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 2 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 2 recites “a second forward vehicle assumed to be present oat the front left side of the own vehicle,” which appears to be a typographical error for “assumed to be present at the front left side of the own vehicle.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 5 recites “within a predetermined distance” twice, once with respect to the first forward vehicle and once with respect to the second forward vehicle. To avoid confusion as to whether the same or different distances are intended, it is suggested that the limitations be amended to recite, e.g., “a first predetermined distance” and “a second predetermined distance.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the capable irradiation range.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “capable irradiation range” is first introduced in claim 2; however, claim 4 depends from claim 1, which does not recite a capable irradiation range. It is therefore unclear what range is referenced by “the capable irradiation range” in claim 4. For purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as if it depended from claim 2, such that “the capable irradiation range” refers to the capable irradiation range defined between the right side boundary and the left side boundary recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite for at least the following reasons. First, claim 12 recites “the pair of headlights are configured … to change the illuminance of a range within an irradiation range of the low beam,” and subsequently recites “relatively increase the illuminance of the partial range” (two occurrences). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the partial range” in the claim, and it is unclear whether “the partial range” refers to the previously recited “range” or to some other range. Second, claim 12 recites that “the controller estimates eye position of a driver of the other vehicle, and according to the estimated eye position, the controller calculates in real time a first road surface coordinate which is the reflection position of the light on the road surface when the light … is regularly reflected on the road surface and incident on a first position of the other vehicle.” The relationship between the “estimated eye position” and the “first position” is not set forth in the claim, rendering it unclear whether the “first position” is the estimated eye position or a different, unspecified position of the other vehicle. For purposes of examination, “the partial range” is interpreted as referring to the previously recited “range within an irradiation range of the low beam,” and “a first position of the other vehicle” is interpreted as the estimated eye position of the driver of the other vehicle, consistent with the corresponding recitations of claims 2 and 7. EXAMINER NOTE — Confirm against the specification whether the disclosure equates the “first position” of claim 12 with the eye point; if the spec supports it, this second ground may optionally be softened to an objection.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The prior art relied upon in this Office Action is as follows: U.S. Patent No. 7,901,121 to Ohshio et al. (“’121”); U.S. Patent No. 6,320,176 to Schofield et al. (“’176”); U.S. Patent No. 6,543,922 to Komatsu et al. (“’922”); U.S. Patent No. 9,592,762 to Okamoto et al. (“’762”); U.S. Patent No. 8,157,427 to Mochizuki et al. (“’427”); U.S. Patent No. 8,523,417 to Kobayashi (“’417”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,960,810 to Waragaya et al. (“’810”).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ’121 in view of ’176
Regarding claim 1, ’121 discloses a vehicle headlight system comprising: a pair of headlights arranged in front of an own vehicle (’121, headlamp HL for right and left sides of an automobile, the same structure being employed for both sides; col. 4, ll. 62–67; FIG. 1); and a controller connected to the pair of headlights and configured to control the operation of the pair of headlights (’121, lamp control device 60 connected to and controlling the rotational shade mechanism 30, leveling mechanism 40, and swivel mechanism 50, and connected to mode changeover switch 61; col. 6, ll. 35–43). ’121 further discloses that the headlights are configured to irradiate a low beam at least in front of the own vehicle (’121, basic (passing) mode light distribution pattern for illuminating an area in front of the host vehicle while suppressing glare with respect to another vehicle; col. 1, ll. 22–29; basic mode operation at col. 6, l. 63 – col. 7, l. 13; the wet road mode pattern is likewise a passing-type pattern having right and left cut-off lines, col. 6, ll. 6–17; col. 8, ll. 15–26) and to change the illuminance of a partial range within an irradiation range of the beam (’121, high light intensity region changed between shaded and unshaded states by rotary shade 26 carrying basic plate BS, motorway plate MS, and wet road plate WS; col. 5, ll. 23–39; col. 5, l. 55 – col. 6, l. 17; FIGS. 2(a)–2(d)), and to control the irradiation state so as to relatively increase the illuminance of the partial range under a wet road condition. Specifically, ’121 discloses a wet road mode, suitable for a rainy travel condition, in which the wet road plate WS leaves a majority of the high light intensity region unshaded and the swivel mechanism 50 and leveling mechanism 40 deflect the lamp optical axis Lx toward the host vehicle lane side and upward, such that the high light intensity region brightly — in the second embodiment, “extremely brightly” — illuminates a far distance ahead of the host vehicle lane ML while the directly forward region of the host vehicle lane is illuminated only by a region of low light intensity and is reduced in brightness, thereby preventing light from the host vehicle reflected off the wet road surface directly in front of the host vehicle lane from dazzling the driver of an oncoming vehicle or a preceding vehicle (col. 3, l. 55 – col. 4, l. 9; col. 8, ll. 1–43; col. 9, ll. 26–33; col. 10, l. 52 – col. 11, l. 14; FIGS. 2(d), 5(a)–5(c), 6(d)). The unshading of the high light intensity region combined with the reduction in brightness of the directly forward region constitutes relatively increasing the illuminance of a partial range within the irradiation range of the beam.
’121 expressly contemplates automatic mode selection: the mode changeover switch 61 “can be arranged to detect the travel condition of the host vehicle using various sensors installed in the automobile, and then automatically change to a mode based on the detected travel condition” (col. 6, ll. 43–47), the modes including the wet road mode (col. 6, ll. 40–43). ’121 does not, however, expressly disclose the particular sensor employed, i.e., a sensor configured to detect at least rainfall or wet road condition around the own vehicle, wherein the controller performs the wet-road light distribution control when formation of a water film is estimated based on the detection results of that sensor.
’176 discloses a vehicular rain sensor comprising an imaging array sensor directed at the vehicle window from inside the vehicle and a control that responds to the output of the imaging array sensor to indicate precipitation at the surface of the window (’176, Abstract; claims 1 and 16; col. 11, ll. 37–49 (spatial-filtering detection of rain on windshield 32)). The rain sensor is incorporated in a vehicle headlight control system in which vehicle lighting control logic module 16 exchanges data with control circuit 13 and controls headlamps 18 to modify the headlight beam, the control including control of the intensity or pattern of the beam (col. 3, ll. 43–58; FIGS. 2–3). ’176 further teaches performing lighting control functions in response to detected atmospheric conditions such as fog or fine rain, including activating fog lights and inhibiting switching to high beams (col. 11, ll. 19–36), and controlling the windshield wipers in response to the indication of precipitation (col. 12, ll. 48–53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the automatic mode changeover expressly suggested by ’121 (col. 6, ll. 43–47) using a rain/precipitation sensor as taught by ’176 as one of the “various sensors installed in the automobile,” such that the wet road mode of ’121 is invoked automatically when the detection results of the sensor indicate rainfall or a wet road condition around the own vehicle (i.e., when formation of a water film on the road surface is estimated). ’121 itself supplies the express suggestion to detect the travel condition with vehicle-mounted sensors and change modes automatically; ’176 merely supplies a known sensor suited to detecting the travel condition (rainfall/wet road) to which the wet road mode of ’121 is directed, used for its established purpose of controlling headlamp beam intensity and pattern in response to detected precipitation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the combination in order to relieve the driver of the burden of manually selecting the appropriate light distribution mode and to ensure that the anti-dazzle wet-road light distribution is engaged promptly and reliably whenever wet-road conditions actually exist. The proposed combination amounts to no more than the automation of a manual activity (selection of the wet road mode) using a known sensor for its established purpose, yielding entirely predictable results. That such automation was conventional in the specific context of rainy-weather light distribution control is further evidenced by ’417, which teaches that the determination between running in normal condition and running in rainy weather “may be performed automatically by a raindrop sensor or the like” (’417, col. 7, ll. 12–15). See MPEP 2144.04(III); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, ’121 in view of ’176 renders obvious the system of claim 1 as set forth above. ’121 further discloses that the partial range is set as a fixed range: the high light intensity region boosted in the wet road mode is established by the fixed geometry of the wet road plate WS carried on the rotary shade 26 (or the preset third position of the slide shade plate S of the third embodiment) in combination with predetermined swivel and leveling amounts, i.e., a predetermined, fixed region of the light distribution pattern, rather than a range dynamically re-computed during operation (col. 5, ll. 23–39; col. 6, ll. 6–17; col. 8, ll. 1–26; col. 11, ll. 24–50; FIG. 2(d)).
Claims 2, 4 (as best understood), 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ’121 in view of ’176, and further in view of ’922 and ’762.
Regarding claim 2, ’121 in view of ’176 renders obvious the system of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose that the partial range is set within a capable irradiation range defined between (i) a right side boundary set based on a first road surface coordinate at which light from the headlights is regularly reflected from the road surface and incident on a first position of a first forward vehicle assumed to be present at the front right side of the own vehicle, and (ii) a left side boundary set based on a second road surface coordinate at which light is regularly reflected and incident on a second position of a second forward vehicle assumed to be present at the front left side.
