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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US20190001868 A1 by Kaino et al (Kaino).
Referring to claim 1, Kaino Fig 1 -16B teaches a headlamp (Fig 1 item 2L and 2R and paragraph [0063]) for vehicles comprising:
an imaging unit (item 20 camera paragraph [0070]) comprising an optical unit (item 23 optical systems paragraph [0068])for generating a light distribution, which has a plurality of light spots (See light sources 11, 12, 13, 14 and paragraph [0064]), each of the plurality of light spots being produced by projection of at least one of a plurality of light pixels of the imaging unit (See paragraph [0072] where calculation part 51 calculates the light parts); and
PNG
media_image1.png
530
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
322
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
588
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a control unit (Fig 13 item 50 control unit) configured to generate a control signal for controlling the plurality of light pixels or for controlling optical elements of the optical unit arranged upstream of the plurality of light pixels (paragraph [0071]-[0075]), wherein a light focal point of the light distribution is displaceable depending on the control signal (Fig 2, 3 paragraph [0070-0077]), and wherein the control signal causes the light focal point to be arranged in a right edge region or a left edge region of the light distribution (See abstract; Fig 5A-C, 8 and paragraph [0088] –[0092]).
Referring to claim 2 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, wherein the edge region of the light distribution is located outside a carriageway of the vehicle (See Fig 1 paragraph [0069]).
Referring to claim 3 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, the control signal causes the light distribution to have illumination fields arranged in a fan shape on a measuring wall (See Fig 8 paragraph [0101])., wherein an illumination field in the right edge region or left edge region has a greater light intensity than an illumination field in a central area of the light distribution (See Fig 8 paragraph [0101]).
PNG
media_image4.png
390
670
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 4 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 3, wherein the control signal causes the plurality of light spots in the illumination fields to have an increasing illumination level in a horizontal direction or in a direction of a light/dark boundary (See paragraphs [0017] and [0024]).
Referring to claim 5 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of light spots have an illumination level, and wherein the control signal causes the illumination level of the plurality of light spots close to the light/dark boundary, which are arranged in the right edge region or the left edge region of the light distribution, to be greater than the illumination level of the plurality of light spots located in the central area of the light distribution. (See Fig 8 and paragraph [0092]-[0094]).
Referring to claim 6 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, wherein the control signal causes isolines of light spots close to the light/dark boundary, which are arranged in the right edge region or the left edge region of the light distribution, extending exclusively in the right edge region or the left edge region (See Fig 8 and paragraph [0092]-[0094]).
Referring to claim 7 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, wherein the control signal causes a transition gradient between a right end illumination field and a central illumination field or a transition gradient between a left end illumination field and the central illumination field (See Fig 8 and paragraph [0092]-[0094]).
Referring to claim 8 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light spots define an illumination level, and wherein the control signal causes a transition gradient of the illumination level in a transition region between a right edge illumination field and a central illumination field to be greater than a transition gradient of the illumination level in a transition region between a left end illumination field and the central illumination field. (See Fig 7 and Fig 8 and paragraph [0099] and [0101]).
PNG
media_image5.png
264
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 9 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, wherein the vehicle defines a vehicle track, and wherein a boundary edge between an illumination field in a left edge region and a neighboring illumination field in front of the vehicle extends along an edge of the vehicle track. (See paragraph [0102] where Kaino teaches at Fig 8 light distribution patterns where controlling the position of the edge of left or right or both).
Referring to claim 10 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, wherein the vehicle defines a vehicle track, and a detection unit is provided for detecting an edge of the vehicle track (Fig 3 item 21 paragraph [0131]); and the control signal is generated depending on a detection signal of the detection unit, so that a boundary edge between the right edge region or the left edge region and a neighboring illumination field coincides with the edge of the vehicle track (see Fig 5A-C and paragraph [0098] and Fig 8 paragraph [0101]).
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 5, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190001868 A1 by Kaino et al (Kaino).
Referring to claim 5 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of light spots have an illumination level, and wherein the control signal causes the illumination level of the plurality of light spots close to the light/dark boundary (See paragraph [0077]) , but silent on which are arranged in the right edge region or the left edge region of the light distribution, to be greater than the illumination level of the plurality of light spots located in the central area of the light distribution.
However, Kaino teaches a first illuminance region and second illumination region and how to control the illumination greater than one over the other. (See paragraph [0117]).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the teachings of Kaino in to Fig 2 and arranged in the right edge region or the left edge region of the light distribution, to be greater than the illumination level of the plurality of light spots located in the central area of the light distribution in order to use the light sources selectively according to the travelling direction (See paragraph [0014]).
Referring to claim 11 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, but silent on wherein the light distribution defines a width that extends in an angle range between +45º and -60º in a horizontal direction.
However, Kaino Fig 12 B teaches an angle range in the vertical direction from an upper end part to a lower end part was 17 degrees. (See paragraph [0047]).
Hence, it would have been obvious would have been obvious to be a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the Kaino teaches and extends in an angle range between 45 to 60 degrees in a horizontal direction the illumination level of the plurality of light spots located in the central area of the light distribution for using the light sources selectively according to the travelling direction (See paragraph [0014]).
Referring to claim 12 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, wherein the light distribution defines an illumination field, and wherein the illumination field at the left edge region or the right edge region of the light distribution comprises a light/dark boundary section facing horizontal (Fig 3 paragraph [0071]-[0073]) , the light spots of which have an illumination level which decreases continuously in a horizontal direction. (See Fig 16 A paragraph [0006]).
Referring to claim 13 Kaino teaches the headlamp of claim 1, wherein the light/dark boundary section extends away from a central area to the left edge region or the right edge region, forming an enlarged vertical width (Fig 2, Fig 5A-C paragraph [0078] – [0079]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-13 are rejected over prior art.
The prior of art made of record and not relied upon is considered to pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the notice of references cited PTOL 892 attached here with. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5.30 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, Regis J Betsch can be reached at 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 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.
/SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU/Examiner, Art Unit 2844 12/27/2025