DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 22 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 11-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that [0083] of Asaoka teaches that the optical axis deviation in Asaoka may be corrected by changing the irradiation range, which requires hardware in the headlamp, such as a motor, to change the tilt of the headlamp in the vertical/horizontal directions.
Examiner agrees that, in one embodiment, Asaoka corrects the optical axis deviation by using hardware to change the irradiation range. However, [0087] of Asaoka further teaches where the correction of the optical axis deviation can be performed by “correcting the irradiation position within the irradiation range by processing on software without changing the irradiation range of the headlamp” (emphasis added). This, in combination with the teaching of the projectors taking the form of a micromirror device, LCD or LED array (see [0032-0038]) requires that the correction be performed by adjusting the pixels of the projector, i.e. digitally shifting or scaling the pattern. This is especially evident in light of [0083] which states that the deviation can also be corrected by changing the irradiation range of the headlight using a motor that tilts the headlight vertically and/or horizontally, which indicates that the changing of the irradiation position within the irradiation range without changing the irradiation range must comprise digital shifting or scaling. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Although not argued by Applicant, further analysis of the rejections of dependent claims 13-15 and 19 indicates that these claims were not properly rejected in the previous action. Therefore, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, 16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asaoka et al. (US 20170129389 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Asaoka teaches a motor vehicle comprising: a digital projection unit for projecting graphical or visual information onto a projection surface (see Asaoka fig. 1 and [0018] regarding vehicle headlamp device 1 which is mounted on a vehicle and includes a camera 10, an ECU 20, headlamps 30 and an ignition switch 40), wherein:
the digital projection unit is connected to a monitoring circuit of the motor vehicle in order to project the graphical or visual information, to evaluate a snapshot of the graphical or visual information (see Asaoka [0021]-[0022], [0026] and [0032-0038] of Asaoka, each headlight 30 comprises a projector that can be in the form of a micromirror device, LCD or LED array and can project a pattern onto a irradiated surface, i.e. project a pattern on the road surface. See also Asaoka [0021]-[0022] where images from camera 10 can be processed by image processing part 11 to detect distortion of the pattern projected on the irradiated surface) and to change a projection of the graphical or visual information on the projection surface by way of the digital projection unit based on the evaluated snapshot (see Asaoka [0084]-[0087] and [0094] where, based on the image captured by the camera, the ECU 20 corrects an optical axis deviation of each of the headlights relative to the image-capturing direction of the camera based on a difference between the position/size of the given shape projected on the irradiated surface and the position/size that was supposed to be irradiated on the surface), and
the digital projection unit is configured to readjust at least one of a position, a size, or a distortion of the graphical or visual information by digitally shifting or scaling content to be displayed when an evaluation of the snapshot has a result that the projection of the graphical or visual information on the projection surface has changed compared to respective reference values in relation to at least one of the position, the size, or the distortion (see Asaoka [0084]-[0087] and [0094]. Based on detected distortion of the projected pattern, which requires a threshold defining “distortion”, the system in Asaoka corrects the relative optical axis deviation between the left and right headlights. With regarding to the claimed readjustment of the position, size or distortion of the graphical or visual information by digitally shifting or scaling content to be displayed, [0087] of Asaoka teaches where the correction of the optical axis deviation can be performed by “correcting the irradiation position within the irradiation range by processing on software without changing the irradiation range of the headlamp” (emphasis added). This, in combination with the teaching of the projectors taking the form of a micromirror device, LCD or LED array requires that the correction be performed by adjusting the pixels of the projector, i.e. digitally shifting or scaling the pattern. This is especially evident in light of [0083] which states that the deviation can also be corrected by changing the irradiation range of the headlight using a motor that tilts the headlight vertically and/or horizontally, which indicates that the changing of the irradiation position within the irradiation range without changing the irradiation range must comprise digital shifting or scaling).
Regarding claim 12, Asaoka teaches the motor vehicle according to one of claim 11, wherein the monitoring circuit is configured to project a test image, which is evaluated as the snapshot, onto the projection surface by way of the digital projection unit (see Asaoka figs 3A-3B and [0044]-[0050] where lattice patterns PL and PR are projected from the left and right headlights, respectively, to detect distortion caused by the state of the road surface).
Regarding claim 16, Asaoka teaches the motor vehicle according to one of claim 11, wherein the snapshot is produced by at least one camera of the motor vehicle (see Asaoka fig. 1 and [0017]-[0020] regarding camera 10).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the claims are directed toward methods that would be performed by the system as claimed in claims 11 and 12. The recited portions of Asaoka used in the rejections of claims 11 and 12 teach the operation of the system to perform the claimed methods. Therefore, claims 18 and 19 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 11 and 12.
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 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asaoka et al. (US 20170129389 A1) in view of Kuni et al. (US 20200231085 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Asaoka does not teach the motor vehicle according to one of claim 11, wherein the graphical or visual information is produced by at least two digital projection units that each project a partial image.
Kuni teaches a vehicle comprising a digital projection unit for projecting graphical or visual information onto a projection surface, similar to the vehicle in Asaoka, wherein the graphical or visual information is produced by at least two digital projection units that each project a partial image (see Kuni fig. 1(A) and [0056]-[0057])
Both Asaoka and Kuni teach similar projection units for projecting graphical or visual information onto a projection surface. In Asaoka, the entire image is projected onto the road surface by each headlight and superimposed on the other. In Kuni, the image is partially projected by each headlight in order to display the entire image on the road surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing that the superimposed projection in Asaoka could be substituted with the partial projection by each headlight in Asaoka because the operation of each system results in projecting the entire image on the roadway. Additionally, it would be obvious to modify the system in Asaoka with the partial projection in Kuni because this enables the system to provide more information while using the same number of pixels in each projection unit.
Regarding claim 14, modified Asaoka teaches the motor vehicle according to one of claim 13, wherein the partial images at least partially overlap (see Asaoka fig. 19 and [0102]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Asaoka teaches the motor vehicle according to one of claim 14, wherein the partial images adjoin one another (see Asaoka fig. 1(A).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed toward a method that would be performed by the system as claimed in claim 13. The recited portions of Asaoka and Kuni used in the rejection of claim 13 teach the operation of the system to perform the claimed method. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
Conclusion
Due to the new grounds of rejection for claims 13-15 and 19, necessitated due to the improper rejections set forth in the previous action, this action is NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Peter Nolan, whose telephone number is 571-270-7016. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
The fax number for the organization to which this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Peter D Nolan/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661