DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 02/26/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendments to claim 1 do not distinguish patentably over the previously applied Torii et al reference, for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3 of claim 1, "based on" should be changed to --captured by--, i.e., the image of the front vehicle is not "based on" the imaging device provided in the vehicle but rather it is captured by the imaging device.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii et al, WO 2015/174208, cited by applicant.
As to claim 1, Torii et al discloses, in figure 1,
a vehicle detecting device (10) that:
performs a process of detecting two luminous points corresponding to lamps of a front vehicle using a luminous point image generated from an image that is captured by an imaging device provided in a vehicle (although Torii et al does not disclose detecting two luminous points corresponding to lamps of the front vehicle using a luminous point image generated from an image that is captured by the imaging device, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that when Torii et al's vehicle is being operated at night and the headlights and taillights of the front vehicle are turned on, Torii et al's vehicle detecting device 10 will inherently detect at least two luminous points corresponding to the lamps of the front vehicle because the headlights and taillights of the front vehicle will typically be formed using tens, if not hundreds, of LEDs, and each of the points within Torii et al's captured image which correspond to these individual LEDs can be interpreted as a luminous point, and therefore Torii et al's vehicle detecting device will inherently detect tens, if not hundreds, of luminous points corresponding to the lamps of the front vehicle, and such operation will inherently use a luminous point image generated from the image captured by Torii et al's imaging device 3--as noted in the previous office action, the claimed "imaging device" reads on imaging device 3 shown in figure 1 of Torri et al, and this imaging device inherently performed the function of capturing images of the front vehicle); and
in accordance with a change of an angle of tilt of the vehicle's right-left axis, modifies an imaging region of the imaging device (as noted in the previous office action, Torii et al’s vehicle detecting device 10 is provided with a tilt detecting unit 2 which performs the function of detecting the tilt of the vehicle's right-left axis while the vehicle is traveling along the road, and Torri et al's image-rotating unit 4 modifies the image data in accordance with the tilt detected by the tilt detecting unit 2, note that this disclosure by Torii et al meets the limitation of modifying an imaging region of the imaging device in accordance with a change in an angle of tilt of the vehicle's right-left axis) so as to mitigate a shift in the imaging region caused by the change (the recitation of mitigating a shift in the imaging region caused by the change is just the inherent result of what occurs when the imaging region of the imaging device is modified in accordance with a change in the tilt of the vehicle's right-left axis, i.e., to the extent that this inherent result occurs in applicant's claimed invention, so too will it occur in Torii et al--alternatively, to the extent this is a functional limitation of claim 1, note that it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971)).
As to claim 9, note that Torii et al's vehicle disclosed in the abstract of this reference is a straddle-type vehicle.
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii et al, supra, in view of Fukayama, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0042225.
As noted in the previous office action, although Torii et al does not disclose setting a light distribution pattern that includes a shaded region to overlap a front vehicle, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosure by Fukayama, note figures 1, 6a and 6b of this reference which show an ADB system which performs automatic shielding of a vehicle's headlight in response to a forward vehicle being detected by an imaging device, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously combine this disclosure by Fukayama with the teachings of Torii et al for the well-known purpose (motivation) of preventing the driver of a forward vehicle from being blinded by the headlights of the vehicle disclosed by Torii et al, note that claim 13 is an obvious combination of the teachings of these two references, i.e., a vehicle which includes an imaging device for detecting a front vehicle and, in response to an angle tilt of the vehicle's axis, modifying an imaging region of the imaging device (as taught by Torii et al),wherein such vehicle also includes a light distribution controlling device that is additionally capable of setting a light distribution pattern using shading which overlaps the front vehicle (as taught by Fukayama), and because claim 13 is just an obvious combination of the teachings of these two references, this claim does not distinguish patentably over Torii et al in view of Fukayama.
Double Patenting
5. Claims 1, 9 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 10 of copending Application No. 19/188,650. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of independent claim 1, except for the newly added limitations, are fully anticipated by what is recited in claims 1, 9 and 10 of copending Application No. 19/188,650, and the new limitations added to claim 1, as well as the limitations of claims 9 and 13, would have been obvious for the reasons set forth above in the rejections under 35 USC 103.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 2 is objected to because it depends on rejected base claim 1 but would be allowable upon the filing of the above-noted terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the vehicle detecting device of claim 1 with the further limitations recited on lines 3-15 of claim 2, and therefore claim 2 would be allowable upon the filing of the above-noted terminal disclaimer, and if rewritten in independent form.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed on 02/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that "Torii does not disclose performing a process of detecting two luminous points corresponding to lamps of a front vehicle using a luminous point image generated from an image that is based on an imaging device provided in a vehicle." This argument is not persuasive because, as noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when Torii et al's vehicle is being operated at night and the headlights and taillights of the front vehicle are turned on, Torii et al's vehicle detecting device 10 will inherently detect at least two luminous points corresponding to the lamps of the front vehicle, as noted above the headlights and taillights of the front vehicle in Torii et al will typically be formed using tens, if not hundreds, of LEDs, and each of the points in Torii et al's image corresponding to these individual LEDs can be interpreted as a luminous point, and therefore Torii et al's vehicle detecting device will inherently detect tens, if not hundreds, of luminous points corresponding to the illuminated lamps of the front vehicle, and such detection operation will inherently use a luminous point image generated from the image captured by Torii et al's imaging device 3. Morover, as noted in the previous office action, it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971)).
Action is Final
8. 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
9. 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 March 9, 2026