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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 18 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 11, and 19 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 11, and 19 being independent. The objections to the drawings as set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 24 September 2025 are withdrawn. The objections to the specification as set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 24 September 2025 are withdrawn. All of the 112 rejections as set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 24 September 2025 are withdrawn.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0009374 A1, herein referred to as: Kim), in view of Bhakta (US 2018/0031202 A1), Jost et al. (CN 110319418 B, herein referred to as: Jost), and Reisinger et al. (WO 2018/045402 A1, herein referred to as: Reisinger).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches or suggests a system (Figs. 1-51), comprising: an optical module (Figs. 6-7) configured to dispose in a headlamp (600, Fig. 1), the optical module (Figs. 6-7) comprising an array of micromirrors (M, disposed on 700, as shown in Fig. 7), a light source (651, or any of the light sources producing image and/or headlamp patterns as depicted in Figs. 1-51), and one or more processors (670) coupled with memory (640, Fig. 6), configured to: control the light source to provide a beam of light comprising an origin (as shown in Fig. 7, as well as in Figs. 11A-11C, 13A-21, and 24-51); control, using the array of micromirrors (M), a zone (e.g. 1110 or 1120) within the beam of light (e.g. 1150) configured to project a graphic (e.g. 1110 or 1120) within the beam of light (as shown in Fig. 11A, as well as in various other figures such as Figs. 11B-11C, 13A-21, and 24-51); detect an object within the zone (as shown in Fig. 33 and as noted in the corresponding description); project the graphic (e.g., 3350) within the zone (e.g., within a region of the beam including the objects and 3350, excluding the ends of the beam) and proximal to a created excluded zone (as shown in Fig. 33; corresponding to the objects formed by pedestrians, bicycles, other vehicles, etc.) that includes the object (the objects formed by pedestrians, bicycles, other vehicles, etc.); and update a shape of an image of the graphic according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module (as described in paragraphs [0584]-[0585], wherein the second information is information detecting the obstacles, pedestrians or objects, within a detectable range of the vehicle).
Kim does not explicitly teach reducing glare within the excluded zone by tilting a subset of the array of micromirrors relative to the angle to prevent at least a portion of the beam of light from reaching the object within the excluded zone; update a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module.
Bhakta teaches or suggests (Figs. 11-12C) reducing glare within the excluded zone (1240) that includes the object (1230) by tilting a subset of the array of micromirrors relative to the angle to prevent at least a portion of the beam of light from reaching the object within the excluded zone (as described in paragraphs [0085]-[0091]); update a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module (as described in paragraphs [0085]-[0091], i.e., as noted in the corresponding description, the pedestrian masking region will change to prevent glaring or blinding the pedestrian as the vehicle and the pedestrian move relative to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of reducing glare within the excluded zone by tilting a subset of the array of micromirrors relative to the angle to prevent at least a portion of the beam of light from reaching the object within the excluded zone; update a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module, such as taught or suggested by Bhakta, in order to improve the marketability and/or safety features of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to detect objects for the driver, without glaring or blinding the objects [pedestrians]).
The combined teachings of Kim and Bhakta teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for a light absorber; controlling the light absorber to absorb reflected light at an angle formed from the origin to the object to create an excluded zone that includes the object.
Jost teaches or suggests (Fig. 1) a light absorber (24); controlling the light absorber (24) to absorb reflected light at an angle formed from the origin to the object to create an excluded zone that includes the object (as shown in Fig. 1, additionally, it is noted that aside form interference, deflecting light with a subset of mirrors in the DMD of Jost can also produce an excluded zone having the absence of light therein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of a light absorber; controlling the light absorber to absorb reflected light at an angle formed from the origin to the object to create an excluded zone that includes the object, such as taught or suggested by Jost, in order to improve the marketability, performance, and/or safety features of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to absorb light deflected from glaring or blinding the objects [pedestrians], and/or reduce reflections within the vehicle lamp housing, thereby reducing parasitic light within the beam).
The combined teachings of Kim, Bhakta, and Jost teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the light absorber uses thermal control to dissipate heat within the optical module upon creation of the excluded zone.
Reisinger teaches or suggests the light absorber (505) uses thermal control to dissipate heat within the optical module upon creation of the excluded zone (i.e. “...the optical absorber 505 may in this case take over the conversion of light into heat and can dissipate the heat appropriately...” reasonably defines an absorber structure which uses thermal control to dissipate heat within the optical module upon creation of the excluded zone, and thus receiving light thereupon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the light absorber uses thermal control to dissipate heat within the optical module upon creation of the excluded zone, such as taught or suggested by Reisinger, in order to improve the performance and/or increase the longevity of the device (i.e. by providing an absorber which not only absorbs light, but dissipates heat generated therefrom).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-51) the one or more processors (670) configured to control the array of micromirrors (M) by changing one or more micromirrors of the array of micromirrors from a first state to a second state (as shown in Fig. 7 and as described in paragraph [0317]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-51) pixel comprises micromirrors at a resolution of 9:5 (as described in paragraph [0401], the processor is capable of controlling the tilt angle of each of the micro-mirrors M individually, thus, pixels having a resolution of 9:5 can be formed as desired).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-51) the one or more processors (670) are configured to illuminate the beam of light from the headlamp including the optical module (as shown in Figs. 6-7, 11A-11C, 13A-21, and 24-51), wherein the shape of the headlamp is a stadium shape (the headlamp 600 has an elliptical or ovaloid shape, and thus constitutes a stadium shape, the headlamp also comprises a depth that contains the elements of the optical module in Fig. 7, and thus constitutes a stadium shape, portions of the headlamp 600 are round, and thus constitutes a stadium shape).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-51) the one or more processors (670) are configured to adjust an angle of at least one micromirror (M) of the array of micromirrors (the array of mirrors M disposed on 700) in unison to define a pixel (as shown in Fig. 7 and as described in paragraph [0401]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-51) the optical module (Fig. 7) is disposed within the headlamp (600, and as described in paragraphs [0287]-[0288]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches or suggests a system (Figs. 1-51), comprising: an optical module (Figs. 6-7) configured to dispose in a headlamp (600, Fig. 1), the optical module (Figs. 6-7) comprising an array of micromirrors (M, disposed on 700, as shown in Fig. 7), a light source (651, or any of the light sources producing image and/or headlamp patterns as depicted in Figs. 1-51), and one or more processors (670) coupled with memory (640, Fig. 6), configured to: control the light source to provide a beam of light comprising an origin (as shown in Fig. 7, as well as in Figs. 11A-11C, 13A-21, and 24-51); control, using the array of micromirrors (M), a zone (e.g. 1110 or 1120) within the beam of light (e.g. 1150) configured to project a graphic (e.g. 1110 or 1120) within the beam of light (as shown in Fig. 11A, as well as in various other figures such as Figs. 11B-11C, 13A-21, and 24-51); detect an object within the zone (as shown in Fig. 33 and as noted in the corresponding description); project the graphic (e.g., 3350) within the zone (e.g., within a region of the beam including the objects and 3350, excluding the ends of the beam) and proximal to a created excluded zone (as shown in Fig. 33; corresponding to the objects formed by pedestrians, bicycles, other vehicles, etc.) that includes the object (the objects formed by pedestrians, bicycles, other vehicles, etc.); and update a shape of an image of the graphic according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module (as described in paragraphs [0584]-[0585], wherein the second information is information detecting the obstacles, pedestrians or objects, within a detectable range of the vehicle).
Kim does not explicitly teach reducing glare within the excluded zone by tilting a subset of the array of micromirrors relative to the angle to prevent at least a portion of the beam of light from reaching the object within the excluded zone; update a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module.
Bhakta teaches or suggests (Figs. 11-12C) reducing glare within the excluded zone (1240) that includes the object (1230) by tilting a subset of the array of micromirrors relative to the angle to prevent at least a portion of the beam of light from reaching the object within the excluded zone (as described in paragraphs [0085]-[0091]); update a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module (as described in paragraphs [0085]-[0091], i.e., as noted in the corresponding description, the pedestrian masking region will change to prevent glaring or blinding the pedestrian as the vehicle and the pedestrian move relative to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of reducing glare within the excluded zone by tilting a subset of the array of micromirrors relative to the angle to prevent at least a portion of the beam of light from reaching the object within the excluded zone; update a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module, such as taught or suggested by Bhakta, in order to improve the marketability and/or safety features of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to detect objects for the driver, without glaring or blinding the objects [pedestrians]).
The combined teachings of Kim and Bhakta teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for a light absorber; controlling the light absorber to absorb reflected light at an angle formed from the origin to the object to create an excluded zone that includes the object.
Jost teaches or suggests (Fig. 1) a light absorber (24); controlling the light absorber (24) to absorb reflected light at an angle formed from the origin to the object to create an excluded zone that includes the object (as shown in Fig. 1, additionally, it is noted that aside form interference, deflecting light with a subset of mirrors in the DMD of Jost can also produce an excluded zone having the absence of light therein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of a light absorber; controlling the light absorber to absorb reflected light at an angle formed from the origin to the object to create an excluded zone that includes the object, such as taught or suggested by Jost, in order to improve the marketability, performance, and/or safety features of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to absorb light deflected from glaring or blinding the objects [pedestrians], and/or reduce reflections within the vehicle lamp housing, thereby reducing parasitic light within the beam).
The combined teachings of Kim, Bhakta, and Jost teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the light absorber uses thermal control to dissipate heat within the optical module upon creation of the excluded zone.
Reisinger teaches or suggests the light absorber (505) uses thermal control to dissipate heat within the optical module upon creation of the excluded zone (i.e. “...the optical absorber 505 may in this case take over the conversion of light into heat and can dissipate the heat appropriately...” reasonably defines an absorber structure which uses thermal control to dissipate heat within the optical module upon creation of the excluded zone, and thus receiving light thereupon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the light absorber uses thermal control to dissipate heat within the optical module upon creation of the excluded zone, such as taught or suggested by Reisinger, in order to improve the performance and/or increase the longevity of the device (i.e. by providing an absorber which not only absorbs light, but dissipates heat generated therefrom).
Claims 11, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Bhakta, and Jost.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches or suggests a method (Figs. 1-51), comprising: controlling, by one or more processors (670) coupled with memory (640), a light source (651, or any of the light sources producing image and/or headlamp patterns as depicted in Figs. 1-51) within an optical module (Figs. 6-7) to provide a beam of light comprising an origin (as shown in Fig. 7, as well as in Figs. 11A-11C, 13A-21, and 24-51); controlling, by the one or more processors using an array of micromirrors (M) disposed within the optical module (e.g., as shown in Fig. 7), a zone (e.g. 1110 or 1120) within the beam of light (e.g. 1150) to project a graphic (e.g. 1110 or 1120) within the beam of light (as shown in Fig. 11A, as well as in various other figures such as Figs. 11B-11C, 13A-21, and 24-51); detecting, by the one or more processors, an object within the zone (as shown in Fig. 33 and as described in paragraphs [0581]-[0585]); and projecting, by the one or more processors, the graphic (e.g., 3350) within the zone (e.g., within a region of the beam including the objects and 3350, excluding the ends of the beam) and proximal to a created excluded zone (corresponding to the proximity to the pedestrians, bicycle, other vehicles, or other detected environmental objects) that includes the object (e.g., the pedestrians, bicycle, other vehicles, or other detected environmental objects ); and updating, by the one or more processors, a shape of an image of the graphic according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module (as described in paragraphs [0584]-[0585], wherein the second information is information detecting the obstacles, pedestrians or objects, within a detectable range of the vehicle).
Kim does not explicitly teach reducing, by the one or more processors, glare within the excluded zone by tilting a subset of the array of micromirrors relative to the angle to prevent at least a portion of the beam of light from reaching the object within the excluded zone; and updating, by the one or more processors, a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module.
Bhakta teaches or suggests (Figs. 11-12C) reducing, by the one or more processors (e.g. a processor of a control unit for the DMD of Bhakta), glare within the excluded zone (1240) by tilting a subset of the array of micromirrors relative to the angle to prevent at least a portion of the beam of light from reaching the object (1230) within the excluded zone (as described in paragraphs [0085]-[0091]); and updating, by the one or more processors, a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module (as described in paragraphs [0085]-[0091], i.e., as noted in the corresponding description, the pedestrian masking region will change to prevent glaring or blinding the pedestrian as the vehicle and the pedestrian move relative to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of reducing, by the one or more processors, glare within the excluded zone by tilting a subset of the array of micromirrors relative to the angle to prevent at least a portion of the beam of light from reaching the object within the excluded zone; and updating, by the one or more processors, a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module, such as taught or suggested by Bhakta, in order to improve the marketability and/or safety features of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to detect objects for the driver, without glaring or blinding the objects [pedestrians]).
The combined teachings of Kim and Bhakta teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for controlling, by the one or more processors, a light absorber within the optical module to absorb reflected light at angle formed from the origin to the object to create an excluded zone that includes the object.
Jost teaches or suggests (Fig. 1) controlling, by the one or more processors (e.g. the one or more processor controlling the DMD of Jost), a light absorber (24) within the optical module to absorb reflected light at angle formed from the origin to the object to create an excluded zone that includes the object (as shown in Fig. 1, additionally, it is noted that aside form interference, deflecting light with a subset of mirrors in the DMD of Jost can also produce an excluded zone having the absence of light therein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of controlling, by the one or more processors, a light absorber within the optical module to absorb reflected light at angle formed from the origin to the object to create an excluded zone that includes the object, such as taught or suggested by Jost, in order to improve the marketability, performance, and/or safety features of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to absorb light deflected from glaring or blinding the objects [pedestrians], and/or reduce reflections within the vehicle lamp housing, thereby reducing parasitic light within the beam).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-51) the one or more processors (670) are configured to control the array of micromirrors (M) by changing one or more micromirrors of the array of micromirrors from a first state to a second state (as shown in Fig. 7 and as described in paragraph [0317]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-51) the one or more processors (670) are configured to control at least one light source to illuminate the beam of light from a headlamp including the optical module (as shown in Figs. 6-7, 11A-11C, 13A-21, and 24-51), wherein the headlamp has a shape (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the shape of the headlamp is a stadium shape (the headlamp 600 has an elliptical or ovaloid shape, and thus constitutes a stadium shape, the headlamp also comprises a depth that contains the elements of the optical module in Fig. 7, and thus constitutes a stadium shape, portions of the headlamp 600 are round, and thus constitutes a stadium shape).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-51) the one or more processors (670) are configured to adjust an angle of at least one micromirror (M) of the array of micromirrors (the array of mirrors M disposed on 700) in unison to define a pixel (as shown in Fig. 7 and as described in paragraph [0401]).
Claims 2, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Bhakta, Jost, and Reisinger, as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and in further view of Kaeriyama (US 2002/0109903 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 20, Kim teaches or suggests projecting an image within a zone of the beam within at least a 20 degrees by 10 degrees field of view from the origin (as described in paragraph [0401], the processor is capable of controlling the tilt angle of each of the micro-mirrors M individually. Thus, the device can provide an image within a zone of the beam within at least 20 degrees by 10 degrees field of view from the origin. Additionally, the Examiner notes that this limitation does not explicitly require that the entire image be confined to the recited area).
Kim does not explicitly teach that the zone has at least a 400:1 contrast ratio (as recited in claims 2 and 20); wherein the zone has a contrast ratio between 400:1 and 600:1 (as recited in claim 6).
Kaeriyama teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the zone has at least a 400:1 contrast ratio (paragraph [0041]; additionally, it is noted that convention DMDs typically have a 500:1 contrast ratio, as noted in paragraph [0004]) within at least a 20 degrees by 10 degrees field of view from the origin (as described in paragraphs [0036]-[0037], i.e. the mirrors are independently controllable, thus mirrors can be selected to meet the desired field of view); wherein the zone has a contrast ratio between 400:1 and 600:1 (as described in paragraph [0004]; i.e. 500:1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the zone has at least a 400:1 contrast ratio within at least a 20 degrees by 10 degrees field of view from the origin (as recited in claims 2 and 20); wherein the zone has a contrast ratio between 400:1 and 600:1 (as recited in claim 6), such as taught or suggested by Kaeriyama, in order to improve the contrast ratio, and/or provide a contrast ratio suitable to render the indicia discernable to the driver or pedestrians, and/or reduce the cost of manufacturing the device (i.e. by utilizing a conventional DMD).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Bhakta and Jost, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Kaeriyama (US 2002/0109903 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Kim teaches or suggests projecting an image within a zone of the beam within at least a 20 degrees by 10 degrees field of view from the origin (as described in paragraph [0401], the processor is capable of controlling the tilt angle of each of the micro-mirrors M individually. Thus, the device can provide an image within a zone of the beam within at least 20 degrees by 10 degrees field of view from the origin. Additionally, the Examiner notes that this limitation does not explicitly require that the entire image be confined to the recited area).
Kim does not explicitly teach that the zone has at least a 400:1 contrast ratio (as recited in claim 12); wherein the zone has a contrast ratio between 400:1 and 600:1 (as recited in claim 16).
