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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3-4, 8-10, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasaba et al. (US 10676016 B2).
Regarding claim 1,
Kasaba teaches:
A method for determining a current load pitch angle of a vehicle for headlamp beam adjustment, the method comprising:
determining a change in the current load pitch angle when the vehicle is at a standstill;
capturing at least one parameter indicating a change in a load of the vehicle;
(Kasaba – At [28:45-29:44] it states “The control unit 104 executes the self-leveling control of adjusting the pitch angle of the optical axis O of the lamp unit 10 (hereinafter, this angle is referred to as the optical axis angle θo, as appropriate) by using the output value from the tilt sensor 2110. The control unit 2104 includes an angle calculating unit 21041, an adjustment instructing unit 21042, a diagnosis instructing unit 21043, a failure determining unit 21044, a halt detecting unit 21045, a load change detecting unit 21046, and an ignition detecting unit 21047… The angle calculating unit 21041 generates pitch angle information of the vehicle 300 by using the output value from the tilt sensor 2110 and information stored in a RAM (not illustrated) included in the leveling ECU 2100… The load change detecting unit 21046 determines that a passenger has got in or out of the vehicle 300 or that luggage has been loaded onto or removed from the vehicle 300. The load change detecting unit 21046 can determine that a passenger has got in or out of the vehicle or that luggage has been loaded onto or removed from the vehicle when the output value from the tilt sensor 2110 enters an unstable state from a stable state and then enters the stable state again while the vehicle speed is 0.”)
based on the captured at least one parameter indicating a change in the load of the vehicle, estimating a change in a load pitch angle of the vehicle;
(Kasaba – At [30:61-31:7] it states “Specifically, the control unit 2104 records the output value from the tilt sensor 2110 in the first referential state into a RAM in the control unit 2104 or into the memory 2108 in the form of a first referential vector S1=(X1, Y1, Z1). The memory 2108 is a non-volatile memory. Next, the vehicle 300 is brought into a second state that differs from the first state only in the pitch angle of the vehicle 300. The vehicle 300 can be brought into the second state, for example, by placing a load on the front portion or the back portion of the vehicle 300 that is in the first state. The control unit 2104 records the output value from the tilt sensor 2110 obtained when the vehicle 300 is in the second state into the RAM or the memory 2108 in the form of a second referential vector S2=(X2, Y2, Z2).”)
if the change in the current load pitch angle matches the estimated change in the load pitch angle of the vehicle, determining the current load pitch angle based on the change in the load pitch angle; and
(Kasaba – At [20:35-44] it states “Upon receiving a fault recovery signal from the fault detecting unit 1045, the angle calculating unit 1041 estimates the current vehicle attitude angle θv on the basis of the output value from the tilt sensor 110 obtained while the vehicle is traveling. Then, the adjustment instructing unit 1042 releases the fixed state of the optical axis angle θo and generates an adjustment signal by using the estimated vehicle attitude angle θv. The optical axis angle θo is kept in the fixed state until the current vehicle attitude angle θv is estimated.”)
adjusting a headlamp of the vehicle based on the current load pitch angle.
(Kasaba – Fig. 20, see below, element S408)
PNG
media_image1.png
688
1033
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3,
Kasaba teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Kasaba further teaches:
wherein a parameter indicating a change in the load of the vehicle includes a change in an operating condition of at least one of a window, a door, a tailgate, or a hood of the vehicle.
(Kasaba – At [23:31-57] it states “The buffer amount changing unit 1046 changes the buffer amount, for example, with a single instance of traveling serving as one cycle. In other words, the duration from when the vehicle 300 starts traveling to when the vehicle 300 stops serves as one cycle. Then, the buffer amount changing unit 1046 lowers the lower limit value of the buffer amount at the beginning of the subsequent cycle, or in other words, the lower limit value of the buffer amount for the subsequent cycle (times g and h) when the output value from the tilt sensor 110 has changed by a predetermined value or more or when a signal indicating that a door of the vehicle 300 has been opened or closed is received from an opening/closing sensor during a period from the end of the current cycle to the beginning of the subsequent cycle, as compared to a case in which the output value from the tilt sensor 110 has not changed by a predetermined value or more or a case in which a signal indicating that the door has been opened or closed is not received from the opening/closing sensor. This operation can suppress a decrease in the following performance of the estimated vehicle attitude angle θv with respect to the actual vehicle attitude angle θv when the change in the vehicle attitude angle θv is large. When the door has been opened or closed, it is highly likely that a passenger has got in or got out of the vehicle 300 or luggage has been loaded onto or removed from the vehicle 300. Therefore, detecting the opening or closing of the door makes it possible to predict that the vehicle attitude angle θv changes greatly.”)
Regarding claim 4,
Kasaba teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Kasaba further teaches:
wherein a parameter indicating a change in the load of the vehicle includes a change in an operating condition of a cargo compartment of the vehicle.
