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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an optic control of the vehicle lamp”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “optic control” are.
Claim 1 recites “a light source unit disposed near the actuator unit”. There is no guidance as to the relationship between the structures, furthermore the term “near” has no frame of reference.
Claim 1 recites “the light source unit including a plurality of areas”. It is unclear if this is directed towards “areas of the luminance output” or “areas of the light source structure”.
Claim 1 further recites a control unit but does not recite the manner in which it controls, or the controls or patterns that it is based on. There is no direction as to what the control unit is or does.
The Examiner additionally notes that the claims are generally overly broad. The claims do not set forth proper metes and bounds of the structure or the function of the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-6, 8, 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “a control signal reception unit configured to receive a control signal from a user terminal”. It is unclear what the control signal is or does, there is no recitation that it affects the structure.
In claims 4, 5, and 6, it is unclear what the “coordinates specified by the control or pattern” is in terms of the variables set forth, i.e. lamp length, color, and activation status. The claims do not set forth a clear function being performed or a structure.
Claims 8 and 9 further set forth determining /receiving inputs, however such inputs do not appear to affect operation of the device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,385. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘385 sets forth claims that entirely encompass the claimed subject matter in the current application.
Claim 5 is rejected in view of Stam (U.S. 7,653,215) that teaches controlling the illumination color see col. 54 lines 19-60. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have controlled the illumination color of the light source depending on the desired function, e.g. amber for a turning function.
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.
Claim 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (U.S. 12,191,429, filed 3/28/2022) in view of Stam (U.S. 7,653,215).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches a vehicle lamp (see col. 22 lines 40-44, vehicle headlight) comprising:
an actuator unit (actuator 15) configured to perform an optic control of the vehicle lamp;
a light source unit (12) disposed near the actuator unit and configured to emit light, the light source unit including a plurality of areas (outer area, inner area); and
configured to control light emission from at least some of the plurality of areas of the light source unit based on a control or pattern (controls light emission from the outer and inner area based on the distance moved by actuator).
Yoshida does not specifically teach a control unit (see background of the invention, see fig. 11, control system).
Stam teaches a control unit configured to control light emission from at least some of the plurality of areas of the light source unit based on a control or pattern.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a control unit as taught by Stam to control and achieve desired light patterns and distributions output from the structure of Yoshida.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida further comprising an optic unit (wavelength conversion plate 14) configured to reflect or refract (refracts)the light emitted from the light source unit.
Regarding claim 3, Stam teaches that the control unit further comprises a control signal reception unit configured to receive a control signal from a user terminal (see fig. 11, inputs).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yoshida and Stam teaches that the control unit is configured to adjust a lamp length through the actuator unit at coordinates specified by the control or pattern (desired light output of Yoshida, controlled via headlamp drive 1104 of Stam for specific coordinates, colors, and patterns).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida teaches that the control unit is configured to control an illumination color of the light source unit at coordinates specified by the control or pattern (see fig. 5d, color adjustments).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida teaches that the control unit is configured to control an activation status of the light source unit at coordinates specified by the control or pattern (can turn on or off central light source at the coordinate of the central light source).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida teaches a method of controlling a vehicle lamp of a vehicle, comprising: selecting a lamp mode of the vehicle lamp (on or off), the vehicle lamp comprising a light source (12) having a plurality of areas (inner area, outer area); and controlling light emission from at least some of the plurality of areas of the light source based on a control or pattern (based on desired light pattern), wherein the light emission is controlled using an actuator (15) configured to perform an optic control of the vehicle lamp (moves wavelength conversion plate vertically), and the light source is arranged adjacent to the actuator.
Yoshida does not specifically teach controlling light emission from at least some of the plurality of areas of the light source based on a control or pattern.
Stam teaches controlling light emission from at least some of the plurality of areas of the light source based on a control or pattern (see fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a control unit as taught by Stam to control and achieve desired light patterns and distributions output from the structure of Yoshida.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida does not teach further comprising: determining whether the vehicle is driving; and determining whether the light emission is controlled remotely or manually.
Stam teaches further comprising: determining whether the vehicle is driving (speed input, see fig. 11); and determining whether the light emission is controlled remotely or manually (manual override see col. 21 lines 20-36).
Regarding claim 9, Stam teaches further comprising receiving an input of a plurality of pixel patterns generated by a user (see fig. 40, illumination patterns inherently have pixels).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida teaches controlling the light emission comprises controlling extending or reducing an optic length relative to the light source using the actuator (actuator 15, changes optical length).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875