DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 02/19/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendments to claim 1 now distinguish this claim over the previously applied Kang reference, and therefore claims 1-3, 6-11 and 15-19 are allowable. Claims 12 and 13 do not distinguish over Kang, however, for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On the penultimate line of claim 1, the word "successive" should be changed to
--the step of successively--, and also on this line, --the groups of pixels-- should be inserted after the word "driving".
On line 8 of claim 12, the word --pixelated-- should be inserted before "light".
On line 2 of claim 19, the word "when" should be changed to --wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0195874.
As to claim 12, as indicated in paragraph eight of the previous office action, the limitations of this claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the light or signaling system shown in figure 3A of Kang. Specifically, the claimed first interface would have been obvious, if not inherent, in the lighting or signaling system of Kang, the reason being that by Kang's figure 3A by necessity must include some type of interface for receiving a command to transition from an initial beam to a target beam, note paragraph seven of the previous office action which indicates why a command for transitioning from an initial beam to a target beam would be inherent in Kang. Similarly, the claimed second interface would have been obvious, if not inherent, in the lighting or signaling system of Kang, the reason being that by necessity Kang's figure 3A must also include some type of interface for outputting control signals from controllers 410, 510 to the light emitting diodes and switches within each of the groups G1, G2 and G3. Note also that Kang discloses successively driving the groups of pixels, as indicated on page 7 of the previous office action. Moreover, Kang also discloses modifying the luminosity of each pixel from an initial luminosity to a target luminosity, as also indicated on page 7 of the previous office action. As to the claimed processor recited on line 7 of claim 12,, note that Kang's controllers 410 and/or 510 can be interpreted as a processor, and this processor will either inherently or obviously be configured to define, for each pixel of the pixelated light source, a target luminosity based on the target beam, and to group the pixels of the pixelated light source into at least two groups of pixels, i.e., figure 3A of Kang shows three groups of pixels G1, G2 and G3.
As to claim 13, as indicated in paragraph eight of the previous office action, the use of the Kang figure 3A lighting system as part of an automotive vehicle would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the Kang lighting system is for use in any environment, i.e., it is not meant to be a standalone device.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 15-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 1-3, 6-11 and 15-19 are now allowable in view of the limitations added into independent claim 1 on the last two lines thereof, i.e., Kang is not seen to disclose or suggest that during the step of successively driving the groups of pixels, each pixel is driven through at least one intermediary luminosity. As such, independent claim 1 is now deemed to distinguish patentably over Kang, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6-11 and 15-19 are allowable in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on allowable claim 1.
Action is Final
5. 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.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 February 28, 2026