Kaeriyama teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the zone has at least a 400:1 contrast ratio (paragraph [0041]; additionally, it is noted that convention DMDs typically have a 500:1 contrast ratio, as noted in paragraph [0004]) within at least a 20 degrees by 10 degrees field of view from the origin (as described in paragraphs [0036]-[0037], i.e. the mirrors are independently controllable, thus mirrors can be selected to meet the desired field of view); wherein the zone has a contrast ratio between 400:1 and 600:1 (as described in paragraph [0004]; i.e. 500:1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the zone has at least a 400:1 contrast ratio within at least a 20 degrees by 10 degrees field of view from the origin (as recited in claim 12); wherein the zone has a contrast ratio between 400:1 and 600:1 (as recited in claim 16), such as taught or suggested by Kaeriyama, in order to improve the contrast ratio, and/or provide a contrast ratio suitable to render the indicia discernable to the driver or pedestrians, and/or reduce the cost of manufacturing the device (i.e. by utilizing a conventional DMD).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Bhakta, Jost, and Reisinger, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of George et al. (US 2020/0072434 A1, herein referred to as: George).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Kim does not explicitly teach the one or more processors configured to control between 900,000 to 1 million pixels and wherein each pixel comprises at least one micromirror of the array of micromirrors (as recited in claim 3); wherein the array of micromirrors comprises between 1.2 million to 1.5 million micromirrors (as recited in claim 5).
George teaches or suggests (Figs. 1 and 9) the one or more processors (a controller, paragraph [0023]) configured to control between 900,000 to 1 million pixels (as described in paragraphs [0020] and [0023], i.e. the controller can control each mirror individually, there are 1.3 million in the array, thus, the controller is configured to control between 900,000 to 1 million pixels) and wherein each pixel comprises at least one micromirror of the array of micromirrors (each mirror is individually controlled, thus, pixels can be defined by each mirror individually or groups thereof as desired); wherein the array of micromirrors comprises between 1.2 million to 1.5 million micromirrors (as described in paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the one or more processors configured to control between 900,000 to 1 million pixels and wherein each pixel comprises at least one micromirror of the array of micromirrors (as recited in claim 3); wherein the array of micromirrors comprises between 1.2 million to 1.5 million micromirrors (as recited in claim 5), such as taught or suggested by George, in order to improve the performance, effectiveness, and/or quality of the device (i.e. by providing a DMD array with a high number of mirrors so as to provide a high resolution of the image being projected).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Bhakta and Jost, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of George et al. (US 2020/0072434 A1, herein referred to as: George).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Kim does not explicitly teach controlling, by the one or more processors, between 900,000 to 1 million pixels and wherein each pixel comprises at least one micromirror of the array of micromirrors (as recited in claim 13); wherein the array of micromirrors comprises between 1.2 million to 1.5 million micromirrors (as recited in claim 15).
George teaches or suggests (Figs. 1 and 9) controlling, by the one or more processors (a controller, paragraph [0023]), between 900,000 to 1 million pixels (as described in paragraphs [0020] and [0023], i.e. the controller can control each mirror individually, there are 1.3 million in the array, thus, the controller is configured to control between 900,000 to 1 million pixels) and wherein each pixel comprises at least one micromirror of the array of micromirrors (each mirror is individually controlled, thus, pixels can be defined by each mirror individually or groups thereof as desired); wherein the array of micromirrors comprises between 1.2 million to 1.5 million micromirrors (as described in paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of controlling, by the one or more processors, between 900,000 to 1 million pixels and wherein each pixel comprises at least one micromirror of the array of micromirrors (as recited in claim 13); wherein the array of micromirrors comprises between 1.2 million to 1.5 million micromirrors (as recited in claim 15), such as taught or suggested by George, in order to improve the performance, effectiveness, and/or quality of the device (i.e. by providing a DMD array with a high number of mirrors so as to provide a high resolution of the image being projected).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 19-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither Kim nor Bhakta teach or suggest “...update a shape of the excluded zone and an image of the graphic according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module...,” pages 9-10 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Kim teaches updating a shape of an image of the graphic according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module, as outlined in the rejection above, while Bhakta teaches or suggests updating a shape of the excluded zone according to a motion of the object within the zone and a distance from the optical module, as outlined in the rejection above. Particularly, both systems operate actively utilizing input detected from a camera or sensing unit and adjusting the corresponding beam patterns. For Bhakta, a sensor is used to detect a pedestrian as they move relative to the vehicle, and adjust the masked (or excluded) region so as to prevent blinding the pedestrian with light from the headlamp beam. In Kim, the symbols are changed depending upon secondary information which is that of detected objects surrounding the vehicle. Thus, as a pedestrian, bike, or other object enters the detectable zone of the vehicle and warrants altering the driver, a projection of an image corresponding thereto is then made, and the shape updated thereby. Therefore, the combined teachings of Kim and Bhakta reasonably teach or suggest the above-cited claim limitation.
In response to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the absorber, particularly in reference to heat dissipation, pages 9-10 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully notes that no heat dissipation is recited in claim 11, and thus, remarks pertaining thereto are herein considered moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571) 272-7044. 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights