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 .
The present Office Action is in response to Applicants’ filing of August 4, 2026. Claims 1-4 are presented for examination, with Claim 1 being the only one in independent form.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0001846 (“Hori”) in view of EP 2 792 585 A1 (“Kosugi”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hori discloses a headlight device (1 in Fig. 1; [0024]) to be employed in a leaning vehicle that has a vehicle body leaning leftward when turning left and leaning rightward when turning right (100; [0023]), the headlight device comprising:
a headlight including a plurality of light sources, which is configured to respectively light a plurality of areas (1 in Fig. 1; [0024]; irradiates a plurality of areas shown in Figs. 5-6; [0036]) that include:
a single left oblique area that are located in an ahead-driving direction, and on the left, with respect to the headlight of the leaning vehicle (PCL1-3; [0041]), the left oblique area having a maximum luminous intensity point thereof above a horizontal reference line (H-H, L-L),
a single right oblique area that are located in the ahead-driving direction, and on the right, with respect to the headlight of the leaning vehicle (PCR1-3; [0041]), the right oblique area each having a maximum luminous intensity point thereof above the horizontal reference line (H-H, L-L), and
one or more lower areas that are located in the ahead-driving direction with respect to the headlight of the leaning vehicle (PL; [0038]), the one or more lower areas each having a maximum luminous intensity point thereof below the horizontal reference line (H-H, L-L); and
a control device (5 in Fig. 2; [0025]) that controls the headlight to light at least the left oblique area and the right oblique area based on adaptive lighting control ([0028]; Adaptive Driving Beam (ADB) mode; [0034]), such that when an oncoming vehicle or a vehicle ahead is in one of the areas lit by the headlight, the light for the one area is reduced or turned off (as shown in Figs. 5-6; [0052]; [0057]), wherein:
when the leaning vehicle is upright (Fig. 5), the control device instructs the headlight to light the left oblique areas (PCL1-3), the right oblique area (PCR1-3), and at least one of the one or more lower areas (PL), each of the left oblique area and the right oblique area being lit based on the adaptive lighting control ([0028]; Adaptive Driving Beam (ADB) mode; [0034]) and spreading more outwardly in a left-right direction than any of said at least one lower area ([0044]; [0048]; [0052]), and
wherein when the leaning vehicle is upright (Fig. 5), the horizontal reference line (H-H, L-L) extends in the left-right direction through an upper edge of a low-beam area (PL), the low-beam area being one of the one or more lower areas that is at a center with respect to the left-right direction ([0038]).
Hori fails to specifically disclose that “an uppermost point of the left oblique area is positioned further leftward than a leftmost point of each of the one or more lower areas, and an uppermost point of the right oblique area is positioned further rightward than a rightmost point of each of the one or more lower areas.”
However, Kosugi, in the same field of endeavor teaches an uppermost point of the left oblique area is positioned further leftward than a leftmost point of each of the one or more lower areas, and an uppermost point of the right oblique area is positioned further rightward than a rightmost point of each of the one or more lower areas (Figs. 5-8; [0107]-[0109]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the headlight device as disclosed by Hori with the oblique areas as taught by Kosugi, in order to ensure visibility over a road surface at a long distance, as evidenced by Kosugi ([0114]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hori in view of Kosugi further teaches wherein: each of the leftmost point of the left oblique area (PCL1-3 of Hori) and the rightmost point of the right oblique area (PCR1-3 of Hori) is positioned above the horizontal reference line (H-H, L-L of Hori).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hori in view of Kosugi further teaches wherein: the left oblique area has a lower edge, a left end of which extends upwardly while extending leftward (PCL1-3 in Figs. 5-6; [0041] of Hori), and the right oblique area has a lower edge, a right end of which extends upwardly while extending rightward (PCR1-3 in Figs. 5-6; [0041] of Hori).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hori in view of Kosugi further teaches a leaning vehicle comprising the headlight device according to claim 1 (Fig. 1; [0024] of Hori).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed August 4, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, the examiner is interpreting the claim limitation “a single left oblique area” as corresponding to 60 in Fig. 1B of their application, the claim limitation “a single right oblique area” as corresponding to 70, both oblique areas being “above the horizontal line” as corresponding to HL, and the claim limitation “one or more lower areas” as corresponding to 80 in Fig. 1B of their application.
Hori, in Fig. 5, as applied and cited for these features, discloses “a single left oblique area” (PC formed by PCL1-3), “a single right oblique area” (PC formed of PCR1-3), and “one or more lower areas” (PL), meeting the above claim limitations.
In contrast to Applicants’ argument that Hori and Kosugi, alone or in combination fail to disclose, teach or suggest “an uppermost point of the left oblique area is positioned further leftward than a leftmost point of each of the one or more lower areas, and an uppermost point of the right oblique area is positioned further rightward than a rightmost point of each of the one or more lower areas,” the examiner cannot concur with Applicants’ argument, because most of the left and right oblique areas (PC) of Hori are positioned further leftward and rightward, respectively, than the respective lower areas (PL).
The examiner notes that it is not specifically clear in Fig. 5 of Hori whether the “uppermost points” of the left and right oblique areas are further leftward and rightward, respectively, from the lower areas; however, the examiner cites Kosugi for these features (see, Figs. 5-8, LL, LR, and LB, in particular when the leaning vehicle is upright), thereby meeting all the presently claimed limitations.
For at least the reasons stated above, the rejections of all pending claims are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEDRO C FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 1-(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.
/PEDRO C FERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ALEXANDER H TANINGCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