’922 discloses a vehicle lamp that increases illumination of the road surface ahead of the vehicle under wet-road conditions while avoiding glare caused by regular (specular) reflection (’922, col. 1, ll. 17–33; col. 6, ll. 46–66). ’922 identifies a front close-distance region N around the V–V line on the road surface ahead of the vehicle in which normally (regularly) reflected light reaches the eyes of the driver of an oncoming vehicle, the normal reflection direction being close to the direction of that driver’s view (col. 7, ll. 1–9; FIGS. 2A–2B); ’922 further teaches that light normally reflecting in regions deviated to the left and right sides of region N fails to reach the oncoming driver’s eyes or is deviated from the direction of the driver’s view (col. 7, ll. 9–17), and therefore forms irradiation light distribution patterns P(LM1) and P(LM2) in the regions deviated rightward and leftward from region N, so as to enhance visibility of the road surface without emitting glare to the driver of the oncoming vehicle (col. 7, ll. 18–24; col. 2, ll. 22–34; col. 10, ll. 16–27; claims 1 and 7). ’922 quantifies the geometry of the boosted regions and of region N, teaching downward angle positions of 2°, 4°, 8°, and 10° corresponding to points approximately 20 m, 10 m, 5 m, and 4 m forward of the lamp at a lamp height of 0.7 m (col. 2, ll. 39–51; col. 9, l. 60 – col. 10, l. 2), and locates region N where the luminous intensity between the pairs of left and right peaks M(4), M(8) of the lateral luminous intensity distributions is low (col. 9, ll. 32–46; FIGS. 5A–5B). ’922 thereby teaches setting a boosted partial range whose boundary is established based on the road surface positions at which light from the lamp is regularly reflected toward the eye position of the driver of a forward (oncoming) vehicle.
’762 discloses a vehicle driving assistance apparatus that projects light patterns on the road surface around the own vehicle and addresses the glare produced when the road surface is wet in the rain, teaching that for light incident on a wet road surface at a shallow angle the regularly reflected component dominates and may directly enter the eyes of the driver of an oncoming vehicle, strongly dazzling that driver (’762, col. 1, l. 63 – col. 2, l. 11). ’762 analyzes the regular-reflection paths from the wet road surface to the occupants of surrounding vehicles as a function of vehicle position and relative distance, including expressly the case in which regularly reflected light from the wet road surface enters the eyes of the driver of a preceding vehicle through the room mirror of the preceding vehicle, the intensity of the light reaching the eyes depending on the relative distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle (col. 6, ll. 40–58). ’762 further teaches suppressing illumination whose regular reflection would reach the eyes of drivers of other vehicles — including stopping a beam that would be projected onto the road surface in front of a following vehicle because the regularly reflected light may directly enter that driver’s eyes (col. 7, ll. 22–36), and distinguishing by boundary side the road-surface regions whose regular reflection can reach oncoming drivers (col. 12, ll. 1–21) — and quantifies the shallow-angle regular-reflection geometry using Fresnel reflectance calculations with lower limits on the angle formed by the light beam with the road surface (col. 5, ll. 3–33). ’762 thereby teaches determining glare-relevant road surface reflection positions with respect to a second position (a mirror) of a preceding vehicle, in dependence on the relative distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bound the relatively-increased partial range of ’121, as modified by ’176, between (i) a right side boundary set based on the road surface positions at which regularly reflected light would be incident on the eye position of the driver of a forward vehicle on one side of the own vehicle, as taught by ’922 (col. 7, ll. 4–24), and (ii) a left side boundary set based on the road surface positions at which regularly reflected light would be incident on the mirror of a preceding vehicle on the other side, as taught by ’762 (col. 6, ll. 40–58). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the road-surface area receiving increased illumination under wet-road conditions while ensuring that the increased illumination does not produce specular glare to either category of forward vehicle (oncoming or preceding), consistent with the express anti-dazzle objectives of ’121, ’922, and ’762. Because the boundaries in ’922 are established with respect to the geometry of regular reflection toward a driver assumed to be present in the oncoming lane rather than a specifically detected vehicle — ’922 disclosing no vehicle detection at all (col. 7, ll. 4–24) — the combination teaches boundaries set based on forward vehicles assumed to be present at the front right side and front left side of the own vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of ’121, ’176, ’922, and ’762 teaches the system of claim 2 as set forth above. As best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 4 requires that the partial range be set to a range smaller than the capable irradiation range. ’922 discloses forming localized light distribution patterns P(LM1) and P(LM2) extending along the lane marks within the glare-permissible regions rather than illuminating the entirety of those regions (’922, col. 7, ll. 18–32; FIGS. 2A–2B, 3). It would have been obvious to set the boosted partial range smaller than the full capable irradiation range in order to concentrate the available luminous flux on the portions of the road surface most useful to the driver (e.g., lane markings and the travel path), a matter of routine optimization of the size of an illumination region. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches that the first forward vehicle is an oncoming vehicle (’922, driver of the oncoming vehicle; col. 7, ll. 4–9; col. 2, ll. 28–34) and the second forward vehicle is a preceding vehicle (’762, preceding vehicle; col. 6, ll. 40–58).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches that the first position is a position estimated as an eye position of a driver of the oncoming vehicle (’922, regularly reflected light in region N reaching the eyes of the driver of the oncoming vehicle, the normal reflection direction being close to the direction of the driver’s view; col. 7, ll. 4–9) and the second position is a position estimated as a mirror position of the preceding vehicle (’762, regularly reflected light from the wet road surface entering the eyes of the driver of the preceding vehicle through the room mirror of the preceding vehicle; col. 6, ll. 50–58).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ’121 in view of ’176, ’922, and ’762, and further in view of ’810
Regarding claim 8, the combination of ’121, ’176, ’922, and ’762 teaches the system of claim 6 as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose that the controller does not perform the control to relatively increase the illuminance of the partial range when the own vehicle is traveling on a left hand curve, even when formation of the water film is estimated.
’810 discloses an apparatus for controlling an adaptive drive beam mode vehicle headlamp comprising a road state determining section that determines whether the road on which the vehicle is travelling is straight or curved when a preceding vehicle is present (’810, road state determining section 413; col. 6, ll. 20–33; camera-based determination detail at col. 7, ll. 31–59; cancellation by steering angle, with gyro sensor or car navigation data as express alternatives, at col. 8, ll. 1–19). When the road is determined to be straight, ’810 outputs a straight-mode illumination intensity pattern in which the illumination intensities of the areas adjacent to the light shielding region formed for the preceding vehicle are increased above the reference value — up to a maximum value of 100% duty against an 80% reference — to enhance visibility of objects near the preceding vehicle (col. 8, l. 59 – col. 9, l. 12; FIGS. 14A–14B). When the road is determined to be curved, ’810 instead outputs a curved-mode illumination intensity pattern in which the intensities of the areas adjacent to the light shielding region are made smaller than the reference value, increasing stepwise or continuously from zero away from the shielding region (col. 9, ll. 18–45; FIGS. 15A–15B; further examples at col. 9, l. 46 – col. 10, l. 19; FIG. 20; claims 1–2). ’810 expressly explains why elevated illumination adjacent to the controlled region is withheld on curves: highly reflective roadside objects such as guide rails, sound shielding walls, and reflectors are closer to the subject vehicle on a curved road, so that the adjacent light distributions are strongly affected by such objects and the resulting intensity contrast is objectionably large (col. 2, ll. 27–41). ’810 thereby teaches conditioning headlamp illuminance-modification control on the curvature state of the road, and in particular withholding, on a curved road, the adjacent-region illuminance increase that is performed on a straight road.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined system so that the controller suppresses (does not perform) the illuminance-increasing control when the own vehicle is traveling on a curve toward the boosted region (e.g., a left hand curve) even when water film formation is estimated, as suggested by ’810. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that on a curved road the geometric relationship between the boosted region, the regular-reflection paths, and the positions of forward vehicles is displaced from the straight-road geometry upon which the boundaries of the capable irradiation range are premised, such that continuing the boost on the curve risks directing specularly reflected light into the eyes or mirrors of forward vehicles. Suppressing the boost under the curve condition, in the manner ’810 conditions its intensity patterns on road curvature, predictably preserves the anti-glare function of the combined system. ’810 further contemplates curved-mode patterns that are asymmetrical with respect to the shielded region, treating the left and right sides of the light distribution differently in dependence on road geometry and traffic rule (col. 10, ll. 20–32; FIGS. 18A–18B), evidencing that direction-specific application of the curve-conditioned control (e.g., to a left hand curve specifically) was within the level of ordinary skill.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ’121 in view of ’176, and further in view of ’922.
Regarding claim 9, ’121 in view of ’176 renders obvious the system of claim 1 as set forth above. ’922 teaches that light regularly reflected in the front close-distance region of the road surface directly ahead of the own vehicle reaches the eyes of the driver of an oncoming vehicle, with the reflection direction close to the direction of that driver’s view, producing great glare (’922, region N; col. 7, ll. 1–9; col. 9, ll. 32–46; FIGS. 2A–2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of the combined system so as not to perform the control to relatively increase the illuminance of the partial range when an oncoming vehicle is present directly in front of the own vehicle, even when water film formation is estimated, because ’922 teaches that under that positional relationship regularly reflected light from the illuminated road surface is directed substantially into the oncoming driver’s line of sight, and one of ordinary skill would have suppressed the boost under that condition to preserve the anti-dazzle objective common to ’121 and ’922.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ’121 in view of ’176, and further in view of ’427.
Regarding claim 10, ’121 in view of ’176 renders obvious the system of claim 1 as set forth above. To the extent ’121 is not relied upon as disclosing a first unit capable of irradiating the low beam and a separate second unit capable of irradiating the partial range with light, ’427 discloses a vehicle headlamp comprising a lamp forming a low beam distribution pattern and an additional mode lamp forming an additional light distribution pattern, wherein the additional mode lamp comprises a plurality of separate light sources each generating an illuminance of a corresponding partial area of the additional light distribution pattern (’427, claims 6–7; low-beam mode lamp 20L and high-beam mode lamp 20H accommodated as separate lamps within the headlamp, col. 3, ll. 34–48; FIG. 1; light source 26 of the high-beam mode lamp divided into separate light sources 26a and 26b whose illumination is separately controlled by the headlamp control ECU 40, each forming a corresponding partial area of the additional (high-beam mode) light distribution pattern, col. 4, ll. 25–47; FIG. 2; the high-beam mode light distribution pattern PH constituting an additional light distribution pattern above the cut-off lines of the low-beam pattern PL, col. 8, ll. 36–43; FIG. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the wet-road illuminance-increasing control of the combined system using a first unit that irradiates the low beam and a second unit that irradiates the partial range, as taught by ’427, because the use of a dedicated additional lamp unit to add light to a selected partial area of the forward field is a known headlamp architecture for regional illuminance control, and its application here is a simple substitution of one known regional-illuminance mechanism (shade changeover and axis deflection in ’121) for another (a dedicated additional unit in ’427) with predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, ’427 further discloses a light source capable of increasing or decreasing an illuminance of a partial area of the light distribution pattern under the control of the control unit while the low beam distribution is irradiated (’427, claim 2; capability of increasing or decreasing the illuminance in a partial area of the high-beam mode light distribution pattern, col. 4, ll. 33–38; division illumination control adjusting the separate light sources to additionally illuminate light with respect to the low-beam light distribution pattern, including setting the illuminance of a partial area below a glare threshold or to zero while a partial area where no front running vehicle exists is added to the low-beam pattern, col. 5, l. 63 – col. 6, l. 37), corresponding to a third unit capable of increasing or decreasing the illuminance of the partial range while capable of irradiating the low beam. The motivation to combine is the same as set forth for claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ’121 in view of ’176, and further in view of ’427 and ’417.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, ’121 in view of ’176 teaches a vehicle headlight system comprising a pair of headlights, a first sensor configured to detect at least rainfall or wet road condition, and a controller configured to relatively increase the illuminance of a partial range of the beam when formation of a water film is estimated based on the detection results of the first sensor, for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The combination does not expressly disclose: a second sensor configured to detect the position, the vehicle type, and the relative distance of an other vehicle present at the front right side or front left side of the own vehicle; estimating the eye position of the driver of the other vehicle based on the detected position, vehicle type, and relative distance; calculating in real time a first road surface coordinate at which light from the headlights is regularly reflected and incident on the estimated eye position; setting a light shielding range based on the calculated coordinate; and controlling the irradiation state so as not to relatively increase the illuminance within the light shielding range.
’427 discloses a vehicle headlamp comprising a detection device that detects a front running vehicle ahead of the own vehicle, wherein, when the front running vehicle is included in a partial area of the light distribution pattern, the control unit controls the light source such that the illuminance of the partial area containing the front running vehicle is made lower than that of other areas (’427, claims 2 and 7; vehicle detection device 150 comprising an image sensing camera and an image recognizing unit that recognizes the existence of a front running vehicle, such as an oncoming vehicle or a leading vehicle, and detects the inter-vehicle distance between the recognized front running vehicle and the own vehicle, col. 5, ll. 26–42; division illumination control lowering the illuminance of the partial area corresponding to the detected vehicle, including below a glare threshold or to zero, col. 5, l. 63 – col. 6, l. 37). ’427 thereby teaches a second sensor that detects the position and the relative distance of another vehicle and a controller that sets, in real time in accordance with the detected position, a range within which illuminance is not increased (is reduced) relative to the remainder of the pattern.
’417 discloses a projector-type vehicular headlamp that addresses the glare produced for oncoming drivers when, during running with low-beam light in rainy weather, light reaching the road surface ahead of the vehicle is regularly reflected by the road surface toward a space above the cut-off line of the low-beam distribution pattern (’417, col. 2, ll. 8–13). ’417 provides a liquid crystal shutter having a second area Z2 for blocking the light that would otherwise be emitted from the projection lens and reflected by the road surface ahead of the vehicle toward the space above the cut-off line (claim 1; col. 6, ll. 44–54). During running in rainy weather with low-beam light, the second area Z2 is brought into a light shielding mode, forming a dark portion A0 on the road surface ahead of the vehicle such that the amount of light regularly reflected by the rain-wet road surface toward area B — the region closely above the cut-off line that is irradiated by the regular reflection — is significantly reduced, effectively preventing glare for oncoming drivers (col. 7, ll. 4–12; col. 8, ll. 23–36; FIGS. 4A–4B). ’417 further teaches shaping the shielded area as a generally inverted trapezoid so that its inverted projection image generally matches the shape of a road of a certain width on the road surface ahead of the vehicle (col. 9, l. 60 – col. 10, l. 7), and teaches that the determination between running in normal condition and running in rainy weather may be performed automatically by a raindrop sensor or the like (col. 7, ll. 12–15). ’417 thereby teaches setting a light shielding range on the basis of the road-surface region whose regular reflection would reach a forward driver under wet conditions, in a system in which the rainy-weather light distribution is invoked automatically by a rain sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined system of ’121 and ’176 to include a second sensor that detects the position, type, and relative distance of forward vehicles, as is conventional in adaptive driving beam systems exemplified by ’427; to estimate therefrom the eye position of the driver of the detected vehicle (the eye point being a known function of vehicle type — e.g., passenger car versus truck — and relative position/distance); to calculate in real time the road surface position at which light from the headlights would be regularly reflected into the estimated eye position, as taught by the regular-reflection geometry of ’417; and to set a light shielding range based on that position within which the illuminance-increasing control is not performed. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to extend the anti-glare protection of the combined system from assumed vehicle positions to the actual, detected positions of real forward vehicles, thereby preventing specular glare under the full range of encountered traffic geometries while retaining the visibility benefit of the increased illumination elsewhere in the pattern. The real-time adaptation of a light distribution boundary to a detected vehicle position is the established operating principle of adaptive driving beam control as evidenced by ’427, and its application to the wet-road regular-reflection shielding of ’417 yields predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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, and provided the objection to claim 5 set forth above is addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach or suggest determining the right side boundary based on a first line segment as a collection of first road surface coordinates obtained by setting the relative distance between the first forward vehicle and the own vehicle within a predetermined distance, and determining the left side boundary based on a second line segment as a collection of second road surface coordinates obtained by setting the relative distance between the second forward vehicle and the own vehicle within a predetermined distance, in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 2. While ’922 teaches bounding an illuminance-increased region based on the region of the road surface whose regularly reflected light reaches the eyes of an oncoming driver, and ’762 teaches consideration of regularly reflected light entering a preceding vehicle’s room mirror, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest constructing the boundaries as line segments formed as collections of computed road surface reflection coordinates obtained by varying the assumed relative distance of the respective forward vehicles over a predetermined range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. Patent No. 9,494,288 (matrix-LED AFS lamp disclosing wet beam (WL) light distribution control in which the light quantity on a road surface region in front of the own vehicle is lowered when raining to suppress glare experienced by oncoming vehicles); U.S. Patent No. 12,077,093 (vehicle lighting device in which a rain sensor and environmental information indicating a wet road surface cause a lamp control ECU to switch operation modes of a low-beam unit and a projector unit) [verify prior-art date]; U.S. Patent No. 7,021,791 (vehicular headlamp with rain-mode light distribution in which the road surface just in front of the own vehicle is not irradiated to avoid specular-reflection glare to oncoming drivers).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
7/11/2026
Prosecution Insights