(Kasaba – At [14:10-29] it states “For example, when luggage is in the trunk in the back side of the vehicle or when a passenger is in the backseat, the vehicle has a backward-tilted attitude. Meanwhile, when luggage is removed from the trunk or when a passenger in the backseat gets out of the vehicle, the vehicle enters a more forward-tilted state than that of the backward-tilted attitude. When the vehicle has a backward-tilted attitude or a forward-tilted attitude, the direction in which the lamp unit 10 shines varies in the top-and-bottom direction accordingly, and the forward range increases or decreases. Thus, the leveling ECU 100 derives either the angle of inclination of the vehicle 300 in the pitch direction or a change in the angle of inclination from the output value from the tilt sensor 110 and brings the optical axis angle θo to an angle corresponding to the attitude of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 8, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis. In addition, Kasaba teaches machine-readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions (Kasaba – At [12:51-64] it states “A leveling ECU 100 is implemented by elements such as a CPU and a memory of a computer and circuits in terms of the hardware configuration and is implemented by a computer program or the like in terms of the software configuration.”)
Regarding claim 9, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, it recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis. In addition, Kasaba teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to… (Kasaba – At [12:51-64] it states “A leveling ECU 100 is implemented by elements such as a CPU and a memory of a computer and circuits in terms of the hardware configuration and is implemented by a computer program or the like in terms of the software configuration.”)
Regarding claim 16, it recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, it recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
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) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba et al. (US 10676016 B2) in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (EP 2402212 A2).
Regarding claim 2,
Kasaba teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Kasaba does not teach a defined error limit.
YAMAZAKI teaches:
wherein if the change in the load pitch angle of the vehicle does not match the estimated change in the load pitch angle within a defined error limit, the current load pitch angle is rejected or reset.
(YAMAZAKI – Paragraph [0083] states “If the automatic leveling control-stop-information is not recorded (N in S501), the controller 228R2 calculates a vehicle posture angle θv from the reference value of the road surface angle θr and the total angle θ (S505) and determines whether the calculated vehicle posture angle θv is out of a predetermined range (S506). If the calculated vehicle posture angle θv is out of the predetermined range (Y in S506), the controller 228R2 generates automatic leveling control-stop-information and records the automatic leveling control-stop-information in the memory 228R4 (S507). Further, the controller 228R2 stops automatic leveling control and turns on the indicator (S502). Subsequently, the controller 228R2 determines whether a reset signal is detected (S503), resets the reference value of the vehicle posture angle θv and the reference value of the road surface angle θr, erases the automatic leveling control-stop-information, turns off the indicator (S504), and ends this routine.”)
Kasaba and YAMAZAKI are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling the lamp of a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kasaba with YAMAZAKI. It would have been obvious to combine a headlamp adjustment system based on load of the vehicle with a defined error because the error directs the system to reset or adjust in a different way to avoid the lamps being adjusted in a way that is unsafe for the driver or other drivers on the road.
Regarding claim 15, it recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 2 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba et al. (US 10676016 B2) in view of Jeong (KR 102651265 B1) (Citations based on NPL translation).
Regarding claim 5,
Kasaba teaches the limitations of claim 4.
However, Kasaba does not teach a camera.
Jeong teaches:
wherein the at least one parameter indicating the change in the load of the vehicle is captured by a camera to detect a presence of cargo in the cargo compartment of the vehicle.
(Jeong – On page 4, it states “Referring to FIG. 3, the vehicle 1 according to one embodiment includes a first camera 110 that photographs the rear of the vehicle 1, the interior of the trunk 100 of the vehicle 1, and seats 501, 502, and 503. ), an input unit 400 that receives various commands or selections from the user, and a vehicle ( 1) Control unit 200 that determines how to place the object (ob) in the loading space, display unit 300 that displays various information according to the control of the control unit 200, and control of the control unit 200 or user input It may include an electric seat 500 whose position can be changed or folded.”)
Kasaba and Jeong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kasaba with Jeong. It would have been obvious to combine a headlamp adjustment system based on load of the vehicle with the use of a camera to detect the cargo in a vehicle because it allows the system to have another method of determining the need to adjust which allows the system to be more efficient.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18, it recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 6-7, 12-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba et al. (US 10676016 B2) in view of YAMAMOTO (US 20240262373 A1).
Regarding claim 6,
Kasaba teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Kasaba does not teach an operating condition of a seatbelt of the vehicle.
YAMAMOTO teaches:
wherein a parameter indicating a change in the load of the vehicle includes a change in an operating condition of a seatbelt of the vehicle.
(YAMAMOTO – Paragraph [0021] states “The seatbelt sensor 12 detects whether or not the seatbelt of the driver's seat of the vehicle is attached or detached, and outputs the detection result to the ECU 20.”)
Kasaba and YAMAMOTO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kasaba with YAMAMOTO. It would have been obvious to combine a headlamp adjustment system based on load of the vehicle with the use of a seatbelt operating condition because it allows the system to have another method of determining the need to adjust which allows the system to be more efficient.
Regarding claim 7,
Kasaba teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Kasaba does not teach an operating condition of a parking brake or a trailer coupling of the vehicle.
YAMAMOTO teaches:
wherein a parameter indicating a change in the load of the vehicle includes a change in an operating condition of a parking brake or a trailer coupling of the vehicle.
(YAMAMOTO – Paragraph [0020] states “The parking brake sensor 10 detects the operating state of the electric parking brake 22 and outputs the detection result to the ECU 20.”)
Kasaba and YAMAMOTO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kasaba with YAMAMOTO. It would have been obvious to combine a headlamp adjustment system based on load of the vehicle with the use of a parking brake operating condition because it allows the system to have another method of determining the need to adjust which allows the system to be more efficient.
Regarding claim 12, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 6 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 13, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 7 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19, it recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 6 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, it recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 7 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
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 Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights