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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/9/25 & 6/9/26 are 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, 2, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mano et al. (WO 2021/070787 – cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 1,
Figures 3 and 10 of Mano disclose a vehicle lamp apparatus comprising:
a variable light distribution lamp (110) having a plurality of individually luminance-controllable pixels, and being structured to illuminate an area for high beam light distribution, with a first beam ascribed to luminance distribution of the plurality of pixels (Paragraphs 26-28); and
a controller (120) structured to receive, from a vehicle in a high beam mode, shade information that represents a left end position and a right end position in a horizontal direction of an area to be shaded, and to turn off at least one pixel, among the plurality of pixels, which is above a horizontal reference line that coincides with a horizontal cutoff line or set close to the horizontal cutoff line, and also is between the left end and the right end (Paragraphs 48-50).
With respect to claim 2,
Mano further teaches a fixed light distribution lamp (102) structured to illuminate an area that contains a bottom end of the low beam light distribution, with a second beam having a fixed light distribution (Paragraph 25).
With respect to claim 6,
Figures 3 and 10 of Mano disclose a control method for a variable light distribution lamp, the variable light distribution lamp having a plurality of individually luminance-controllable pixels, and being structured to illuminate an area for high beam light distribution, with a first beam ascribed to luminance distribution of the plurality of pixels, the control method comprising:
receiving, from a vehicle in a high beam mode, shade information that represents a left end position and a right end position in a horizontal direction of an area to be shaded (Paragraphs 33-34); and
turning off at least one pixel, among the plurality of pixels, which is above a horizontal reference line that coincides with a horizontal cutoff line or set close to the horizontal cutoff line, and also is between the left end and the right end (Paragraphs 48-50).
With respect to claim 7,
Figures 3 and 10 of Mano disclose a software program product for a variable light distribution lamp, the variable light distribution lamp having a plurality of pixels whose luminance is controllable according to image data, and being structured to illuminate an area for high beam light distribution, with a first beam ascribed to luminance distribution of the plurality of pixels,
the software program product being structured to cause a processing unit:
to acquire, from a vehicle in a high beam mode, shade information that represents a left end position and a right end position in a horizontal direction of an area to be shaded (Paragraphs 33-34); and
to generate the image data,
and wherein at least one pixel in the image data, which is above a horizontal reference line and between the left end and the right end, has a value that corresponds to the off state, the horizontal reference line coinciding with a horizontal cutoff line or being set close to the horizontal cutoff line (Paragraphs 48-50).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano in view of Daicho et al. (US 2004/0052083).
With respect to claim 3,
Mano teaches the invention as claimed, but is silent to wherein the controller is structured to vary a level of height of the reference line, according to a pitch angle of a vehicle body.
Daicho, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle headlamp apparatus that adjusts the horizontal cut off line (see Figures 2A and 2B and Paragraph 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the height of the reference line in accordance with the pitch angle of the vehicle body to reduce glare of an oncoming vehicle on a hill.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano in view of Hiratsuka et al. (US 2016/0033102).
With respect to claim 4,
Figures 3 and 10 of Mano disclose a controller (120) for controlling a variable light distribution lamp (110), the variable light distribution lamp having a plurality of individually luminance-controllable pixels, and being structured to illuminate an area for high beam light distribution, with a first beam ascribed to luminance distribution of the plurality of pixels (Paragraphs 26-28),
the controller comprising:
a processing unit structured to turn off at least one pixel, among the plurality of pixels, which is above a horizontal reference line that coincides with a horizontal cutoff line or set close to the horizontal cutoff line, and also is between the left end and the right end (Paragraphs 48-50).
However, Mano is silent to an interface circuit structured to receive, from a vehicle in a high beam mode, shade information.
Hiratsuka, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle illumination system that includes an imaging device, headlights and a controller (Paragraph 25). Hiratsuka further teaches that the controller is configured as a computer that executes control over the system as a whole and includes a CPU, a read only memory, a random access memory, a nonvolatile memory, and input/output interfaces (Paragraph 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include input/output interfaces in the controller of Mano as taught by Hiratsuka for the purpose of connecting the controller with other devices.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano and Hiratsuka in further view of Daicho et al. (US 2004/0052083).
With respect to claim 5,
The combination of Mano and Hiratsuka teaches the invention as claimed, but is silent to wherein the processing unit is structured to vary a level of height of the reference line, according to a pitch angle of a vehicle body.
Daicho, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle headlamp apparatus that is able to adjust the horizontal cut off line (see Figures 2A and 2B and Paragraph 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the height of the reference line in accordance with the pitch angle of the vehicle body to reduce glare of an oncoming vehicle on a hill.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 7 recites "A software program product for a variable light distribution lamp... the software program product being structured to cause a processing unit [determine a driving scene; independently determine a height of a first cutoff line...; generate the input image]."
The claim does not recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium, or any other tangible article of manufacture, upon which the program product resides. The specification does not supply such a limitation. Paragraph 43 state only that the processing unit 134 "may be implemented by a combination of a software program product, and a processing unit" and paragraph 43 repeats the claim language without further definition. Nothing in the disclosure defines "program product" as excluding a transitory form. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claimed "program product" therefore encompasses software per se and/or a transitory propagating signal. Neither is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and neither falls within any of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03(I); In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Suggested amendment:
Amending the preamble as follows would overcome this rejection, provided the amendment finds support in the disclosure as filed: --A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for a variable light distribution lamp, --.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jany Richardson whose telephone number is (571)270-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Alexander 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.
/JANY RICHARDSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights