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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180345848 A1, hereinafter “Orisich”).
Regarding claim 1, Orisich discloses a method for controlling headlights of a motor vehicle, the method comprising:
operating the headlights in a low beam mode so that a low beam distribution is emitted by the headlights ([0008]);
detecting an object in front of the motor vehicle during operation in the low beam mode ([0009]); and
triggering, upon detection of the object, an automatic reduction of a light intensity distribution solely in a region of the low beam distribution, a size and position of which are a function of a distance of the motor vehicle from the object, from a position of the object, and from a width of the object ([0023], [0038], [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Orisich discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the reduction of the light intensity distribution is triggered only when the distance of the object from the motor vehicle is less than a distance threshold value ([0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Orisich discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the light intensity of the low beam distribution outside the region is maintained substantially simultaneously with the reduction of the light intensity distribution in the region ([0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Orisich discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the reduction of the light intensity distribution is triggered only when the motor vehicle is traveling at a speed below a speed threshold or is stationary ([0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Orisich discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the low beam distribution is designed as a city low beam distribution ([0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Orisich discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein during the reduction of the light intensity distribution, the light intensity is set to a fixed value ([0009]).
Regarding claim 8, Orisich discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein during the reduction of the light intensity distribution, the light intensity in the region is controlled as a function of a brightness that is determined in the region ([0039], [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Orisich discloses a motor vehicle that comprising at least one headlight and the control unit according to claim 10 (at least [0003]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Orisich.
Regarding claim 3, Orisich discloses the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose a distance threshold value.
However, determining a distance threshold for performing the method constitutes a result-effective variable, as such a parameter would have been adjusted to achieve a desired level of proximity sensitivity or operational accuracy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a distance threshold value, including 10 meters or less, through routine optimization.
Regarding claim 9, Orisich discloses the method according to claim 1, while not explicit with stating wherein the object includes a group of multiple motor vehicles, wherein the region includes multiple sections that are separate from one another, and one motor vehicle from the group is situated in each of the sections, similar understanding were provided ([0003]: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 specifies various maximum and minimum photometric intensity values (based on angle) for headlights on vehicles operated within the Unites States. In addition to these requirements, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has its own set of tests and ratings (Headlight Test and Rating Protocol) for headlight performance. The IIHS tests and ratings seek to encourage manufacturers to improve the illumination performance in actual on-road use. IIHS evaluations have shown that the on-road illumination provided by vehicle headlights varies widely. And the majority of headlights that IIHS has rated are poor (insufficient illumination, cause excessive glare, etc.).
However, implementing such a method using a control unit comprising memory and a processor to execute instructions constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of vehicle control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the method of Orisich using such a group of multiple motor vehicles, wherein the region includes multiple sections that are separate from one another.
Regarding claim 10, Orisich discloses controlling headlights according to the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose a control unit comprising a memory medium and a digital signal processing unit configured to execute stored instructions.
However, implementing such a method using a control unit comprising memory and a processor to execute instructions constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of vehicle control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the method of Orisich using such a control unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached on (571) 270-7101. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
3/21/2026
Prosecution Insights