DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 06/24/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendments to the claims do not distinguish patentably over the previously applied Komatsu reference, for the reasons set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/26 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (USPAP 2007/0147055) in view of any one of Pomish (USP 11,377,022), Seitz et al (USPAP 2017/0297475), Logiudice et al (USPAP 2017/0192224) and Nakashima (USPAP 2016/0009218).
As to claim 1, Komatsu discloses, in figure 12(a),
a vehicle lamp system (the inherent vehicle lamp system within vehicle 60) capable of emitting irradiation light having variable light distribution (note that Komatsu's vehicle lamp system is capable of emitting irradiation light having variable light distribution) toward the front of a vehicle (note that Komatsu's vehicle lamp system inherently emits irradiation light in regions 63, 71 in front of vehicle 60), the system comprising:
a first lamp (the left headlamp of vehicle 60) disposed opposing an oncoming lane side of the front of the vehicle and a second lap (the right headlamp of vehicle 60) disposed on the oncoming lane side of the front of the vehicle,
a memory configured to store a program (although not disclosed by Komatsu, the control unit 33 described throughout this reference will inherently or obviously include a memory configured to store a program used for controlling the vehicle lamp system of this reference, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention that control units in vehicle lamp systems, such as control unit 33 in Komatsu, typically include memory), and
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the program read from the memory (although not disclosed by Komatsu, the above-noted control unit 33 will inherently or obviously also include a processor connected to the above-noted memory for executing the above-noted program, the reason being that it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention that control units, such as control unit 33 in Komatsu, also typically include a processor for executing a program stored in a memory), which outputs a control signal to the first lamp and the second lamp upon execution of the program (inherently or obviously the above-noted processor within Komatsu's control unit will output control signals to the above-noted first and second lamps upon execution of the program),
wherein, the processor, when the location where the vehicle is present is undergoing inclement weather (although Komatsu does not disclose detecting inclement weather and, in response to such detection, controlling the light distribution emitted from the headlamps of a vehicle, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use a sensor for detecting inclement weather and, in response thereto, outputting control signals to the front and left headlamps of a vehicle for the purpose of controlling the irradiation light emitted from the two headlamps, four examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Pomish (note claim 1 of this reference which discloses adjusting the intensity or orientation of the light generated by a headlight based on a detected weather condition), Seitz et al (note paragraph [0031] of this reference which discloses controlling the headlights of a vehicle based on the output of a rain sensor), Logiudice et al (note paragraph [0006] of this reference which discloses dynamically adjusting the illumination of the headlights of a vehicle in response to detected weather data) and Nakashima (note the abstract and paragraph [0005] of this reference which disclose controlling the headlights of a vehicle in response to detecting a current weather condition outside the vehicle),
with regard to an area above a horizon line in a front view from the vehicle, within the irradiation range of the first lamp (inherently in Komatsu as modified by the above-noted secondary references, the variable light distribution in this reference will be with regard to an area above a horizon line in a front view from the vehicle, within the irradiation range of the first lamp),
the processor sets a first light irradiation range to the range from the forward center of the vehicle to the range opposite to the oncoming lane (inherently or obviously in Komatsu as modified by the above-noted secondary references, the processor sets a first light irradiation range to the range from the forward center of the vehicle to the range opposite to the oncoming lane), and
within the irradiation range of the second lamp,
the processor sets a dimmed range or a non-illuminated range (inherently or obviously in Komatsu as modified by the above-noted secondary references, within the irradiation range of the above-noted second lamp, the above-noted processor sets a dimmed range or a non-illuminated range), and
wherein the processor generates the control signal, based on input from at least one weather device based on data regarding the inclement weather, that instructs the irradiation of a light distribution pattern that has been set and outputs the control signal to the first lamp and the second lamp (inherently or obviously in Komatsu as modified by the above-noted secondary references, the above-noted processor generates the above-noted control signal, based on input from at least one weather device based on data regarding the above-noted inclement weather, that instructs the irradiation of a light distribution pattern that has been set and outputs the above-noted control signal to Komatsu’s first and second lamps), and
wherein the irradiation of the light distribution pattern is performed by the first and second lamps that have received the control signal (inherently or obviously in Komatsu as modified by the above-noted secondary references, the above-noted irradiation of the light distribution pattern is performed by Komatsu’s first and second lamps that have received the above-noted control signal).
As to claims 2-6 and 10-12, the functional limitations set forth in these claims will all inherently or obviously occur during the operation of the Komatsu vehicle lamp system when modified by the above-noted secondary references, i.e., when Komatsu is modified so that the vehicle lamp system of this reference includes a weather device (sensor) for detecting when the vehicle is undergoing inclement weather and, in response to the output of such a weather device, the above-noted first and second lamps have their light distribution regions 63, 71 made variable in response to a vehicle in front of vehicle 60 (based on a control signal output from the above-noted processor within control unit 33) and also in response to the output signal of the above-noted weather device.
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected using the same analysis as set forth in the previous office action, i.e., it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 9, the inclement weather described in each of the above-noted secondary references is either inherently or obviously rain, snowfall, or fog.
As to claims 13-20, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-12, i.e., the claimed vehicle reads on vehicle 60 shown in figure 12(a) of Komatsu, the claimed first lamp reads on the left headlamp of vehicle 60, the claimed second lamp reads on the right headlamp of vehicle 60, the claimed controller reads on Komatsu's control unit 33, and the claimed functional limitations will all be either inherent or obvious during the operation of Komatsu's vehicle lamp system when it is modified by any one of the above-noted secondary references, i.e., such that Komatsu's vehicle lamp system includes a weather device (sensor) for detecting when the vehicle is undergoing inclement weather and, in response to the output of such a weather device, the above-noted first and second lamps have their light distribution regions 63, 71 made variable in response to a vehicle in front of vehicle 60 (based on a control signal output from the above-noted processor within control unit 33) and also in response to the output signal of the above-noted weather device. As per claim 16, note that the camera recited in this is disclosed by Komatsu in paragraph [0059] thereof.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant should also note also that claims 1-7 and 9-20 appear to be either anticipated by or obvious from what is disclosed in Noriko (JP 2010-161035, note that this reference is cited in applicant's information disclosure statement filed on 03/17/26, i.e., anticipated or obvious from the teachings of this reference for the reasons indicated in the search report filed with this reference.
Action is Final
5. 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.
Conclusion
6. 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, 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights