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 .
This is a response to the Applicants' file on 5/29/25. In virtue of this filing, claims 1-13 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/8/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 &1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4-7, line 1, should be deleted “A headlamp” and should be changed ---The headlamp---.
Claim 8, line 1, should be deleted “a headlamp” and should be inserted ---the headlamp---, line 3, should be deleted “Generating” and should be inserted ---generating---,line 6, should be deleted “Generating” and should be inserted ---generating---, line 8, should be deleted “Subtracting” and should be inserted ---subtracting---, line 10,should be deleted “Applying” and should be changed ---applying---, line 12, should be deleted “Mapping” and should be changed ---mapping---,line 14, should be deleted “Executing “ and should be inserted –executing---.
Claim 9, line 1, recite “one of the preceding claims”. It is unclear which claims can be depended and furthermore, claim 9 is a method claim and should be independent claim instead of dependent claim.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 9, line 14, should be deleted “the expiration of said” and should be inserted ---an expiration of timeout---.
Claim 10, line 1, should be deleted “A method” and should be inserted ---the method---.
Claim 11, line 1, should be deleted “A method” and should be changed to ---the method---.
Claim 12, line 1, should be deleted “A method” and should be changed ---the method---.
Claim 13, line 1, should be deleted “A method” and should be changed ---the method---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Marie et al (US Pub. No: 2022/0307678).
With respect to claim 1, Marie et al disclose a headlamp (100) (figure 2) comprising - a light source (231) comprising one or more LED-type diodes; - a power module (210) for supplying current to said light source (231), said power module being controlled by a control information or a control signal;
- a control module (220) for adjusting the light intensity generated by said light
source; and - an accelerometer (110) configured to provide at regular intervals data
representative of an acceleration of the headlamp along at least one horizontal axis and one vertical axis; said control module (220) comprises a circuit (221, 222, 223) configured to store and digitally process the data representative of said acceleration; wherein said control module (220) discriminates the accelerometer signals sensed along two horizontal axes X1 and Z1 with respect to the accelerometer signal sensed along a vertical axis Y1 so as to produce relevant acceleration data even when the lamp is being moved; characterized in that, - the control module (220) is configured to perform digital processing of said accelerometer data captured along at least one horizontal axis. Paragraphs [43-71].
Marie et al do not explicitly disclose the digital processing comprising high-pass filtering in order to detect a double peak occurring within a predefined time being representative of a double tap entered by the user; and wherein the detection of a double peak occurring within a predefined time controls a temporary increase, for a predefined duration, in the brightness of the lamp.
However, Marie et al disclose all same circuits into the headlamp and uplink and down link communication channel to the mobile phone as shown in figure 2 and paragraphs [43-67] for providing programing for user and the light is a headlamp configured to process accelerometer data to detect a user's fall in addition to his/her physical activity and configured to communicate with a mobile phone for the purpose of transmitting a message of alert. Paragraph [29].
Therefore, the limitations are not of patentable merits since it is directed to a manner of operating the control device which does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114.
With respect to claim 2, Marie et al disclose wherein the detection of a double tap results
in the control module (220) switching to a modification of the geometry of the light beam, for instance a wider beam. Paragraph [67].
With respect to claim 3, Marie et al disclose further comprising: a light sensor (120) for sensing light from the environment of the lamp holder, said control module (220) being configured to generate said control information or said control signal according to the information generated by the light sensor (120). Figure 2, paragraphs [43-47].
With respect to claim 4, Marie et al disclose comprising means for communicating with a
smartphone to enable the configuration of operating parameters, including the adjustment of said predefined duration being representative of a double tap entered by the user and/or said predefined duration of said increased brightness of the lamp. Paragraphs [63,133].
With respect to claim 5, Marie et al disclose figure 2, wherein the control module (220) configured to detect several series of closely spaced peaks in order to identify a control instruction for the headlamp.
With respect to claim 6, Marie et al disclose further comprising a mapping table stored within
non-volatile memories for storing an Impulse Acceleration Reference IAR vector along at least two axes to be associated with control instructions for controlling the headlamp. Figure 2, paragraphs [113,121,130].
With respect to claim 7, Marie et al disclose wherein said accelerometer produces
acceleration signals along the three axes and wherein the control module uses such
acceleration signals to produce corresponding acceleration data which are compared to said IAR vectors stored within said mapping tables for the purpose of extracting one control instruction to be automatically executed by said headlamp. Paragraphs [71,76].
Response to Amendment
Claims 8-13 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.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure. See prior arts/references listed on the PTO-892 form attached.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Minh Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1817. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taningco Alexander H can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Minh Tran/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights