DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
2. 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.
3. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. 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 limitations use 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.
Such claim limitations are:
“a measurement device that measures” in claim 15.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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, 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. Claims 1-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. No. 2024/0308418 A1 by Watanabe et al. (hereinafter Watanabe) in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0315017 A1 by Ekladyous et al. (hereinafter Ekladyous).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe teaches a method (Par. [0007, 0039]), comprising (Fig. 1-4):
providing at least one headlamp that includes a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1 @ 610, Abstract: A vehicle lamp apparatus has an adaptive driving beam lamp unit and a controller. The adaptive driving beam lamp unit contains a plurality of individually controllable pixels, Par. [0024]: The adaptive driving beam lamp unit 610 contains a plurality of individually controllable pixels PIX. Also see Par. [0006]);
determining a headlamp optical center nominal target of the at least one headlamp (Fig. 3 @ P, Par. [0038-0039]: P, i.e. the headlamp optical center nominal target of the at least one headlamp);
activating a predefined beam pattern comprising a reduced number of pixels from the plurality of pixels (Abstract, Par. [0006, 0024]);
adjusting headlamp aim to the headlamp optical center nominal target (Fig. 3 @ 720, 732, Abstract, Par. [0003, 0005-0006, 0011, 0038-0040]]); and
deactivating the predefined beam pattern (Par. [0040]: The operator terminates the aiming after confirming that the center point P of the cross pattern 720 sufficiently approaches the target mark 732) but Does not explicitly teach determining a headlamp optical center nominal target of the at least one headlamp based on at least one measured vehicle characteristic.
However, Ekladyous teaches determining a headlamp optical center (Par. [0012]: headlamp optical center) nominal target (Par. [0005-0006]: nominal position) of the at least one headlamp based on at least one measured vehicle characteristic (Par. [0012]: headlamp-adjacent vehicle feature. Par. [0014]: determining the first headlamp optical center from the at least one headlamp and/or headlamp-adjacent vehicle feature. Par. [0030]: headlamp-adjacent vehicle features (step 210) such as the headlamp, an edge of the headlamp, a vehicle grille bar, and others. As is known, such images provide a suitable reference point for determining an optical center of the headlamp 114a low beam. Claims 7, 13).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe by Ekladyous as taught above such that determining a headlamp optical center nominal target of the at least one headlamp based on at least one measured vehicle characteristic is accomplished in order for calculating any required aim correction for the first headlamp and the second headlamp (Ekladyous, Par. [0014]).
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe teaches the predefined beam pattern comprises a low beam pattern (Abstract, Par. [0006, 0024, 0029, 0040, 0047], Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe teaches the reduced number of pixels comprises a single pixel (Abstract, Par. [0024]: the adaptive driving beam lamp unit 610 is structured to illuminate a part of, or the entire of a low-beam region with light. The adaptive driving beam lamp unit 610 contains a plurality of individually controllable pixels PIX, and is structured to emit a lamp beam with a light distribution that corresponds to states of the pixels PIX thus teaches a single pixel).
Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe teaches the reduced number of pixels comprises a subset of pixels that is a number of pixels that is less than all of the plurality of pixels (Abstract, Par. [0024]: the adaptive driving beam lamp unit 610 is structured to illuminate a part of, or the entire of a low-beam region with light. The adaptive driving beam lamp unit 610 contains a plurality of individually controllable pixels PIX, and is structured to emit a lamp beam with a light distribution that corresponds to states of the pixels PIX thus teaches limitation).
Regarding Claim 5, Watanabe teaches each pixel of the plurality of pixels comprises a LED (Par. [0024]: an LED array).
Regarding Claim 6, Watanabe teaches each LED is individually configurable (Abstract, Par. [0024]: The adaptive driving beam lamp unit 610 contains a plurality of individually controllable pixels. The light emitting element array 612 usable here may be an LED array).
Regarding Claim 7, Watanabe teaches providing a LED driver module operable with electronic based communication to control the predefined beam pattern (Fig. 1 @ 620, Par. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 8, Watanabe teaches adjusting the headlamp aim to the headlamp optical center nominal target (Fig. 3 @ P, Par. [0038-0039]: P, i.e. the headlamp optical center nominal target of the at least one headlamp) which comprises a vertical coordinate and a horizontal coordinate that is a predetermined distance from a front of a vehicle (Fig. 3, 4 @ 720, 720A: 726 is the vertical coordinate and 728 is the horizontal coordinate).
Regarding Claim 9, Watanabe teaches the predetermined distance is approximately twenty-five feet (Par. [0027]. Also see Ekladyous, Par. [0010, 0015, 0028]).
Regarding Claim 10, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous teaches the at least one measured vehicle characteristic comprises at least one measured front fender characteristic, and including determining the headlamp optical center nominal target for the at least one headlamp based on the at least one measured front fender characteristic (Ekladyous, Par. [0030, 0033]: Par. [0030]: headlamp-adjacent vehicle features (step 210) such as the headlamp, an edge of the headlamp, a vehicle grille bar, and others thus teaches the front fender. As is known, such images provide a suitable reference point for determining an optical center of the headlamp 114a low beam) (Note: 5-step is omitted due to same motivation).
Regarding Claim 15, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous teaches a system comprising (See Claim 1 rejection. Note: a method claim can be used to implement an apparatus claim):
at least one headlamp that includes a plurality of pixels (See Claim 1 rejection);
a measurement device that measures at least one front fender characteristic (See Claims 1, 10 rejection); and
one or more controllers (Watanabe, Fig. 1 @ 620, Par. [0023, 0029]) that are configured to:
determine a headlamp optical center nominal target of the at least one headlamp based on the at least one front fender characteristic (See Claims 1, 10 rejection);
activate a predefined beam pattern comprising a reduced number of pixels from the plurality of pixels (See Claim 1 rejection);
adjust headlamp aim to the headlamp optical center nominal target (See Claim 1 rejection); and
deactivate the predefined beam pattern (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 16, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous teaches the predefined beam pattern comprises a low beam pattern (See Claim 2 rejection).
Regarding Claim 17, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous teaches the reduced number of pixels comprises a single pixel (See Claim 3 rejection).
Regarding Claim 18, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous teaches the reduced number of pixels comprises a subset of pixels that is a number of pixels that is less than all of the plurality of pixels (See Claim 4 rejection).
Regarding Claim 19, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous teaches each pixel of the plurality of pixels comprises a LED (See Claim 5 rejection).
Regarding Claim 20, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous teaches each LED is individually configurable (See Claim 6 rejection), and including a LED driver module that is operable with electronic based communication to control the predefined beam pattern (See Claim 7 rejection) via the one or more controllers (Watanabe, Fig. 1 @ 620, Par. [Abstract, 0023-0024, 0029]).
8. Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Ekladyous as applied to Claim 10 above and further in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2012/0069593 A1 by Kishimoto et al. (hereinafter Kishimoto).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous teaches the at least one measured front fender characteristic (See Claim 10 rejection) but does not explicitly teach comprises at least a measured distance from ground to an uppermost point of a wheel arch of a front fender and including using a ride height measurement device to measure the measured distance.
However, Kishimoto teaches at least a measured distance from ground to an uppermost point of a wheel arch of a front fender (Par. [0117]: The vehicle height sensors 30 are for measuring heights of the automobile 100 from the ground in the vicinity of tires thus teaches an uppermost point of a wheel arch of a front fender) and including using a ride height measurement device to measure the measured distance (Fig. 8 @ 30, Par. [0117]: The vehicle height sensors 30 are for measuring heights of the automobile 100 from the ground in the vicinity of tires).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filo9ng date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous by Kishimoto as taught above such that the at least one measured front fender characteristic comprises at least a measured distance from ground to an uppermost point of a wheel arch of a front fender and including using a ride height measurement device to measure the measured distance is accomplished in order to analyze the vehicle height signal so as to grasp a posture (inclination) of the automobile (Kishimoto, Par. [0117]).
Regarding Claim 13, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous as modified by Kishimoto teaches the ride height measurement device comprises at least one camera (Ekladyous, Par. [0023-0024 0030, 0032], teaches a camera for visual representation).
Regarding Claim 14, Watanabe as modified by Ekladyous as modified by Kishimoto teaches the at least one headlamp (See Claims 1, 10 rejection) comprises a front right headlamp (Ekladyous, Fig. 1B @ 1141) and a front left headlamp (Ekladyous, Fig. 1B @ 1141), and including adjusting aim for the front right headlamp based on the measured distance for a front right fender and adjusting aim for the front left headlamp based on the measured distance for a front left fender (See Claims 1, 10 rejection) (Also see Ekladyous, Par. [0027, 0029, 0032, 0034-0036]. Note: 5-step omitted due to same motivation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877