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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 August 2025 has been 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)as being anticipated by Na et al. (US 2018/0372303; hereinafter ‘Na’).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Na discloses a vehicle lamp comprising:
an adaptive driving beam lamp (800; at least fig. 8A-12) having a plurality of independently luminance-controllable pixels (part of 860; as seen in at least fig. 12; as disclosed in paragraphs [0293-0303]) arranged in a matrix (as seen in fig. 12), and being structured to illuminate a first area that contains a cutoff line (CL; at least fig. 9) in a low beam light distribution (828; at least fig. 9), with a first beam ascribed to a luminance distribution of the plurality of pixels (as disclosed in at least paragraphs [0367-0368]);
a fixed light distribution lamp (part of 820) structured to cover a second area that contains a lower end of the low beam light distribution, and to illuminate the second area with a second beam having a fixed light distribution (as described in at least paragraph [0290]); and
a controller (870; at least figs. 8A-12) structured to set a predetermined luminance distribution independent of a pitch angle of a vehicle body to the plurality of pixels of the adaptive driving beam lamp, and to change a position of the cutoff line according to the pitch angle, so as to turn off at least one pixel that corresponds to an area above the cutoff line (as disclosed in at least paragraphs [0295-0303]).
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 2 and 4are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Na discloses the claimed invention as indicated above. Whilst Na teaches the structure capable of storing and processing the data as claimed, Na does not explicitly disclose the steps (as disclosed in at least paragraphs [0298-0368]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Na’s the controller (870) having the functional ability to store: a first image having the number of pixels in a horizontal direction equal to the number of pixels in a horizontal direction of the plurality of pixels, and the number of pixels in a vertical direction equal to the number of pixels in a vertical direction of the plurality of pixels, and having a predetermined luminance distribution mapped thereon; and a second image having the number of pixels in the horizontal direction equal to the number of pixels in the horizontal direction of the plurality of pixels, and the number of pixels in the vertical direction larger than the number of pixels in the vertical direction of the plurality of pixels, and having an area above the cutoff line filled with a first value, and an area below the cutoff line filled with a second value, the controller being structured to select a part that corresponds to the pitch angle, from the second image to create a third image, and to arithmetically process the third image and the first image, to create a fourth image to be set on the adaptive driving beam lamp.
One would have been motivated to do so to allow the headlight to create the desired light pattern based on the information collected. Furthermore, Applicant is respectfully reminded that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See also MPEP §2114.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure due to their teachings of adjustable vehicle headlights.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEAH S MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2719. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx 8:30am to 4:30pm.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571.272.7044. 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.
/LEAH MACCHIAROLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875