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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 3, lines 2-3, of the instant specification, "regardless of whether to partially dim or shade the range corresponding to the position of the vehicle in front" should be changed to
--independent of whether the range corresponding to the position of the vehicle in front is partially dimmed or shaded--. On the second line of page 4, the word "in" should be changed to --to provide--. On line 7 of page 4, the second occurrence of the word "to" should be changed to --of-- (and note that the same change should also be made on line 10 of this page). On page 5, third line from the bottom, the word "neither" should be changed to --none--. On line 9 of page 6, the second occurrence of the word "to" should be changed to either --of-- or --by--. On line 22 of page 6, the word --the-- should be inserted after "monitor". On line 20 of page 8, "At this occasion" should be changed to
--In this situation--. On page 9, line 4, "may acquire every time" should be changed to
--may continuously acquire--. Also on page 9, third line from the bottom, the second occurrence of the word "to" should again be changed to either --of-- or --by--. On line 5 of page 10, "At this occasion" should again be changed to --In this situation-- (and note that the same change should also be made on line 20 of page 10). Also on page 10, third line from the bottom, "When" should be changed to --If--. On line 8 of page 11, --a-- should be inserted before "matrix". On line 9 of page 12, "to" should be changed to either --of-- or --by-- (and note that the same change should also be made on line 15 of this page). On the first line of page 13, the word --the-- should be inserted at the beginning of the line, before "functions", and on line 3 of this page, the word "and" should be changed to --or--. Also on page 13, on line 5, the word "and" (both occurrences) should again be changed to --or--. Also on line 5 of this page, "a SRAM" should be changed to --an SRAM--. On line 6 of page 13, the word "and" should again be changed to --or--, and on line 7 of this page, --its functions-- should be inserted after the word "perform". On the penultimate line of page 13, the comma after the word "perform" should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On the last line of claim 1, the word "regardless" should be changed to --independent--. Note also that the same change should also be made on the penultimate line of claim 6.
On line 3 of claim 3, --a-- should be inserted at the beginning of the line before the word "matrix". Also in claim 3, on line 4 thereof, the word --further-- should be inserted before "configured" (note that the illumination controller has already been recited, on lines 6-9 of claim 1, as being configured to displace downward...less than a first distance, and therefore claim 3 should recite that it is "further" configured to displace the illumination range of the low beam by controlling lighted states of the light emitting elements. Note that the same insertion should also be made in claim 6, on line 11 thereof.
On the last two lines of claim 6, "whether to partially dim or shade the range corresponding to the position of the vehicle in front" should be changed to --whether the range corresponding to the position of the vehicle in front is partially dimmed or
shaded--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On lines 7-8 of claim 1, "out of the illumination range of the low beam and an illumination range of a high beam by the headlight unit" is not understood, i.e., it appears that applicant is simply reciting, on lines 6-9 of claim 1, that the illumination controller is configured to displace downward by a predetermined amount the illumination range of the low beam when the inter-vehicle distance is less than a first distance. It is not understood, however, why applicant has included the language "out of the illumination range of the low beam and an illumination range of a high beam by the headlight unit" on lines 7-8, i.e., this language appears to be superfluous if in fact applicant is simply trying to recite, on lines 6-9 of claim 1, that the illumination controller is configured to displace downward by a predetermined amount the illumination range of the low beam when the inter-vehicle distance is less than a first distance. Note that same deletion is also needed the on the last two lines of claim 1.
Claim 2 is indefinite in view of its dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 3-6 are indefinite for the same reason noted above in the rejection of claim 1, i.e., the same deletions which are needed in claim 1 should also be made in claim 6, on lines 7-8 and 13-14 thereof, in and also in claim 4, on lines 4-5, and in claim 5, on lines 3-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seko, U.S. Patent No. 4,967,319.
As to claim 1, Seko discloses, in figures 2-10,
a headlight controller configured to control a headlight unit, the headlight unit being configured to illuminate a predetermined range in front of a vehicle (just intended use preamble language), the headlight controller comprising:
an inter-vehicle distance obtainer (inter-vehicle sensor 13, 16 shown in Seko's figure 2) configured to acquire an inter-vehicle distance from the vehicle on which the headlight unit is mounted to a vehicle in front traveling in front of the vehicle;
an illumination controller (the illumination controller formed by components 8, 9, 10 shown in Seko's figure 2) configured to displace downward by a predetermined amount at least an illumination range of a low beam (note that the function of Seko's illumination controller formed by components 8, 9 and 10 is to displace downward by a predetermined amount the illumination range of the low beam), when the inter-vehicle distance is less than a first distance (note that Seko's illumination controller formed by components 8, 9 and 10 functions to displace downward the illumination range of the low beam in response to inter-vehicle sensor 13, 16 detecting that the inter-vehicle distance is less than a first distance); and
a light distribution controller (light distribution controller formed by components 20, 20A, 20B or 20C shown in figures 2, 5 and 8-10 of Seko) configured to partially dim or shade a range corresponding to a position of the vehicle in front, within the illumination range of the high beam (note that Seko's light distribution controller has the function of partially dimming or shading a range corresponding to a position of the vehicle in front, within the illumination range of the high beam), wherein
the illumination controller is configured to, when the inter-vehicle distance is less than the first distance, displace downward by the predetermined amount at least the illumination range of the low beam (as noted above, Seko's illumination controller formed by components 8, 9 and 10 function to displace downward the illumination range of the low beam in response to inter-vehicle sensor 13, 16 detecting that the inter-vehicle distance is less than a first distance), independent of operation of the light distribution controller (note the disclosure in Seko's abstract, on the last three lines thereof, where Seko indicates that the shading function performed by the light distribution controller is performed independently of the optical axis motion performed by the illumination controller).
As to claim 2, note that Seko's illumination controller is configured to displace the illumination range of the low beam by adjusting the optical axis of the headlight unit.
As to claim 6, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 (note that Seko's headlight controller will inherently comprise circuitry which performs the functions recited on lines 4-15 of claim 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko, supra.
As to claim 3, to the extent that Seko does not disclose that the headlight unit comprises a matrix of light emitting elements for forming the light source of this reference, 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 that vehicle headlight units are typically formed using a matrix of LEDs, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner, and it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that the illumination range of a low beam can be controlled (i.e., either increased or decreased) simply by controlling which of the above-noted LEDs are activated or deactivated, official notice of this fact also being taken by the examiner.
As to claims 4 and 5, to the extent that Seko does not disclose restoring the above-noted illumination range (i.e., the illumination range which had been displaced downward as indicated above) back to the pre-displacement position after the vehicle in front or the oncoming vehicle has moved away from the vehicle on which the headlight unit is mounted, this also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that this is the inherent or obvious function of Seko's headlight controller, i.e., the downward displacement of the illumination range of the low beam should only be carried out when the inter-vehicle distance becomes too small.
Double Patenting
8. Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of co-pending Application No. 18/905,293 (published as USPAP 2025/0074294). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims of the instant application and the claims of the ‘294 publication would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, note that what is recited on lines 1-3 of independent claim 1 of the instant application is just intended use preamble language, as noted above, but in any case would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of what is recited on lines 1-4 of independent claim 1 of the '294 publication, i.e., the claimed headlight controller of claim 1 of the '294 publication can obviously be configured to illuminate a predetermined range in front of the vehicle; the limitations recited on lines 4-5 of claim 1 of the instant application are anticipated by what is recited on lines 5-7 of independent claim 1 of the '294 publication; the limitations recited on lines 6-9 of independent claim 1 of the instant application would have been obvious from what is recited on lines 11-14 of independent claim 1 of the '294 publication (one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the illumination range being displaced downward could be obviously performed using the art-recognized equivalent technique of reducing the illumination amount of the headlights via on/off control of the lighted states of the light emitting elements of the headlights); the limitation recited on lines 10-11 of independent claim 11 of the instant application are anticipated by what is recited on lines 8-10 of independent claim 1 of the '294 publication; and the limitations recited on the last four lines of independent claim 1 of the instant application are anticipated by what is recited on the last seven lines of independent claim 1 of the '294 publication. The limitations of independent claim 6 of the instant application similarly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from what is recited in independent claim 17 of the '294 publication, using the same analysis as that noted above in the obviousness double patenting rejection of independent claim 1, the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application would have been obvious because, as noted above, displacing the illumination range of the low beam by adjusting an optical axis of the headlight unit is an art-recognized equivalent way of displacing the illumination range of a low beam of the headlights of a vehicle (i.e., any person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the illumination range of a low beam can be reduced by either adjusting the optical axis of the headlight unit or controlling the on/off lighted states of the individual lighting elements thereof); and the limitations of claims 3-5 of the instant application would have been obvious for the reasons noted above in the rejection based on Seko, supra.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Makita et al (USPAP 2002/0003473) also appears to anticipate at least independent claims 1 and 6, based on what is indicated in the International Search Report dated 10/03/23, i.e., Makita et al is the U.S. equivalent of JP 2002-19517 which is cited as an "X" reference in the search report. Applicant should also note Kobayashi (USP 5,645,338) and Kusagaya (USP 6,550,944), cited on the attached PTO-892 form, each of which discloses another example of controlling a headlight in response to the inter-vehicle distance between a vehicle and a front vehicle becoming too small, i.e., the two vehicles coming too close to each other while driving with the headlights activated.
Conclusion
10. 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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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 2842 January 27, 2026