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 .
Response to Arguments.
Response to applicant argues on pages 5-6 Tamura in view of Narushima fails to disclose “… plurality of light emitters are located on one side of the imager in a vehicle- width direction of the vehicle” [See applicant's argument: pages 5-6]; while the applicant points are understood the examiner respectfully disagrees. Tamura discloses plurality of light sources and imager. An imaging unit for imaging an inside of the vehicle irradiated by the infrared light distributed by the first light distribution member and the infrared light distributed by the second light distribution member. Narushima further discloses plurality light emitted in to the width of the vehicle. The light sources are arranged two in the vehicle upper and lower directions by three in the vehicle width directions, for example, The collecting lenses are lens members made of glass or transparent resin that collect light from the light sources, and are respectively provided to correspond to the light sources. The collecting lenses are each formed into an identical plane convex lens to that of the collecting lenses [See abstract and Paragraphs 39-40 and Figs. 2-9].
Regarding dependent claims, in response to applicant's arguments, the examiner
recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the
teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tamura in combination with Narushima meet all rejected limitations of the instant application.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 byt he manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (US 2021/0084212) (Kazuya Tamura) in view of Narushima et al. (US 2024/0308338) (Noriaki Narushima).
Regarding Claim 1, Tamura discloses an occupant imaging apparatus, comprising: a board; an imager disposed on the board to image at least one occupant on a driver seat, a passenger's seat, or a rear seat of a vehicle [See abstract and Paragraphs 77-89 unit 7-8, 4, 4a, 4b]; and a plurality of light emitters disposed on the board to emit light to be directed to the at least one occupant [See Paragraphs 56-60, 85-91 and Figs. 5-7 e.g. unit 4a-b] and ,a light proof enclosure covering the imager and the plurality of light emitters, the light proof enclosure including a wall that prevents the light emitted from the plurality of light emitters from entering the imager, and the wall of the light proof enclosure is disposed between the imager and the plurality of light emitters [See Paragraphs 55-60 and Figs. 4-5].
Tamura doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of light emitters are located on one side of the imager in a vehicle- width direction of the vehicle.
However, Narushima discloses wherein the plurality of light emitters are located on one side of the imager in a vehicle- width direction of the vehicle [See abstract and Paragraphs 39-40 and Figs. 2-9],
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Tamura to add the teachings in Narushima as above, to provide a device that reduced power consumption of the light source, enhanced convenience for the occupant and improved the visibility of the displayed virtual image [See Narushima Paragraphs 5].
Regarding Claim 2, Tamura discloses wherein the plurality of light emitters include a first light emitter and a second light emitter, the occupant imaging apparatus, further comprising a light guide to direct light from the first light emitter to the occupant on the driver seat, and direct light from the second light emitter to the occupant on the passenger's seat or the rear seat [See Paragraphs 56-60, 85-91 and Figs. 5-7 e.g. unit 4a-b].
Regarding Claim 3, Tamura discloses wherein the occupant imaging apparatus is disposed in a central portion of a front portion in a cabin of the vehicle [See Paragraphs 29-36 and Claim 9].
Regarding Claim 4, Tamura doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the occupant imaging apparatus is disposed to face the driver seat, and the plurality of light emitters include a first light emitter and a second light emitter, the occupant imaging apparatus, further comprising a light guide to direct light from the first light emitter to the occupant on the driver seat, and direct light from the second light emitter to the occupant on the driver seat in a range that differs in directing angle and directing distance from the light from the first light emitter
However, Narushima discloses wherein the occupant imaging apparatus is disposed to face the driver seat, and the plurality of light emitters include a first light emitter and a second light emitter, the occupant imaging apparatus, further comprising a light guide to direct light from the first light emitter to the occupant on the driver seat, and direct light from the second light emitter to the occupant on the driver seat in a range that differs in directing angle and directing distance from the light from the first light emitter [See Paragraphs 35-43].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Tamura to add the teachings in Narushima as above, to provide a device that reduced power consumption of the light source, enhanced convenience for the occupant and improved the visibility of the displayed virtual image [See Narushima Paragraphs 5].
Regarding Claim 5, Tamura doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of light emitters include a first light emitter and a second light emitter, the occupant imaging apparatus, further comprising a light guide to direct light from the first light emitter and light from the second light emitter in a same direction
However, Narushima discloses wherein the plurality of light emitters include a first light emitter and a second light emitter, the occupant imaging apparatus, further comprising a light guide to direct light from the first light emitter and light from the second light emitter in a same direction [See Paragraphs 35-43].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Tamura to add the teachings in Narushima as above, to provide a device that reduced power consumption of the light source, enhanced convenience for the occupant and improved the visibility of the displayed virtual image [See Narushima Paragraphs 5].
Regarding Claim 6, Tamura discloses wherein the plurality of light emitters include a first light emitter and a second light emitter, the occupant imaging apparatus, further comprising a light guide to direct light from the first light emitter and light from the second light emitter in different directions [See Paragraphs 85-90 and Fig. 7].
Regarding Claim 7, Tamura discloses a power circuit disposed on the board, the power circuit being electrically connected to the plurality of light emitters, wherein the power circuit is located on a same side as the plurality of light emitters with respect to the imager in a plan view of the board [See Paragraphs 56-70].
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
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 extension fee 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 TSION B OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/TSION B OWENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights