DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 12, 2024. Claims 1 – 5 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims appear to be a poor translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors such as missing articles, misplaced modifiers, semantical error, etc. The scope of the claims are so ambiguous to the point where one of ordinary skill in the art would find it difficult to reasonably apprise the intended scope of the invention and/or formulate a proper prior art search.
For instance, in lines 8 – 9 of claims 1 and 5, the phrase “switching the irradiation state to the low beam state during an interruption time” is unclear. (Emphasis added.) Does the “interruption time” occur during or after inputting the cancel operation or does it occur during or after switching the irradiation state? Clarification is required.
In lines 10 – 11 of claims 1 and 5, the phrase "operation contents of the cancel operation" is ambiguous. (Emphasis added.) It is unclear what "contents" applicant is specifically referring to (e.g., duration of button press, force of button press, number of clicks). Without a precise definition in the claim or in the specification, this term fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the exact metes and bounds of the claim. Clarification is required.
In lines 4 – 5 of claim 2, the phrase "processing for switching the irradiation state to the low beam state during the adjustment interruption time increased the interruption time" is ambiguous. (Emphasis added.) This limitation is grammatically broken. It is unclear if the "processing" does the increasing, or if the time "is increased" as a result of the process. In addition, does the “the adjustment interruption time” occur during or after inputting the cancel operation or does it occur during or after switching the irradiation state? Also, the phrase "the adjustment interruption time" is introduced without previously defining "adjustment interruption time" in claim 1 and therefore lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
In line 3 of claim 4, applicant fails to define what the "predetermined time" is. Since the specification does not provide a specific range or a clear way to determine this time, this limitation is considered indefinite. Clarification is required.
In line 5 of claim 4, the phrase “processing for switching the irradiation state to the low beam state during the adjustment interruption time is executed” is unclear. (Emphasis added.) Does the “the adjustment interruption time” occur during or after inputting the cancel operation or does it occur during or after switching the irradiation state? And again, the phrase "the adjustment interruption time" lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Clarification is required.
Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as being indefinite, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a control unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0100139 A1 to Michiyama et al. (herein after “Michiyama et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 5 (as best understood based on the 112 rejections discussed herein above),
the Michiyama et al. publication discloses a light control device having a control unit for controlling irradiation state of a light unit provided in a vehicle (see ¶7 – ¶9 and ¶13, where an illumination control unit for a vehicle includes a changing switch for performing the setting and/or the cancellation of an automatic mode of the automatic control function), wherein the control unit is configured to execute following processes:
executing an automatic irradiation mode for automatically switching the irradiation state to a high beam state or a low beam state based on detection values for detecting an environment around the vehicle (see ¶17, where “the changing switch is . . . for changing an automatic mode for turning on and off of vehicle lights depending on brightness of the environment around the vehicle and . . . for simultaneously actuating for the automatic mode of the high beam and low beam mode and the vehicle lights”);
in the high beam state, in a case where a cancel operation of the automatic irradiation mode is input, switching the irradiation state to the low beam state during an interruption time (see ¶7 – ¶9 and ¶13); and
adjusting an interval of the interruption time according to operation contents of the cancel operation (see ¶59 for “FIG. 3 of an automatic mode adjustment configuration” ”; see also FIGS. 4A and 5A).
As to claim 2 (as best understood based on the 112 rejections discussed herein above),
the Michiyama et al. publication discloses after the cancel operation is input, in a case where the cancel operation is input again, processing for switching the irradiation state to the low beam state during the adjustment interruption time increased the interruption time. (See ¶59 for “FIG. 3 of an automatic mode adjustment configuration”; see also FIGS. 4A and 5A).
As to claim 3 (as best understood based on the 112 rejections discussed herein above),
the Michiyama et al. publication discloses adjusting the length of the interruption time based on number of the cancel operations or operation time interval of the cancel operation. (See ¶59 for “FIG. 3 of an automatic mode adjustment configuration”; see also FIGS. 4A and 5A).
As to claim 4 (as best understood based on the 112 rejections discussed herein above),
the Michiyama et al. publication discloses in a case where the cancel operation is input again within a predetermined time after the cancel operation is input, processing for switching the irradiation state to the low beam state during the adjustment interruption time is executed. (See ¶59 for “FIG. 3 of an automatic mode adjustment configuration”; see also FIGS. 4A and 5A).
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666