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
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reference Imaishi et al [US 2020/0114812 A1] in view of Nakashima et al [US 2017/0050556 A1] does not teach or discloses “A vehicle lighting device comprising:a pattern irradiation part which irradiates an irradiation region on a side of a travel path of one's own vehicle by a bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern in which bright regions and dark regions are alternately repeated; a situation recognition device which recognizes a situation prompting a deceleration action or anacceleration action to a driver of one's own vehicle, and obtains an output corresponding to the recognition; and a controller which controls the pattern irradiation part so that bright regions and dark regions of the pattern irradiation light move in a front/rear direction of the vehicle, based on the output of the situation recognition device,wherein the controller changes the bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern to a shape that is more reduced when a headlight of one's own vehicle is a high-beam than when the headlight of one's own vehicle is a low-beam.” (see page 3-7)
Examiner disagrees:
Newly recited prior art Son et al [US 2016/0368414 A1], Son discloses wherein the controller (Fig. 22, 700) changes the bright/dark mixed irradiation (Paragraph [0069-71]) pattern to a shape (Fig. 2, P20 and P10) that is more reduced (Fig. 9, D & Fig. 11, D) when a headlight of one's own vehicle is a high-beam (Fig. 22, 800a & 800b) than when the headlight of one's own vehicle is a low-beam (Fig. 22, 800a & 800b).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Imaishi with wherein the controller changes the bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern to a shape that is more reduced when a headlight of one's own vehicle is a high-beam than when the headlight of one's own vehicle is a low-beam for purpose of improves safe driving to avoid accidents on road as disclosed by Son (Paragraph [0005])
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki [US 2013/0201713 A1]
PNG
media_image2.png
576
433
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sawada [US 2020/0353858 A1]
PNG
media_image3.png
703
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1-2, newly recited amended claims “wherein the controller changes the bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern to a shape that is more reduced when a headlight of one's own vehicle is a high-beam than when the headlight of one's own vehicle is a low-beam.” Is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. For example, (1) what is more reduced? There is no meet and bounds what more reduce is the applicant referring to. What is difference reduce and more reduce? (2) the limitation “a shape that is more reduced when a headlight of one's own vehicle is a high-beam than when the headlight of one's own vehicle is a low-beam.” Is the applicant refereeing to high-beam is reduced which is lower intensity than the low-beam, in other words high beam is off or the width of high-beam is smaller than the width of low-beam.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaishi et al [US 2020/0114812 A1] in view of Nakashima et al [US 2017/0050556 A1] and further in view of Son et al [US 2016/0368414 A1].
In regards to claim 1. Imaishi discloses a vehicle lighting device comprising:
a situation recognition device (Fig. 1, 1a) which recognizes a situation prompting a deceleration action or acceleration action (Paragraph [0034]) to a driver of one’s own vehicle (Fig. 1, 1-5), and obtains an output corresponding (Fig. 1, 1a) to the recognition (Paragraph [0034 & 0104-0130]); and
a controller (Fig. 1, 2) which controls the pattern irradiation part so that bright regions and dark regions of the pattern irradiation (Fig. 4, Irradiation Time and No Irradiation Time & Paragraph [0091-103]) light move in a front/rear direction of the vehicle (Fig. 15, B1-1 and B1-2), based on the output of the situation recognition device (Fig. 1, 1a).
PNG
media_image4.png
566
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Imaishi does not specify a pattern irradiation part which irradiates an irradiation region on a side of a travel path of one’s own vehicle by a bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern in which bright regions and dark regions are alternately repeated; wherein the controller changes the bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern to a shape that is more reduced when a headlight of one's own vehicle is a high-beam than when the headlight of one's own vehicle is a low-beam.
Nakashima a pattern irradiation part (Fig. 1, 80R and 80L) which irradiates an irradiation region on a side of a travel path of one’s own vehicle (Fig. 1, 1) by a bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern in which bright regions and dark regions are (Paragraph [0134]) alternately repeated;
PNG
media_image5.png
679
428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Imaishi with a pattern irradiation part which irradiates an irradiation region on a side of a travel path of one’s own vehicle by a bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern in which bright regions and dark regions are alternately repeated; for purpose of provides a vehicle headlight device that is capable of reducing a deterioration of a host vehicle driver's visibility attributable to a dark region while reducing a dazzle with respect to an irradiation suppression target object as disclosed by Nakashima (Paragraph [0011]).
Imaishi in view of Nakashima does not specify wherein the controller changes the bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern to a shape that is more reduced when a headlight of one's own vehicle is a high-beam than when the headlight of one's own vehicle is a low-beam
Son discloses wherein the controller (Fig. 22, 700) changes the bright/dark mixed irradiation (Paragraph [0069-71]) pattern to a shape (Fig. 2, P20 and P10) that is more reduced (Fig. 9, D & Fig. 11, D) when a headlight of one's own vehicle is a high-beam (Fig. 22, 800a & 800b) than when the headlight of one's own vehicle is a low-beam (Fig. 22, 800a & 800b).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Imaishi with wherein the controller changes the bright/dark mixed irradiation pattern to a shape that is more reduced when a headlight of one's own vehicle is a high-beam than when the headlight of one's own vehicle is a low-beam for purpose of improves safe driving to avoid accidents on road as disclosed by Son (Paragraph [0005])
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaishi et al [US 2020/0114812 A1] in view of Nakashima et al [US 2017/0050556 A1] and further in view of Son et al [US 2016/0368414 A1] and further in view of Ogata et al [US 2013/0131922 A1].
In regards to claim 2. Imaishi in view of Nakashima and further in view of Son discloses the vehicle lighting device according to claim 1,
Imaishi in view of Nakashima and further in view of Son does not specify wherein the controller controls the pattern irradiation part so as to change a speed at which the bright regions and dark regions of the irradiation pattern move.
Ogata discloses wherein the controller controls the pattern irradiation part so as to change a speed at which the bright regions and dark regions of the irradiation pattern move (Paragraph [0111-113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Imaishi with wherein the controller controls the pattern irradiation part so as to change a speed at which the bright regions and dark regions of the irradiation pattern move purpose of estimates the oncoming vehicle presence possible region on the basis of the own vehicle speed, a minimum curvature radius of a traveling road corresponding to a speed limit determined in advance, and traffic information indicating whether driving on the traveling road is driving on the right side or driving on the left side as disclosed Ogata (Paragraph [0013]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WEI (VICTOR) CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
WEI (VICTOR) CHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2844
/WEI (VICTOR) Y CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights