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 . Claims 1-3 were previously pending. Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-2 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. 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 as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety 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. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 2022/0099267 A1) in view of Park (US 2006/0038664 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa discloses a headlight optical axis control device comprising: an acceleration sensor; (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0061-0064] – Acceleration sensor 32 is attached to the vehicle 300… Specifically, a total angle θ including a road surface angle θr and a vehicle attitude angle θv is derivable from the output value from the acceleration sensor 32.); at least one processor configured to: calculate a sensor detection angle, which is a rotation angle around an axis along a vehicle width direction relative to a horizontal plane, based on a detection result of the acceleration sensor (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0061-0064] –The inclination of the vehicle 300 relative to the gravitational acceleration vector G can be derived from the output value from the acceleration sensor 32 obtained while the vehicle is at rest. Specifically, a total angle θ including a road surface angle θr and a vehicle attitude angle θv is derivable from the output value from the acceleration sensor 32.); detect a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a road surface angle if a position (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0073, 0076-0080, 0175] - The leveling ECU 30 determines whether the vehicle 300 has moved while the ignition switch 314 is off (S201). If the vehicle 300 has moved (Y at S201), the leveling ECU 30 calculates the road surface angle θr by subtracting the reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv read out from the memory 40 from the current total angle θ (S202). Then, the leveling ECU 30 updates the reference value of the road surface angle θr with the obtained road surface angle θr used as a new reference value of the road surface angle θr (S203).); and detect a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a pitch angle of the vehicle if the position of the vehicle (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0073, 0076-0080, 0176] - If the vehicle 300 has not moved (N at S201), the leveling ECU 30 calculates the vehicle attitude angle θv by subtracting the reference value of the road surface angle θr read out from the memory 40 from the current total angle θ (S205). Then, the leveling ECU 30 updates the reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv with the obtained vehicle attitude angle θv used as a new reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv (S206).); and a headlight actuator configured to adjust an optical axis of a headlight of the vehicle in accordance with the change in the pitch angle of the vehicle detected by the at least one processor (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0050, 0057, 0069, 0073, 0076-0080, 0175-0176] - Moreover, the controlling unit 36 adjusts the optical axis Ax with the use of either the obtained vehicle attitude angle θv or the new reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv. Thus, the change in the vehicle attitude angle θv observed while the ignition switch 314 is off can be incorporated into the reference value, and the optical axis angle θo can be adjusted to an appropriate position… If the vehicle 300 has not moved (N at S201), the leveling ECU 30 calculates the vehicle attitude angle θv by subtracting the reference value of the road surface angle θr read out from the memory 40 from the current total angle θ (S205). Then, the leveling ECU 30 updates the reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv with the obtained vehicle attitude angle θv used as a new reference value of the vehicle attitude angle θv (S206).).
Ishikawa discloses does not appear to explicitly disclose detect a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a road surface angle if a position and an orientation of the vehicle changes between ignition off and ignition on; detect a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a pitch angle of the vehicle if the position of the vehicle and the orientation of the vehicle does not change between ignition off and ignition on.
However, Ishikawa does disclose detect a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a road surface angle if one or more of position, identification signal, and object information of the vehicle changes between ignition off and ignition on; detect a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a pitch angle of the vehicle if the one or more of position, identification signal, and object information of the vehicle does not change between ignition off and ignition on (see at least [0126-0127] - The movement determining unit 46 can determine whether the vehicle 300 has moved while the ignition switch 314 is off on the basis of any one or more of the position information of the vehicle 300, the identification signal, and the object information.).
Therefore, the difference between Ishikawa and the claim is that Ishikawa uses position of the vehicle to determine if the vehicle has moved, while the claim requires the use of position and orientation specifically to determine if the vehicle has moved.
Park teaches the following limitations: determine if the vehicle has moved based on a change in position and an orientation of the vehicle (see at least [0008, 0019] – detect vehicle theft by detecting the orientation and location of the vehicle and inputs the signals into the ECU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Park into the invention of Ishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success. Ishikawa explicitly discloses determining whether the vehicle has moved while the ignition is off on the basis of any one or more of position information of the vehicle and various other parameters (Ishikawa – [0036]), therefore it would have been obvious to modify Ishikawa to incorporate the use of other parameters indicating movement of the vehicle. Park teaches using various sensors, such as position and orientation of a vehicle, to detect that the vehicle has moved due to vehicle hauling, loading, or the like to inform of motion of the vehicle (Park – [0019]). Incorporating additional parameters, such as Park’s orientation, would improve the accuracy of determining that the vehicle has moved. Doing so adds a layer of redundancy so that movement can be verified by multiple different parameters. Furthermore, when one of the parameters is unable to be accurately detected (such as when GPS is not working), the other parameter can be used to indicate movement of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use position and orientation of a vehicle, instead of just position, to indicate vehicle movement. The use of position and orientation instead of just position would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa discloses a global positioning system (GPS) (see at least [0119] - GPS); and a camera (see at least [0119] – camera 316), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether the position of the vehicle has changed based on a position information of the vehicle obtained using the GPS or a camera image obtained by the camera that captures a surroundings of the vehicle (see at least Figs. 2-3, 12, [0119, 0164-0166, 0175-0176] - The movement determining unit 46 can determine whether the vehicle has moved by comparing the position information held before the ignition switch 314 is turned off and the position information held after the ignition switch 314 is turned on. Moreover, the movement determining unit 46 can determine whether the vehicle has moved by comparing the image information acquired from the camera 316 before the ignition switch 314 is turned off and the image information acquired from the camera 316 after the ignition switch 314 is turned on.).
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, claim limitations are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Additionally, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 and 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-8 filed 6/3/2026, with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s only argument appears to be that Ishikawa does not describe determining a change in the total angle between ignition on and ignition off.
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “determining a change in the total angle between ignition on and ignition off) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Determining a change in the total angle would be interpreted as subtracting a current total angle from a previous total angle. This is more specific than what is recited in the current claim. Furthermore, Applicant’s own specification does not appear to support this interpretation. The claim recites “detect a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a road surface angle if a position and an orientation of the vehicle changes between ignition off and ignition on and detect a change in the sensor detection angle between ignition off and ignition on as a change in a pitch angle of the vehicle if the position of the vehicle and the orientation of the vehicle does not change between ignition off and ignition on.” This appears to be describing two scenarios. 1) If position and orientation of a vehicle changes between ignition off and ignition on, a change in the sensor detection angle corresponds to a change in road surface angle. 2) If position and orientation of a vehicle does not change between ignition off and ignition on, a change in the sensor detection angle corresponds to a change in pitch angle. Not only is this how the claim is read according to broadest reasonable interpretation, this also appears to align with Applicant’s own specification.
In Ishikawa, the acceleration sensor is used to derive the total angle which is the sum of the vehicle attitude angle and the road surface angle (see at least [0027] of Ishikawa). See at least figure 12 and paragraphs [0174-0175]. At S201 it is determined is the vehicle has moved. Whether or not the vehicle has moved determines which angle is to be updated.
If the vehicle has moved, this indicates that a change in the current total angle correlates to a change in the road surface angle. The new road surface angle is calculated at S202 by subtracting the previously saved vehicle attitude angle from the current total angle (derived by the acceleration sensor). In this scenario, any changes in the total angle indicate a change in the road surface angle, not a change in the vehicle attitude angle. This is why the road surface angle is the angle that is updated, because this is the angle that has been determined to have changed when the vehicle has moved.
If the vehicle has not moved this indicates that a change in the current total angle correlates to a change in the vehicle attitude angle. The new vehicle attitude angle is calculated at S205 by subtracting the previously saved road surface angle from the current total angle (derived by the acceleration sensor). In this scenario, any changes in the total angle indicate a change in the vehicle attitude angle, not a change in the road surface angle. This is why the vehicle attitude angle is the angle that is updated, because this is the angle that has been determined to have changed when the vehicle has not moved.
It is unclear to the examiner how this does not read on the currently recited claim. Therefore the examiner maintains that Ishikawa reads on these limitations. Ishikawa does not appear to disclose using position and orientation to determine when the vehicle has moved. For this new limitation the examiner relies on the teachings of Park (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above).
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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights