DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application No. 19/190235 filed on 4/25/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toda et al. US 6,663,268 (“Toda”).
As to claims 1, 10, and 16, Toda discloses a system and method for determining a load pitch angle of a vehicle for adjustment of a headlamp, comprising:
determining the speed of the vehicle based on first output from the first sensor during a time interval (see at least col 7, lines 49-51: a vehicle speed sensor 12 which is a vehicle speed detecting means for detecting the speed of a vehicle);
determining the acceleration of the vehicle based on second output from the second sensor during the time interval (see at least Fig 4, element 103: related text; calculate acceleration);
determining the height change of the vehicle based on third output from the third sensor during the time interval (see at least col 7, lines 51-54: a vehicle height sensor 14 provided on a rear suspension and constituting a part of a vehicle pitch angle (a longitudinal pitch angle of the vehicle) detecting means, and a CPU 16);
determining the load pitch angle based on the speed, the acceleration and the height change corresponding to the time interval (see at least Fig 4, element 105, related text; calculate vehicle pitch angle); and
controlling the adjustment of the headlamp based on the determined load pitch angle (see at least Fig 4, element 109; related text: drive actuator).
As to claims 2 and 11, Toda discloses wherein the speed and the acceleration of the vehicle correspond to a longitudinal directional direction of the vehicle (see at least col 7, lines 49-51: a vehicle speed sensor 12 which is a vehicle speed detecting means for detecting the speed of a vehicle).
As to claims 3, 12, and 17, Toda discloses wherein the load pitch angle is determined via a dynamic pitch model (see at least col 9, lines 34-54: for a vehicle to be stable for leveling its headlamps, the vehicle speed should not be less than 30 km/h and at the same time the acceleration should not be more than 0.78 m/s2 for at least three seconds).
As to claims 5 and 14, Toda discloses wherein the second sensor includes an acceleration sensor for determining the speed along a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig 4, element 103: related text; calculate acceleration).
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(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US 2013/0320783 (“Huang”).
As to claim 15, Toda fails to explicitly disclose including a stepper motor for adjustment of the headlamp based on determined load pitch angle. However Huang teaches including a stepper motor for adjustment of the headlamp based on determined load pitch angle (see at least [0002]: a step motor able to adjust a vehicle head-light's up and down).
Thus, Toda discloses a system and method for adjusting vehicle headlights based on vehicle pitch using a motor and Huang teaches that the motor to adjust the headlight could be a step motor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the headlight adjustment motor disclosed by Toda, to be a stepper motor as is taught by Huang, with reasonable expectation of success, because as one of ordinary skill in the art is well aware, a stepper motor is capable of holding and fine tuning exact positions about an axis of rotation which is necessary for headlight adjustments while driving a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-9, 13, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P INGRAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/Thomas Ingram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights