DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Communication filed on 06/07/2024. In virtue of the communication:
Claims 1-15 are pending in the instant application.
The references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 06/07/2024 and 07/24/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 6, 8, 13 and 15 are 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 claim 6, line 3, “the third value” is not clear because it is not defined in claim 1.
In claim 8, line 3, “the second reference value” is not clear because it is not defined in claim 1.
In claim 13, line 3, “the third value” is not clear because it is not defined in claim 1.
In claim 15, line 3, “the second reference value” is not clear because it is not defined in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 2, 3 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the generic placeholder “irradiation pattern setting unit” and “control signal generation unit” (as recited in claim 2) are being used. Although the specification teaches theory that some claimed undefined arrangement of physical components could possibly provide the outcome, there is/are no evidence that any taught apparatus has produced these results in a verifiable manner to support the idea that a particular configuration is defined by the output claimed as required for a 112(f) claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukawa (U.S. Pub. 2004/0213012 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fukawa discloses a vehicle lamp control apparatus (Fig. 1-5) that controls light irradiation state (irradiation light patterns, Fig. 4) of a vehicle lamp (10, Fig. 1) which is capable of irradiating light forward of a vehicle (par [0002]),
wherein the light irradiation state by the vehicle lamp is controlled such that, with regard to irradiation light lower than an H line on a virtual screen (Fig. 4), when a vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than or equal to a reference value (e.g., less than 60km/h, par [0053]), a road surface illuminance due to light from the vehicle lamp at a position at a first forward distance which is relatively close to the vehicle becomes a first value (pattern Po, Fig. 5); when the vehicle speed of the vehicle is greater than the reference value (e.g., greater than 60km/h, par [0053]), the road surface illuminance due to light from the vehicle lamp at the position at the first forward distance becomes a second value (pattern Ph, Fig. 5) which is smaller than the first value; and the road surface illuminance due to light from the vehicle lamp at a position at a second forward distance which is relatively far from the vehicle becomes substantially constant regardless of the vehicle speed (mere deformation movement of the overall lighting pattern, Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 2, Fukawa discloses a vehicle lamp control apparatus (Fig. 1-5) that controls light irradiation state (irradiation light patterns, Fig. 4) of a vehicle lamp (10, Fig. 1) which is capable of irradiating light forward of a vehicle (par [0002]) comprising:
an irradiation pattern setting unit (36 and 60, Fig. 3) that sets an irradiation pattern of light from the vehicle lamp according to a vehicle speed of the vehicle; and
a control signal generation unit (part provides control signal, pars [0050]-[0051]) that generates a control signal (par [0050]-[0051]) based on the irradiation pattern set by the irradiation pattern setting unit and supplies the control signal to the vehicle lamp;
wherein the light irradiation state by the vehicle lamp is controlled such that, with regard to irradiation light lower than an H line on a virtual screen (Fig. 4), when a vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than or equal to a reference value (e.g., less than 60km/h, par [0053]), a road surface illuminance due to light from the vehicle lamp at a position at a first forward distance which is relatively close to the vehicle becomes a first value (pattern Po, Fig. 5); when the vehicle speed of the vehicle is greater than the reference value (e.g., greater than 60km/h, par [0053]), the road surface illuminance due to light from the vehicle lamp at the position at the first forward distance becomes a second value (pattern Ph, Fig. 5) which is smaller than the first value; and the road surface illuminance due to light from the vehicle lamp at a position at a second forward distance which is relatively far from the vehicle becomes substantially constant regardless of the vehicle speed (mere deformation movement of the overall lighting pattern, Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Fukawa discloses the vehicle lamp control apparatus wherein the road surface illuminance at the position at the second forward distance is approximately constant within a range of +5% to +10% (the road surface illuminance at the second forward distance being unchanged, Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Fukawa discloses the vehicle lamp control apparatus wherein the second value of the road surface illuminance is a value of 50% or more and 70% or less on the basis of the first value (as compared to Po and Ph in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Fukawa discloses a vehicle lamp control method (Figs. 1-5) that controls light irradiation state (irradiation light patterns, Fig. 4) of a vehicle lamp (10, Fig. 1) which is capable of irradiating light forward of a vehicle (par [0002]),
wherein the vehicle lamp control method comprises:
with regard to irradiation light lower than an H line on a virtual screen (Fig. 4),
(a) when a vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than or equal to a reference value (e.g., less than 60km/h, par [0053]), setting brightness of a light of the vehicle lamp such that a road surface illuminance due to light from the vehicle lamp at a position at a first forward distance which is relatively close to the vehicle becomes a first value (pattern Po, Fig. 5);
(b) when the vehicle speed of the vehicle is greater than the reference value (e.g., greater than 60km/h, par [0053]), setting brightness of the light of the vehicle lamp such that the road surface illuminance due to light from the vehicle lamp at the position at the first forward distance becomes a second value which is smaller than the first value (pattern Ph, Fig. 5); and
(c) setting brightness of the light of the vehicle lamp such that the road surface illuminance due to light from the vehicle lamp at a position at a second forward distance which is relatively far from the vehicle becomes substantially constant regardless of the vehicle speed (mere deformation movement of the overall lighting pattern, Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 10, Fukawa discloses a vehicle lamp system (Figs. 1-5) that comprises the control apparatus (Figs. 1-5) and a vehicle lamp (10, Fig. 1) connected to the control apparatus (Fig. 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) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukawa, as applied above.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Fukawa discloses all of the limitations as claimed except the first forward distance is set within a range of 10 m to 15 m and the second forward distance is set within a range of 60 m to 80 m.
However, Fukawa teaches that “… a light distribution pattern formed on a virtual vertical screen arranged in a forward position of 25 m from the lighting unit 20 by a light irradiated forward from the lighting unit 20” (par [0052]), which is obviously shown that the arrangement of the forward distance could have been set up to control the lighting pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to employ the forward distance arrangement as taught by Fukawa in order to control the lighting patterns of the lamp by adjusting positions of the forward distance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6 and 8 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, and if overcome the 112 rejection as set forth above.
None of the prior art teaches “wherein the irradiation pattern setting unit sets the irradiation pattern such that, when the vehicle speed of the vehicle is equal to or less than a second reference value which is greater than the first reference value, the road surface illuminance at the position of the first forward distance becomes the second value; and when the vehicle speed of the vehicle is greater than the second reference value, the road surface illuminance at the position of the first forward distance becomes a third value which is smaller than the second value” (as cited in claim 3).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1832. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Regis Betsch can be reached on 571-270-7101. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2800.
/JIMMY T VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844