DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 8-10, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi US 2020/0139881 hereinafter referred to as Yi in view of Gray et al. US 12,505,487 hereinafter referred to as Gray.
In regards to claim 1, Yi teaches:
“A video recording apparatus for a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a motion sensor configured to sense movement of an external object outside the vehicle; an impact sensor configured to detect an impact on the vehicle”
Yi paragraph [0040] and Figure 1, inter alia, teaches object recognition sensors 107, motion sensors 107, or collision detection systems 107.
“a lamp controller configured to control a lamp of the vehicle”
Yi paragraph [0040] and Figure 1, inter alia, teach the brake light master control system 102
“and a controller operatively connected to the motion sensor, the impact sensor and the lamp controller and including a memory storing computer-readable instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions”
Yi paragraph [0040] teaches vehicle cpu 1010. The Examiner interprets that CPU’s have at least a small amount of internal memory such as registers or a cache for executing instructions.
“wherein the computer-readable instructions executed by the one or more processors, cause the controller to determine that the impact is predicted or has been sensed based on information from at least one of the motion sensor or the impact sensor, and transmit a first command to for operating the lamp ...”
Yi paragraph [0057] teaches as parking vehicle 501 begins to reverse into the parking spot, parked vehicle 502's motion and/or distance sensors 504 become active. Once parking vehicle 501 is within sufficient distance such that it has crosses a collision distance threshold 506, the motion and/or distance sensors 504 interact with the brake indicator light assembly 505 such that the brake light master control activates the front facing brake indicator light,
Yi does not explicitly teach:
“and a second command to the camera for recording a video”
Gray column 8 lines 41-47 teach The vehicle system 14 may include the one or more sensors 16 that are configured to detect a collision, such as the collision between the other vehicle 38 and the vehicle 12. In response to detection of the collision, the processor 24 of the vehicle system 14 may activate the one or more cameras 18 and/or the one or more lights 20 to monitor an area around the vehicle 12. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Yi in view of Gray to have included the features of “and a second command to the camera for recording a video” because In some cases, the results and circumstances of such collisions are disputed. Accordingly, it is now recognized that it would be beneficial to provide improved systems and methods for detecting such collisions (Gray column 1 lines 17-21).
In regards to claim 7, Yi/Gray teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the computer-readable instructions further cause the controller to transmit a command to the lamp controller to output a lamp control signal to a lamp of the vehicle located correspondingly to a position or a direction of the impact”
Yi paragraph [0057] and Figure 5 teaches once parking vehicle 501 is within sufficient distance such that it has crosses a collision distance threshold 506, the motion and/or distance sensors 504 interact with the brake indicator light assembly 505 such that the brake light master control activates the front facing brake indicator light.
In regards to claim 12, Yi/Gray teach all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 12 contains similar limitations. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
In regards to claim 18, Yi/Gray teach all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 18 contains similar limitations as in claim 7. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 7.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Gray and further in view of Lee US 2021/0146836 hereinafter referred to as Lee.
In regards to claim 2, Yi/Gray teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“transmit a command to the lamp controller to set an option for entering into an impact-based lamp operation mode, and wherein the option for entering into the impact-based lamp operation mode includes at least one of a regular entry for entering into the impact-based lamp operation mode whenever the parking mode is activated, an environment-based entry for entering into the impact-based lamp operation mode based on that a set external environmental condition is satisfied, or a light-based entry for entering into the impact-based lamp operation mode based on that a set external light amount condition is satisfied”
Yi paragraph [0057] teaches As parking vehicle 501 begins to reverse into the parking spot, parked vehicle 502's motion and/or distance sensors 504 become active. Once parking vehicle 501 is within sufficient distance such that it has crosses a collision distance threshold 506, the motion and/or distance sensors 504 interact with the brake indicator light assembly 505 such that the brake light master control activates the front facing brake indicator light, alerting the parking vehicle 501 that it is too close and needs to stop. Yi paragraph [0058] and Figure 6 teach the parking vehicle 601 is now outfitted with the disclosed invention 605 and attempting parking between vehicles 603 602. As in FIG. 5, the same system would indicate to the driver that their vehicle is now dangerously close to colliding with the car directly to the vehicle's front, parked vehicle 602, once the motion and/or distance sensors 604 detected the collision distance threshold 606 had been crossed and collision was imminent. The Examiner interprets that a collision distance threshold is equivalent to a set external condition being satisfied.
Yi/Gray do not explicitly teach:
“further cause the controller to determine that a parking mode is activated and [transmit a control to stop the collision]”
Lee teaches a parking mode determiner 80 in Figure 6. Lee paragraph [0102] teaches When the parking mode determiner 80 determines that the current mode is a forward parking mode, if it is determined that there is a collision possibility in the state in which the vehicle travels backwards, the parking assist controller 90 may control the vehicle to brake. Lee paragraph [0106] teaches When the parking mode determiner 80 determines that the current mode is a backward parking mode, if it is determined that there is a collision possibility in the state in which the vehicle travels backwards, the parking assist controller 90 may perform control to warn the driver of the collision possibility. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Yi/Gray in view of Lee to have included the features of “further cause the controller to determine that a parking mode is activated [perform a control to stop the collision]” because only a partial image for surround view monitoring may be required depending on a driving situation, and thus there is a problem in that an entire image for surround view monitoring rather obstructs concentration of a driver (Lee [0005]).
In regards to claim 13, Yi/Gray teach all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 13 contains similar limitations as in claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Gray and further in view of Taylor et al. US 2020/0023840 hereinafter referred to as Taylor.
In regards to claim 5, Yi/Gray teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the computer-readable instructions further cause the controller to determine that the impact is predicted based on the external object being predicted to enter into a first area from a second area at a speed faster than or equal to a set speed”
Taylor paragraph [0017] teaches the processor determines the relative movement between the vehicle and the at least one object based on changes in a quantity of pixels between a first area of the image corresponding to the vehicle and a second area of the image corresponding to the at least one object, and the processor determines the risk of collision based on a current quantity of the pixels between the first and second areas of the image and the determined speed of vehicle movement. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Yi/Gray in view of Taylor to have included the features of “wherein the computer-readable instructions further cause the controller to determine that the impact is predicted based on the external object being predicted to enter into a first area from a second area at a speed faster than or equal to a set speed” to provide an ability to add enhanced driver assistance capability without requiring incorporating additional electronics into a vehicle (Taylor [0005]).
In regards to claim 16, Yi/Gray teach all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 16 contains similar limitations as in claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 5.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Gray and further in view of Wakasugi US 2026/0014928 hereinafter referred to as Wakasugi.
In regards to claim 11, Yi/Gray teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“further cause the controller to transmit a command to the lamp controller to control the lamp to emit light on the external object that has provided the impact [detection]”
Yi paragraph [0057] and Figure 5 teaches once parking vehicle 501 is within sufficient distance such that it has crosses a collision distance threshold 506, the motion and/or distance sensors 504 interact with the brake indicator light assembly 505 such that the brake light master control activates the front facing brake indicator light.
Yi/Gray do not explicitly teach:
“by use of an adaptive driving beam (ADB) control”
Wakasugi paragraph [0090] teaches he control unit CO controls the light unit 10 such that the light distribution pattern of light emitted from the vehicle headlight 1 becomes an ADB light distribution pattern corresponding to the object located in front of the vehicle 100 and detected by the detection device 120. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Yi/Gray in view of Wakasugi to have included the features of “by use of an adaptive driving beam (ADB) control” because it is possible to suppress the overlapping region from becoming too bright, suppressing the driver of the host vehicle from feeling uncomfortable (Wagasuki [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 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 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422