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 Amendment
The amendment filed 7/23/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the newly amended limitation “the first illumination pattern being statically generated without scanning the light” which is not disclosed in the originally filed disclosure. The most relevant portion of the originally filed disclosure states “a first illumination pattern in which a bright area and a dark area are alternately repeated” in paragraph [0027] of the specification. Nowhere in the applicant’s originally filed disclosure state that the first illumination pattern being statically generated without scanning the light. As such, the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the scope of the originally filed disclosure.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as they are dependent upon claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii et al. (US 2020/0047661) (hereinafter Takii) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2017/0305327) (hereinafter Hoffman).
Claim 1: Takii teaches a first light illuminator (3, fig. 1) configured to illuminate a predetermined first light distribution area (PH, fig. 2B) with light in a first illumination pattern (pattern in fig. 6) in which a bright area (areas L, fig. 6) and a dark area (areas M1, CAR, M2 are not lighted, fig. 6) (see para [0056]) are alternately repeated (see fig. 6); and a second light illuminator (2, fig. 1) configured to illuminate a predetermined second light distribution area (PL, fig. 2B) with light in a second illumination pattern (pattern of PL, fig. 2B) in which an entire area is a bright area (PL is illuminated low beam lighting, see para [0036]), wherein the first light distribution area (area of PH, fig. 2B) has a portion (portion of PH above PL, fig. 2B) that does not overlap with the second light distribution area (PL, fig. 2B) at a side of the second light distribution area (top side of PL).
However, Takii fails to teach the first illumination pattern being statically generated without scanning the light.
Hoffman teaches a first light illuminator (31, fig. 4) configured to illuminate a predetermined first light distribution area with light in a first illumination pattern (see fig. 14), the first illumination pattern being statically generated without scanning the light (static basic light distributions with dynamic controllable light distributions, see para [0133]).
Therefore, in view of Hoffman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add another first light illuminator which produces a first illumination pattern that is being statically generated without scanning the light, in order to provide additional lighting functionality.
Claim 2: Takii teaches the first illumination pattern (pattern of PH in fig. 6) is a stripe pattern (see fig. 6) in which the bright area and the dark area are arranged in parallel (see fig. 6).
Claim 9: Takii teaches the second light distribution area (area of PL, fig. 2B) has a cut-off line (COL, fig. 2B) higher than a low beam (higher than H, fig. 2B) illuminated by a low beam light illuminator (2).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii et al. (US 2020/0047661) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2017/0305327) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Barmeyer (WO 2017102366).
Claim 3: Takii in view of Hoffman fails to teach the first illumination pattern is a grid pattern in which the bright area having a grid pattern is formed in the dark area.
Barmeyer teaches a first light illuminator (3, fig. 1) (multi-cell array of laser diodes, see para [0041]), and a first illumination pattern (see fig. 2) is a grid pattern in which the bright area having a grid pattern is formed in the dark area (Examiner notes that the laser diodes/LEDs in 3 form an array which can be selectively activated for form a grid pattern in which the bright area has a grid pattern formed in the dark area, see para 0041).
Therefore, in view of Barmeyer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light source of Takii with the light source of Barmeyer where the first illumination pattern is a grid pattern in which the bright area having a grid pattern is formed in the dark area, in order to change the shape of the light output.
Claim 4: Takii in view of Hoffman fails to teach the first illumination pattern is a checkerboard pattern in which the bright areas each having a rectangular shape and the dark areas each having a rectangular shape are arranged in a checkerboard pattern.
Barmeyer teaches a first light illuminator (3, fig. 1) (multi-cell array of laser diodes, see para [0041]), and a first illumination pattern (see fig. 2) is a grid pattern in which the bright area having a grid pattern is formed in the dark area (Examiner notes that the laser diodes/LEDs in 3 form an array which can be selectively activated for form a checkerboard pattern in which the bright areas each having a rectangular shape and the dark areas each having a rectangular shape are arranged in a checkerboard pattern, see para 0041).
Therefore, in view of Barmeyer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light source of Takii with the light source of Barmeyer where the first illumination pattern is a checkerboard pattern in which the bright areas each having a rectangular shape and the dark areas each having a rectangular shape are arranged in a checkerboard pattern, in order to change the shape of the light output.
Claim 5: Takii in view of Hoffman fails to teach the first illumination pattern is a rhombic checkerboard pattern in which the bright areas each having a rhombic shape and the dark areas each having a rhombic shape are arranged in a checkerboard pattern.
Barmeyer teaches changing the shape of the lighting array (see para [0037]).
Therefore, in view of Barmeyer, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape or position of the lighting array where the first illumination pattern is a rhombic checkerboard pattern in which the bright areas each having a rhombic shape and the dark areas each having a rhombic shape are arranged in a checkerboard pattern to adjust the light output distribution to produce a desired light output shape, since it has been held that the configuration of the shape of the lighting array (see para [0037] of Barmeyer) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 8: Takii teaches the second light distribution area (PL, fig. 2B) is a distribution area illuminated by a high beam light illuminator (3, fig. 1).
Takii in view of Hoffman fails to teach the second light distribution area is a spotlight distribution area narrower than a high beam.
Barmeyer teaches a first second illuminator (3’, fig. 1) (multi-cell array of laser diodes, see para [0041]), and a second illumination pattern (see fig. 2) where the second light distribution area is a spotlight distribution area narrower than a high beam illuminated by a high beam light illuminator (Examiner notes that the laser diodes/LEDs in 3 form an array which can be selectively activated to form a spotlight distribution area narrower than a high beam, see para 0041).
Therefore, in view of Barmeyer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light source of Takii with the light source of Barmeyer where the second light distribution area is a spotlight distribution area narrower than a high beam, in order to change the shape of the light output.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii et al. (US 2020/0047661) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2017/0305327) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Iriba (US 2020/0207254).
Claim 6: Takii teaches the first light illuminator (3, fig. 1) comprises a mirror device (35, fig. 1)(rotating mirror, see para [0035]) including a micromirror group (group of 35) corresponding to the first illumination pattern (pattern in fig. 6).
However, Takii in view of Hoffman fails to teach a digital mirror device (DMD).
Iriba teaches a first light illuminator (10, fig. 1) comprises a digital mirror device (DMD) (26, fig. 1) (DMD, see para [0047]).
Therefore, in view of Iriba, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rotating mirror of Takii with the DMD of Iriba, in order to provide faster modulation of the light.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii et al. (US 2020/0047661) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2017/0305327) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Tsutsumi (US 2013/0329440).
Claim 7: Takii teaches the first light illuminator (3, fig. 1) comprises a predetermined surface emitting light source (31, fig. 1) and
However, Takii in view of Hoffman fails to teach a light shielding mask having a pattern corresponding to the first illumination pattern.
Teaches the first light illuminator (50, fig. 5) comprises a predetermined surface emitting light source (52a-52d,, fig. 1) and a light shielding mask (60a-c, fig. 5) having a pattern corresponding to the first illumination pattern (see fig. 7).
Therefore, in view of Tsutsumi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light source of Takii with the light source of Tsutsumi including the light shielding mask, in order to adjust the light output shape of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 has/have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoffman et al. (US 2016/0257241) discloses a similar headlight device.
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 ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 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 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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875