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 .
Status of Application
Claims 8-14 are pending. Claim 8 is the independent claims. Claim 9 has been cancelled. Claims 8, 11, and 14 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 08/28/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 08/28/2025, “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
The cited reference No. 7 (EESR) in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed 2/2/2024, was considered and the updated IDS has been submitted.
In response to the amended claims filed on 08/28/2025, the rejections of claims 8-14 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 “Claim Interpretation”, with respect to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been fully considered. The interpretation has been withdrawn for “detection unit” according the currently presented claim 8, however, the interpretation has been maintained for “light source unit”, “light source group”, and “control unit”. “Light source unit” is a generic place holder, reciting a function “emitting light beams”, and is not modified by a structure. “Light source group” is a group of light source and still invokes 112f interpretation as it fails to recite structural element. Also, term “control unit” as recited in the claim is being interpreted under 35 USC 112f as being a generic placeholder not preceded by any structural modifier in the claim. Applicant states that a “control unit” is a known structure, however, control unit can be interpreted as any software or hardware. Therefore, “control unit” has been interpreted as being part of an electronic control unit (ECU) of the ego-vehicle according to Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0045], [0046], [0058] and [0061] in the applicant specification.
Applicant’s argument, see page 7 “Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103” of Remarks, with respect to the limitation of “the control unit increases a height of the lower region as the tilt of the ego-vehicle increases” as previously recited in claim 9 (currently recited in amended claim 8), has been fully considered, but, respectfully, is not persuasive. Applicant argues that Na fails to teach the limitation of “the control unit increases a height of the lower region as the tilt of the ego-vehicle increases” because a technique of changing the cutoff line in the vertical direction as disclosed in Na, and the recited technique of widening the vertical width of the gradation region are completely different techniques. However, the argument is moot because the claim as recited doesn’t encompass any detail about technique of widening the vertical width of the gradation region. On the other hand, Na, according to Col 5, third paragraph, discloses “A vehicle lamp may include a light source unit and one or more adjustable components that are configured to generate a variety of light distribution patterns. []. For example, a vehicle lamp may be configured to generate a light distribution pattern having both a high-illumination area (e.g., a high-beam area) and a lower-illumination area (e.g., a low-beam area), separated by a cut-off line, or boundary line, therebetween.”. Also, according to Na reference, (at least Col 5, fifth paragraph), it is disclose that “enabling a vehicle lamp that utilizes a selectively adjustable light-transmissive shield that generates light distribution patterns having a cut-off line with a gradation effect. As such, instead of merely completely blocking or completely transmitting light generated by the light source unit, the light-transmissive shield may selectively apply different transmittances to generate a more gradated light distribution pattern.”. Accordingly, as also recited in the non-final office action filed on 06/03/2025, Na teaches the limitation of “increases a height of the lower region as the tilt of the ego-vehicle increases” according to at least the same cited paragraph of Na, Col 31, Lines 22-36 which discloses “a case in which the vehicle enters an uphill road (or a case in which a front side of a vehicle body of the vehicle is tilted upwards). Here, the vehicle lamp 800 of the present disclosure may change light transmittance of a first portion among the plurality of pixels of the second light-transmissive shield 860b in order not to allow the passage of light, so that a beam pattern irradiated to a front side of the vehicle is irradiated in a downward direction with respect to the vehicle (e.g., a cut-off line of the beam pattern is lowered)”. Further, it is disclosed in Col 27 Lines 24-28 of Na, that “the cut-off line may be defined as a boundary line generated on an upper side in a region to which light is irradiated, when light is irradiated to a plane (e.g., a wall surface) spaced apart from the vehicle lamp 800 by a predetermined distance.”. Accordingly, this is the office stance that the cited reference of Na as referred in non-final office action files on 06/03/2025 for the rejection of claim 9, reads on the feature recited in the claim. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection of the aforementioned limitation, currently recited in amended claim 8 filed on 08/28/2025, is maintain as being obvious over Na reference (See office action below). With respect to claim 11, applicant argues that Na’s disclosure does not meet the feature of the claim “the control unit increases the height of the upper-side region as the tilt of the ego-vehicle increases.”. However, the argument, respectfully, is not persuasive. This is the office stance that all the rejections have been properly made.
Applicant further argues that dependent claims 10-14 are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject matter and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “light source unit”, “light source group”, and “control unit”. The corresponding structure for the light source unit is disclosed in the specification according to paragraph [0033], as mainly equipped with a light distribution pattern formation unit, a projection lens as a housing or another configuration as disclosed in paragraph [0039] as including a digital mirror device (DMD) and a light source. The corresponding structure for the light source group is discloses in paragraph [0036] (e.g. LED array). Also, the corresponding structure for the control unit is disclosed, for example, according to Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0045], [0046], [0058] and [0061] in the applicant specification and is interpreted as an ECU.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka et al., US 20160033102 A1, hereinafter “Hiratsuka”, in view of Potter et al., US 9855887 B1, hereinafter “Potter”, further in view of Na et al., US 10655819 B2, hereinafter “Na”.
Regarding claim 8, Hiratsuka discloses a vehicle headlight, comprising: a light source unit for forming a light distribution pattern which can be changed by light beams; ([0010], “The illumination system includes: a light irradiation unit including a light source”, “plurality of irradiation patterns”, [0025], [0027], “the headlights 16 are able to project light in various irradiation patterns”) and a control unit (e.g., [0010], “control unit”), wherein, in a case where a detection signal of another vehicle present in front of an ego-vehicle is inputted from a detection unit for detecting the other vehicle ([0010], “an object detecting unit configured to detect a shading object”, __shading object reads on another vehicle in front of an ego vehicle__, [0025], “imaging device 14” and Fig. 1, [0033], “When a shading object 50 has been detected within the illumination area”, “The “shading object” is an object for which it is desirable to reduce dazzling due to illumination, and specifically includes a pedestrian, an oncoming vehicle, and the like”), the control unit causes first light source, which emit light toward a first region including a region overlapping a visual recognition part of the other vehicle used by a driver thereof to visually recognize the outside of the other vehicle, to emit light having a lower intensity than in a case where no detection signal is inputted, (Fig. 3, “Shaded area 54”, __Shaded area 54 as shown in Fig. 3 reads on a first region that overlaps a driver’s visual recognition part of the other vehicle__, [0010], [0025]-[0027], [0033], “the irradiation pattern in which the shading object 50 is included in the shaded area 54.”, __shading object (reads on first region), is included in the shaded area which reads on having a lower density in the first region as according to paragraph [0010]. The irradiation pattern when the shading object is detected, is emitting light with lower density to the shading object.__) and causes light sources that emit light toward a second region surrounding the first region, which emit light toward a lower-side region lower than the first region ([0061]-[0062], and claim 4, “a third irradiation […] that a plurality of dark pixels are arranged on a lower side of the shaded area.”, __dark pixels reads on low density__), the detection unit comprising a millimeter wave radar, a camera, or a LiDAR ([0010], “an object detecting unit configured to detect a shading object based on the image information of the illumination area”, [0033], “he imaging device 14 captures an area ahead of the vehicle, including the illumination area 52. When a shading object 50 has been detected within the illumination area 52 based on the captured image,”, [0026], “camera”).
Hiratsuka discloses a light irradiation unit including a light source that irradiates a plurality of irradiation patterns; however, Hiratsuka doesn’t explicitly disclose light emitting from a light source group and a second light source emitting light toward a second region.
However, Potter teaches using a light source group and a second light source (e.g., Col. 14 lines 5-25, “To change the illumination intensity, the control unit can direct individual members of the array of the light sources 208 to change the amount of power emitted.”, __ assigning different individual members of an array in order to direct the light as desired, and possibly as part of sub-groups that are individually activated, reads on the light source group. __)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a light source which forms different pattern as thought by Hiratsuka with multiple light sources (which reads on first and second light source) in ADB headlights as taught by Potter, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving more precise and adaptive beam control and improving the reliability of the headlamps in preventing glare for other drivers.
Further, although Hiratsuka discloses that the brightness in the boundary area between shaded area and irradiated area, changes in a stepwise manner, according to paragraphs [0061]- [0062], [0069], [0074], however, Hiratsuka doesn’t explicitly teach to emit light with an increasingly lower intensity toward the side closer to the first region.
However, Potter teaches to emit light with an increasingly lower intensity toward the side closer to the first region. (Col 10, Lines 4-24, “the spatial light modulator 112 could operate with a spatial buffer of zero intensity (or near zero intensity) around its perimeter”, Col 14, Lines 5-25, “This selective activation (or deactivation) could also involve changing illumination intensities (e.g., to form a gradient). Thus, the illumination pattern would experience an alteration in spectral distribution.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the illumination system as taught by Hiratsuka with changing illumination intensities (spectral distribution) as taught by Potter, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing boundary region of the visual recognition part (first region) of the other vehicle from being suddenly brightly irradiated and more effectively prevent dazzling of coming vehicle during ADB operation.
Further, Hiratsuka in view of Potter doesn’t teach in a case where the ego-vehicle is tilted such that the front side of the ego-vehicle is higher than the rear side, the control unit increases a height of the lower region as the tilt of the ego-vehicle increases.
However, Na teaches in a case where the ego-vehicle is tilted such that the front side of the ego-vehicle is higher than the rear side, the control unit increases a height of the lower region as the tilt of the ego-vehicle increases. (Fig. 16I and Col 31, Lines 22-36)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination system as taught Hiratsuka in view of Potter to include the change in light transmittance when the front side of a vehicle body is tilted upward (e.g., by lowering a cut-off line of the beam pattern) as taught by Na, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the efficiency of the ADB system in prevent dazzling of coming vehicle in a case when the front side of the vehicle is higher than the rear side.
Regarding claim 10, Hiratsuka discloses in a case where the detection signal is inputted from the detection unit, the control unit causes, the light source which emits light toward an upper-side region above the first region, to emit light with an lower intensity ([0010], “a plurality of irradiation patterns are alternately irradiated”, [0062], “a boundary area is formed on both upper and lower sides of the shaded area”, claim 4, “a second irradiation pattern in which a plurality of dark pixels are arranged in the predetermined shape such that a plurality of dark pixels are arranged on an upper side of the shaded area”, __under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, arranging a plurality of dark pixels (deactivating or dimming the light) reads on emitting light with lower intensity, (Ref: Mimoun , abstract, “Formation of a dark zone (ZS) in the pixelated light beam associated with the given zone, by extinction or attenuation of at least one pixel (HDi,j) of the pixelated light beam”__)
Hiratsuka discloses a light irradiation unit including a light source that irradiates a plurality of irradiation patterns; however, Hiratsuka doesn’t explicitly disclose light emitting from a light source group and a second light source emitting light toward a second region.
However, Potter teaches using a light source group and a second light source. (e.g., Col. 14 lines 5-25, “To change the illumination intensity, the control unit can direct individual members of the array of the light sources 208 to change the amount of power emitted.”, __ assigning different individual members of an array in order to direct the light as desired, and possibly as part of sub-groups that are individually activated, reads on the light source group. __)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a light source which forms different pattern as thought by Hiratsuka with multiple light sources (which reads on first and second light source) in ADB headlights as taught by Potter, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving more precise and adaptive beam control and improving the reliability of the headlamps in preventing glare for other drivers.
Furthermore, although Hiratsuka discloses that the brightness in the boundary area between shaded area and irradiated area changes in a stepwise manner, according to [0061]- [0062], [0069], [0074], however, Hiratsuka doesn’t explicitly teach to emit light with an increasingly lower intensity toward the side closer to the first region.
However, Potter, US 9855887 B1, teaches to emit light with an increasingly lower intensity toward the side closer to the first region. (Page 12, Col 10, Lines 4-24, “the spatial light modulator 112 could operate with a spatial buffer of zero intensity (or near zero intensity) around its perimeter. The spatial buffer, or portions thereof, could be activated (or deactivated) to allow light passage along the optical path 114 for certain portions of the spatial light modulator. Thus, extents for the illumination pattern could be established that propagate through to the illumination profile, thereby forming boundaries.”, and Page 14, Col 14, Lines 5-25,)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the illumination system as taught by Hiratsuka with changing illumination intensities (spectral distribution) as taught by Potter, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing boundary region of the visual recognition part (first region) of the other vehicle from being suddenly brightly irradiated and more effectively prevent dazzling of coming vehicle during ADB operation as also recited by Hiratsuka according to paragraphs [0007], and [0033]-[0034].
Regarding claim 11, Hiratsuka doesn’t explicitly disclose in a case where the ego-vehicle is tilted such that the rear side of the ego-vehicle is higher than the front side, the control unit increases the width in the up-down direction of the upper-side region as the tilt of the ego-vehicle increases.
However, Na teaches where the ego-vehicle is tilted such that the rear side of the ego-vehicle is higher than the front side, the control unit increases the width in the up-down direction of the upper-side region as the tilt of the ego-vehicle increases. (Fig 16J, Col 31/Line 56- Col 32/Line 3)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination system as taught Hiratsuka to include the change in light transmittance when the rear side of a vehicle body is tilted upward (e.g., by raising a cut-off line of the beam pattern) as taught by Na, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the efficiency of the ADB system in prevent dazzling of coming vehicle in a case when the front side of the vehicle is higher than the rear side.
Regarding claim 12, Hiratsuka discloses in a case where the detection signal is inputted from the detection unit (e.g., [0010], [0025]), the control unit causes a light source that emits light toward a left-side region on a left side of the first region, and a light source that emits light toward a right-side region on a right side of the first region, to emit light with lower intensity toward the side closer to the first region. (e.g., Fig 9, [0057], “right and left sides of the shaded area 62”, [0061], [0065], claim 3)
Hiratsuka discloses doesn’t explicitly disclose a second light source among the second light sources emitting light to the second region.
