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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2024 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objection
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 3, “controllingthe” should be changed to --- controlling the ---.
Examiner Notes
3. Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norbert et al. (DE102012224323; hereinafter “Norbert”).
Regarding claim 1, Norbert discloses a quality testing method (by a testing device 1 in Figs. 1-2) for a light source (a LED matrix module 10) in a headlamp (a headlight in a vehicle, see paragraph [0002]), wherein the light source (10) contains a matrix of light pixels (a matrix of LEDs 11 in Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of: controlling the light pixels (controlling LEDs 11 by switches 15. The switches 15 are connected to a control unit 16, which controls the position of the switches 15. See [0024] and Fig. 2) according to a test procedure such that the light source emits light corresponding to a test pattern (the light source 10 emits light corresponding a test LEDs group pattern, see at least in [0023-24]);
recording the test pattern by an optical recorder (a sensor which is part of a detector 2, the sensor 4 is designed to measure the brightness of the light emitted by LEDs 11. See at least in paragraph [0025]); comparing the test pattern with a reference pattern with regard to brightness and/or color value (The sensor 4 transmits the brightness values measured during a functional test of the measured brightness to an evaluation unit 18. The measured brightness in the evaluation unit 18 is quantitatively compared with a specified target value or a preset minimum brightness, and if there is a drop in brightness, the group active at the time of the drop is recognized as faulty. See [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Norbert discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of test patterns (a plurality of LED test groups) are generated and recorded successively by activating different light pixels (LEDs 11), wherein the light pixels (11) in the test patterns that are switched (by switches 15) on are surrounded by a predefined number of light pixels that are switched off (see at least in [0023-24] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Norbert discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the test patterns are generated by sequentially activating individual light pixels (sequentially activating individual light pixels/LEDs in [00010, 16, 24-25]) in a predefined group of light pixels (LEDs 11), while other light pixels in the group of light pixels are switched off, and the sequentially generated test patterns are each recorded by the optical recorder (see [0023-26]).
Regarding claim 4, Norbert discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the test patterns are generated in accordance with the test procedure through sequentially activating the individual light pixels in a predefined group of light pixels (sequentially activating individual light pixels/LEDs, see [00010, 16, 24-25]), wherein the light pixels in the predefined group are contained in a light pixel array (an array of LEDs 11 in the LED matrix module 10, see Fig. 1), each of which is composed of a square matrix that has the same number of rows and columns (Fig. 1 shows a square matrix 10 that has the same number of rows and columns).
Regarding claim 5, Norbert discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the test patterns are generated in accordance with the test procedure through sequentially activating the light pixels in the respective square light pixel arrays (sequentially activating individual light pixels/LEDs, see [00010, 16, 24-25]), wherein the light pixels are switched on at the same locations in the square light pixel arrays (Fig. 2 shows the light pixels/LEDs 11 are switched (by switches 15) on at the same locations in the square light pixel arrays, also see [0023-25]).
Regarding claim 11, Norbert discloses a testing device for the method according to claim 1, the testing device comprising: an evaluation unit (an evaluation unit 18 in Fig. 2), in which an operating control signal is generated for each light pixel based on a difference between the test pattern and the reference patterns (see [0023-25]).
Regarding claim 12, Norbert discloses the testing device according to claim 11, further comprising a test control unit (a control unit 16 in Fig. 2) with which all of the light pixels that are to be switched on in the light pixel array are switched on with the same switching signal (see [0023-25]).
Regarding claim 13, Norbert discloses the testing device according to claim 11, wherein the test control unit (16) is configured such that when each test pattern is activated, a single light pixel in the light pixel array is switched on, and the other light pixels in the same light pixel array are switched off (see at least in [0023-26]).
Regarding claim 14, Norbert discloses the testing device according to claim 11, wherein the operating control signal can be stored in a memory in a control unit for the headlamp (see at least in [0023-26]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norbert.
Regarding claim 6, Norbert discloses the 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein: in a first step, test patterns are generated in which the square light pixel arrays contain relatively few light pixels, and the test patterns are scanned and compared with a reference pattern (“In the case of synchronized sequential control of identical LEDs 11 or LED groups, the sensor 4 registers, for example, an essentially constant brightness. The control unit 16 also transmits a time sequence of the control of the individual LEDs 11 with the information on when which LED(s) 11are or were active to the evaluation unit 18..” in [0025]. Norbert does not explicitly specify that when the test pattern differs from the reference pattern by more than a predefined threshold value, further test patterns are generated in a second step, in which the square light pixel arrays contain a greater number of light pixels than in the first step.
However performing a further test as a repeated test which selects a greater number of light pixels than in the first test is generally recognized as being within the level skill in the art and would simply be a matter of inventor design choice.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the headlight test system of Norbert by having a test performance when the test pattern differs from the reference pattern by more than a predefined threshold value, further test patterns are generated in a second step, in which the square light pixel arrays contain a greater number of light pixels than in the first step, in order to meet the system design and specification requirement.
8. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norbert in view of Coleman (U.S. Pub. 2021/0112647; hereinafter “Coleman”).
Regarding claim 15, Norbert discloses the testing device according to claim 11, except for explicitly specifying wherein an optical recorder of the testing device is a camera.
Coleman discloses a camera configured to measure light brightness from LEDs (see [0032-33]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the sensor in the headlight test system of Norbert with a camera as taught by Coleman, for purpose of enhancing accuracy of the evaluation of performances of LEDs in the headlamp (see the summary).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 7-10 are 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.
Regarding claim 7, the cited references, alone or in combination, do not disclose nor fairly suggest:
“ …an operating control signal is generated for each light pixel based on the comparison of the scanned test pattern with the predefined reference patterns, such that differences in adjacent light pixels with regard to brightness and/or color values are compensated for” in combination with all other elements as claimed in claims 1 and 6.
Claims 8-10 are also objected as they are depended from claim 7.
Prior Art of Record
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ota et al. (U.S Pub. 2023/0108612) discloses a vehicle headlamp system (see specification for more details).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG LE whose telephone number is (571)272-9349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 7:30AM-5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (571) 272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where 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, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THANG X LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
12/25/2025