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 .
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMURA (US 2021/0084212) in view of BILENKO et al. (US 2021/0091278 hereinafter refer as “BILENKO”).
Regrading claim 1. TAMURA discloses an in-cabin imaging apparatus (see Figs. 5 and 9) comprising: a camera (7, see Fig. 5) that captures an image in a vehicle cabin; a light emitting element (4b, see Fig. 5, Para. 0053) that emits light into the vehicle cabin; a generally tubular reflector (5a, see Figs. 5 and 9, Para. 0103) that is provided to surround the light emitting element; and a housing (case 2, Fig. 4, Para. 0053 and 0055) that houses the camera, the light emitting element, and the reflector.
However, TAMURA is silent with respect to the reflector has a cutout in a portion of a side surface thereof.
BILENKO teaches a light-emitting device package (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0034) that includes a reflector (30, see Figs. 1 and 2, Para. 0034) with a slit (37, see Figs. 2 and 3, Para. 0068-0069) formed by removing a portion of the reflector (30) to impart elasticity to the reflector (30, see Para. 0068).
Therefore, in view of BILENKO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TAMURA’s reflector to include a cutout in a portion of its side surface in order to impart elasticity to the reflector, as taught by BILENKO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the cutout enables adjustment of the reflector’s outer diameter, thereby facilitating assembly and accommodating dimensional variations.
Regrading claim 2. TAMURA further discloses the reflector (5a, see Figs. 5 and 9, Para. 0103) is tubular reflector having a plurality of reflective inner surfaces (see Fig. 9).
With respect to the claim limitation “ the reflector is a generally polygonal tubular reflector,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TAMURA’s tubular reflector to have a generally polygonal tubular shape as a matter of design choice. Selecting a polygonal tubular shape from among well-known tubular configurations would have been within the ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by TAMURA.
Regrading claim 3. TAMURA further discloses light emitted by the light emitting element is infrared light (see Para. 0053).
Regrading claim 6. The teachings of TAMURA have been discussed above.
However, TAMURA is silent with respect to an opening angle of the cutout centered at the light emitting element is adjustable.
BILENKO teaches a light-emitting device package (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0034) that includes a reflector (30, see Figs. 1 and 2, Para. 0034) with a slit (37, see Figs. 2 and 3, Para. 0068-0069) formed by removing a portion of the reflector (30) to impart elasticity to the reflector (30, see Para. 0068).
Therefore, in view of BILENKO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TAMURA’s reflector to include a cutout in a portion of its side surface in order to impart elasticity to the reflector, as taught by BILENKO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the cutout enables adjustment of the reflector’s outer diameter, thereby facilitating assembly and accommodating dimensional variations.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMURA in view of BILENKO et al. (US 2021/0091278 hereinafter refer as “BILENKO”) and further in view of NOJIMA (JP 2008220286).
Regrading claims 4 and 5. The teachings of TAMURA have been discussed above.
However, TAMURA is silent with respect to a mounting angle of the light emitting element with respect to the camera is adjustable; wherein an inclination angle of a reflective surface of the reflector relative to the light emitting element is adjustable.
NOJIMA teaches illumination lamps (e.g., 19, 21, and 22, see Figs. 1 and 4) equipped with a camera (23, 24, and 26, see Fig. 4); wherein a lamp bulb (31, light emitting portion, see Fig. 4) provided in the housing (29); wherein the cameras (23 and 24) housed in the illumination lamps (19 and 21) are fixed to the reflector (32, see Fig. 4c). NOJIMA further teaches the illumination lamps (19 and 21 are movable, thereby allowing the irradiation direction of the illumination lamp and the shooting direction of the camera to be adjusted as desired.
Therefore, in view of NOJIMA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TAMURA’s imaging apparatus so that the mounting angle of the light emitting element with respect to the camera and the reflective surface is adjustable, thereby permitting the irradiation direction of the light emitting element to be selectively changed relative to the camera, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this medication because it enables the shooting direction of the camera and the irradiation direction of the illumination lamp to be easily adjusted to satisfy the requirements of the particular application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MINO et al. (US 2022/0306001) discloses an in cabin monitoring system includes an electronic mirror provided inside a vehicle cabin, a camera that captures an image of an imaging target inside the vehicle cabin, and a light source that is provided in the electronic mirror and emits light into the vehicle cabin; Wieczorek et al. (US 2023/0173996) discloses a camera wing system for a vehicle, comprising: at least one camera to record a scenery in a field of view (FOV) of the camera; an illuminating system to emit light to illuminate the FOV of the camera; and Amiram et al. (US 2021/0160457)discloses a device for monitoring occupants of seats in a passenger compartment of a vehicle comprises
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571)272-7044. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