However, Potter teaches using a second light source. (e.g., Col. 14 lines 5-25, “To change the illumination intensity, the control unit can direct individual members of the array of the light sources 208 to change the amount of power emitted.”, __ assigning different individual members of an array in order to direct the light as desired, and possibly as part of sub-groups that are individually activated, reads on the light source group. __)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a light source which forms different pattern as thought by Hiratsuka with multiple light sources (which reads on first and second light source) in ADB headlights as taught by Potter, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving more precise and adaptive beam control and improving the reliability of the headlamps in preventing glare for other drivers.
Furthermore, similar to the statement regarding claim 10, although Hiratsuka discloses that the brightness in the boundary area between shaded area and irradiated area changes in a stepwise manner, according to [0061]-[0062], [0069], [0074], however, Hiratsuka doesn’t explicitly teaches to emit light with an increasingly lower intensity toward the side closer to the first region.
However, Potter teaches to emit light with an increasingly lower intensity toward the side closer to the first region. (Page 12, Col 10, Lines 4-24, “the spatial light modulator 112 could operate with a spatial buffer of zero intensity (or near zero intensity) around its perimeter. The spatial buffer, or portions thereof, could be activated (or deactivated) to allow light passage along the optical path 114 for certain portions of the spatial light modulator. Thus, extents for the illumination pattern could be established that propagate through to the illumination profile, thereby forming boundaries.”, and Page 14, Col 14, Lines 5-25,)
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka, in view of Potter and Na, further in view of the applicant-provide reference Mimoun, WO 2021018657, hereinafter “Mimoun”.
Regarding claim 13, Hiratsuka doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein at least one of a width in a left-right direction of the left-side region and a width in the left-right direction of the right-side region is smaller than a width in the up-down direction of the lower side region.
However, Mimoun as teaches at least one of a width in a left-right direction of the left-side region and a width in the left-right direction of the right-side region is smaller than a width in the up-down direction of the lower side region (Fig 2, 4 and 5, __the area LD is larger than ZS and the area ZHD is greater that area ZS__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination system as taught by Hiratsuka to include the illumination area with greater thickness in the right and left sides respect to the regions on the top and bottom of the visual recognition part of the other vehicle as taught by Mimoun, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the performance of ADB system in preventing dazzling of other vehicles.
Regarding claim 14, Hiratsuka doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the second region includes a third region and a fourth region, the third region is a region farther from the ego-vehicle in the left-side region and the right-side region of the second region, and the fourth region is a region closer to the ego-vehicle in the left-side region and the right-side region, and wherein in a case where the other vehicle is an oncoming vehicle, a width in the left-right direction in the third region, is greater than a width in the left-right direction in the fourth region.
The limitations recited in claim 14 have been interpreted in light of paragraph [0122] of specification of the instant application. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, according to at least figures 4-7 and associated paragraphs of the forgoing cited reference, Mimoun, it is clear that the thickness of the emission zones ZLD and ZHD and ZS area is changing while the target vehicle approaching toward the host vehicle. According to figures 4, and 5 of Mimoun, the thickness/width of the emission zones ZHD (reads on third region as recited in the claim) is greater than the thickness/width of zone ZS which is a dark zone as a function of position of the target vehicle (and reads on fourth region as recited in the claim). Also, it is disclosed by Mimoun, paragraph [0046], that while target vehicle C moves toward the host vehicle, the blur mask MF has also moved in order to remain centered on the position of the target vehicle C. Figures 4 to 7 of Mimoun show a scenario that target vehicle is approaching the host vehicle. It shows how blur mask MF moved to follow the position of the target vehicle. It is also discloses in paragraph [0047], “The first pixel LDI thus sees its light intensity again attenuated by the controller 5 according to the value of the cell C3 of the attenuation mask MA which is adjacent to it, while the number of pixels HDi,j extinguished or attenuated to form the dark zone ZS in the first pixelated light beam HD continues to decrease.”, __ decreasing the number of pixels to form dark zone ZS which reads on forth region meets the limitation of the width of the third region (adjacent to the dark zone) is greater than the width of the fourth region __).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination system as taught by Hiratsuka to include the illumination area with greater thickness in the side regions farther from the ego vehicle as taught by Mimoun, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the performance of ADB system in preventing dazzling of other vehicles.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spero, US 20180255622 A1, disclose an automated headlight system for vehicles replaces the high and low beam with a continuum of beam patterns, with further variable spatial distribution of intensities and color spectrum comprising a controller to dynamically adapts the headlight illumination to provide vehicle operators with optimal visibility while preventing discomfort-glare from reaching the eyes oncoming traffic or pedestrians.
Kulkarni et al., US 20230010662 A1, discloses an ADB headlamp and a method for detecting a remote vehicle and automatically dims a high beam directed toward the remote vehicle in a gradual manner to avoid dazzling the driver of the local vehicle. The disclosed lighting system comprises multiple high and low beam lamps configured to multiple predetermined zones.
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 HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669