera, to create an image recording (note col. 14 lines 29-43, capture by image capturing device).
Analyzing the image recording with regards to a vehicle status (note col. 15 lines 50-52, identifying defects); and
Outputting information containing the vehicle status (note col. 15 lines 59-65, report may be shown in LED display, screen or glasses).
Regarding claims 13, 17 and 27 de Bonfim Gripp discloses,
Wherein the vehicle status concerns fouling on or damage to an outside of the vehicle (note col. 14 lines 48-50, damage to an outside of the vehicle identifying as classifying defects).
Regarding claim 14 de Bonfim Gripp discloses,
Wherein multiple images of the reflection of the vehicle are recorded from different angles and are used to create the image recording (note col. 13 lines 48-55).
Regarding claim 15 de Bonfim Gripp discloses,
Wherein multiple images of the reflection of the vehicle are recorded from different angles and are used to create the image recording (note col. 13 lines 48-55).
Regarding claim 16 De Bonfim Gripp disclose,
Wherein a video sequence of the reflected vehicle is recorded and is used to create the image recording (note col. 14 lines 66-col. 15 lines 3, data created and stored).
Regarding claim 18 De Bonfim Gripp discloses,
Wherein the camera is a vehicle camera of the vehicle (note col. 15 lines 45-60, camera).
Regarding claim 22 De Bonfim Gripp discloses,
Navigating the vehicle to a workshop or car wash depending on the vehicle status (note col. 17 lines 5-20, describe workshop for painting i.e. body shop).
Regarding claim 23 De Bonfim Gripp discloses,
Wherein the vehicle is navigated to the workshop or car wash if the vehicle status is determined to be worse than a predetermined minimum tolerance value for fouling or damage (note col. 17 lines 5-20, painting provided when vehicle status showing defects).
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.
Claims 19-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bonfim Gripp in view of Tapia (12,504,510).
Regarding claim 19 De Bonfim Gripp discloses,
Wherein positioning the vehicle in front of a reflective surface. De Bonfim Gripp does not clearly disclose adapting route guidance of the vehicle to navigate the vehicle to the front of the reflective surface. Tapia discloses adapting route guidance of the vehicle to navigate the vehicle to the front of the reflective surface (note col. 15 lines 4-13, may navigate about roadways without a human driver based on sensor signals generated by multiple sensor systems, shows rout guidance to navigate to a destination). De Bonfim Gripp and Tapia are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute De Bonfim Gripp vehicle with Tapia route guidance vehicle to navigate to front of the reflective surface. The suggestion/motivation provides variation of vehicles to include autonomous vehicle without human interaction (note col. 1 lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to combine Tapia with de Bonfim Gripp to obtain the invention as specified by claim 19.
Regarding claims 20 and 21 De Bonfim Gripp discloses,
An automotive vehicle body in front for inspection. De Bonfim Gripp does not clearly disclose the vehicle is an autonomously driving vehicle. Tapia discloses an autonomously driving vehicle (note col. 5 lines 32-38, cites autonomous vehicle). De Bonfim Gripp and Tapia are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute De Bonfim Gripp vehicle with Tapia autonomous vehicle. The suggestion/motivation provides variation of vehicles to include autonomous vehicle without human interaction (note col. 1 lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to combine Tapia with de Bonfim Gripp to obtain the invention as specified by claims 20 and 21.
Regarding claim 24 De Bonfim Gripp discloses,
Assessing external vehicle status. De Bonfim Gripp does not clearly disclose external vehicle status of plurality of vehicles of a vehicle fleet. Tapia discloses assessing external vehicle status of plurality vehicles of a vehicle fleet (note col. 5 lines 39-41, cites part of vehicle of a fleet). De Bonfim Gripp and Tapia are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include assessing external vehicle status of plurality vehicles of a vehicle fleet in De Bonfim Gripp as evidenced by Tapia. The suggestion/motivation provides variation of vehicles to include plurality of autonomous vehicle without human interaction for inspection (note col. 1 lines 15-20), providing monetary value. It would have been obvious to combine Tapia with de Bonfim Gripp to obtain the invention as specified by claim 24.
Related Prior Art
Scheich (12,061,411) Analyzing the image recording with regards to a vehicle status (note col. 4 lines 24-31, identifying defects interpreted as vehicle status)
Tapia (12,504,510) Recording an image of the reflection of the vehicle using at least in part the camera, to create an image recording (note col. 5 lines 27-32, camera capturing reflected vehicle).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4639. 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.
G.D.
August 21, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights