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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (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.
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 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spinger et al. (U.S. Publication 2024/0027049 A1).
With regards to Claim 1, Spinger discloses an illuminated system including:
A first light source (408a) adapted to provide a first illumination range [note Figure 1A];
A second light source (408b) adapted to provide a second illumination range partly overlapped with the first illumination range [note Figure 1A]; and
An operation processor (916) electrically connected to the first light source and the second light source, and adapted to adjusted a first lighting parameter of the first light source [e.g., (817a)] for being different from a second lighting parameter of the second light source [e.g., (817b)], so as to reduce or eliminate a flicker phenomenon in an overlapping illumination range between the first illumination range and the second illumination range [note Figure 6 and Paragraphs 81-108].
With regards to Claim 2, Spinger discloses the first lighting parameter is a first scanning frequency of the first light source (817a), the second lighting parameter is a first scanning frequency of the second light source (817b), and the first scanning frequency and the second scanning frequency are in a multiple relationship [note Figure 6].
With regards to Claim 3, Spinger discloses the first lighting parameter is a first scanning frequency of the first light source (817a), the second lighting parameter is a second scanning frequency of the second light source (817b), and clock speeds of the first scanning frequency and the second scanning frequency are varied randomly [note Figure 3A and Paragraph 55 – (817a, 817b) may include various patterns].
With regards to Claim 4, Spinger discloses the first lighting parameter is a first scanning frequency of the first light source (817a), the second lighting parameter is a second scanning frequency of the second light source (817b), and the first scanning frequency and the second scanning frequency has phase difference with a feature of light and dark complementary [note Figure 6].
With regards to Claim 5, Spinger discloses the phase difference between the first scanning frequency (817a) and the second scanning frequency (817b) is one hundred and eighty degrees, or the phase difference is one hundred and eighty degrees with an allowable error of ten percent [note Figure 6].
With regards to Claim 6, Spinger discloses a duration of a high level area of at least one of the first frequency (817a) and the second scanning frequency (817b) is greater than a duration of a low level area of the at least one of the first scanning frequency and the second scanning frequency [note Figure 6].
With regards to Claim 7, Spinger discloses the first lighting parameter is a first scanning frequency of the first light source (817a), the second lighting parameter is a second scanning frequency of the second light source (817b), and the first scanning frequency is different from the second scanning frequency, and the first scanning frequency and the second scanning frequency has phase difference with a feature of light and dark complementary [note Figure 6].
With regards to Claim 8, Spinger discloses the first lighting parameter is a first scanning frequency of the first light source (817a), the second lighting parameter is a second scanning frequency of the second light source (817b), and a first scanning direction of the first scanning frequency is different from a second scanning direction of the second scanning frequency [note Figure 6].
With regards to Claim 9, Spinger discloses the first scanning direction is opposite to the second scanning direction [note Figure 6].
With regards to Claim 10, Spinger discloses the first light source and the second light source respectively are a light emitting diode [note (102a, 102b) – Paragraph 45], the illumination system further includes a micro-reflector (860a, 860b) adapted to reflect illumination light emitted by the foresaid light emitting diodes for adjusting the first lighting parameter (817a) and the second lighting parameter (817b) and further providing the first illumination range and the second illumination range [note Figure 2].
With regards to Claim 11, Spinger discloses the first light source (408a) and the second light source (408b) respectively are a LED module, and the LED module includes a plurality of light emitting diode units arranged as an array [note Paragraph 45].
With regards to Claim 13, Spinger discloses the illumination system further includes an optical detector (820) electrically connected to the operation processor (916), the operation processor is adapted to analyze an environment detection result of the optical detector for adjusting the first lighting parameter and/or the second lighting parameter [note Figure 2].
With regards to Claim 14, Spinger discloses the illumination system is applied to a headlight [note Figures 1A-B, D].
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 (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.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spinger et al. (U.S. Publication 2024/0027049 A1).
With regards to Claim 12, Spinger discloses the illumination system further includes a micro-reflector (860a, 860b) adapted to reflect illumination light emitted by light emitting diodes (102a, 102b) for adjusting the first lighting parameter (817a) and the second lighting parameter (817b) and further providing the first illumination range and the second illumination range [note Figure 2], but does not specifically teach the light emitting diodes respectively of the first light source and the second light source respectively being laser units/diodes.
However, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the first light source and the second light source of Spinger respectively to be laser units/diodes, since such illumination devices are considered functionally equivalent, whereby both light emitting diodes and laser diodes are well-established in the art as point light sources [note Claim 10 interchangeably recites light emitting diodes].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but is not considered exhaustive: U.S. Patent 12,123,566 B2 to Nakashima et al. that teaches multiple LED arrays with various illumination phases [note Figures 1-8].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2207. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
Thursday, December 18, 2025
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875