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 Statements filed 30 October 2025 and 3 June 2026 have been considered by the Examiner. Both were filed before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits; accordingly, neither a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) nor the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) is required. See 37 CFR 1.97(b). Initialed copies of Form PTO/SB/08 accompany this action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d) based on an application filed in Japan. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365 / 120 based on International Application No. PCT/JP2024/005312.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0039], line 2: "the controller may be structure to enable" should read "structured."
Paragraph [0051], line 1: "the low beam light distribution may has Z-shaped pattern" is grammatically incorrect.
Paragraphs [0066] and [0110]: "with a second bam BM2" should read "beam"; "The first are 6 and the second area 8" should read "area."
Paragraphs [0049] and [0054] are internally inconsistent. Paragraph [0049] states that, at the end point of the uphill road, the controller increases the height of the second cutoff line on the oncoming lane side, while paragraph [0054] states that, at the end point of the uphill road, the controller decreases the height of the second horizontal cutoff line. Paragraphs [0127]–[0128] and FIG. 13 describe lowering the right horizontal cutoff line CLa at the end point of the uphill road, consistent with [0054] and inconsistent with [0049]. Clarification is required.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 11 are directed, respectively, to a controller and to a program product for controlling a variable light distribution lamp. The variable light distribution lamp is recited only as the article upon which the claimed controller or program product operates; it is not positively recited as an element of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the recitations directed to the structure of the lamp (the patterning device, the plurality of pixels, the emission of a low beam corresponding to the input image) are given patentable weight only to the extent they impose a structural or functional limitation upon the claimed controller or program product. See MPEP 2111.02(II) and MPEP 2115.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 recites "A program product for a controller structured to control a variable light distribution lamp... the program product being structured to cause a processor to [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. Paragraphs [0077] and [0118] state only that the processing unit 134 "may be implemented by combining hardware such as microcontroller or CPU, with a software program product," and paragraph [0166] 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 controller structured to control a variable light distribution lamp,--
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6–10 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites that the controller is structured to independently control "a height of a first horizontal cutoff line on the vehicle lane side relative to the elbow point, and a height of a second horizontal cutoff line on the opposite side relative to the elbow point."
Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, already recites that the controller is structured to independently control "a height of a first cutoff line on a vehicle lane side relative to an elbow point... and a height of a second cutoff line on the opposite side relative to the elbow point."
It is unclear whether the "first horizontal cutoff line" and "second horizontal cutoff line" of claim 6 are the same lines as the "first cutoff line" and "second cutoff line" of claim 1, further characterized as horizontal, or whether they are additional and distinct cutoff lines. If the former, the claim recites the same limitation twice; if the latter, the claim requires four independently controlled cutoff lines, for which the Examiner finds no support in the disclosure. The specification at paragraphs [0109] and [0123] indicates that CLa and CLc are the same lines described in claim 1, suggesting the former reading, but the claim language does not so state.
Claims 7–10 depend from claim 6 and are rejected for the same reason.
Suggested amendment:
Recasting claim 6 in the following form would overcome this rejection:
The controller according to claim 1, wherein the light distribution of the low beam has a Z-shaped pattern, --and the controller is structured to independently control a height of a first horizontal cutoff line on the vehicle lane side relative to the elbow point, and a height of a second horizontal cutoff line on the opposite side relative to the elbow point-- the first cutoff line is a first horizontal cutoff line, and the second cutoff line is a second horizontal cutoff line.
Note: Claims 7–10 would then be amended to recite "the first cutoff line" and "the second cutoff line" consistently.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daicho et al. (US 2004/0052083 A1, published 18 March 2004, hereinafter "Daicho") in view of Albou et al. (US 11,162,657 B2, issued 2 November 2021, hereinafter "Albou").
Regarding claim 1, Daicho discloses a controller for controlling a variable light distribution lamp.
Daicho discloses a vehicle headlamp apparatus 10 comprising a headlamp 11 that emits a beam having a cut-off line, and a light distribution control means 12 comprising an illumination control means 13 and a driving means 14, the light distribution control means 12 vertically controlling the cut-off line of the headlamp (¶¶[0052]–[0054]; FIG. 3). The light distribution control means 12 is a controller for controlling a lamp whose light distribution is variable, as claimed.
Daicho further discloses that the height of the cut-off line is varied in accordance with a driving scene. The image capture means 15 and image processor 16 recognize white lines, the terminal end of the road, and the presence and position of leading and oncoming vehicles (¶¶[0055]–[0058]; FIG. 3), and the cut-off line is raised, lowered, or maintained accordingly (¶¶[0037]–[0040], [0063]–[0068]; FIGS. 5–8, 10, 13).
Daicho further discloses independent control of a first cutoff line on a vehicle lane side and a second cutoff line on the opposite side, relative to an elbow point. At paragraph [0069], Daicho states that "the cut-off line can be controlled separately for a subject vehicle driving lane and an oncoming vehicle driving lane," which "can be attained by dividing the screen for defining the cut-off line into a screen for the subject vehicle driving lane and a screen for the oncoming vehicle driving lane and controlling them so as to move individually." FIG. 9 illustrates the result: a cut-off line ILcut(L) is controlled based on the rear lamps 23im of the leading vehicle 22im on the left side of a centerline 27im, and a cut-off line ILcut(R) is controlled based on the headlamps 26im of the oncoming vehicle 25im on the right side of the centerline 27im. Daicho claims this arrangement at its own claim 7.\
The centerline 27im of Daicho's FIG. 9 is the vertical line dividing the subject vehicle driving lane from the oncoming vehicle driving lane in the projected light distribution. Daicho describes at paragraph [0052] a cut-off line of the Z-beam type, having "a right side part which extends horizontally below a horizontal line which intersects the optical axis on a right side in the transverse direction of the vehicle and a left side part which extends horizontally at a position slightly above the right side part on a left side in the transverse direction of the vehicle... connected to each other by a central portion which inclines upwardly toward the left side." The junction between the horizontal right-side portion and the upwardly inclining central portion of this Z-shaped cut-off line is the elbow point, and it lies on the vertical centerline about which Daicho's separate left/right control of paragraph [0069] is organized. Daicho therefore discloses independently controlling the height of a first cutoff line on one lane side of the elbow point and the height of a second cutoff line on the opposite side of the elbow point, in accordance with a driving scene.
Daicho does not expressly disclose that the variable light distribution lamp comprises a patterning device having a plurality of pixels whose luminance is independently controllable according to an input image, the lamp being structured to emit a low beam having a light distribution corresponding to the input image. Daicho instead forms the cut-off line with a screen or shade that is displaced mechanically by a solenoid or motor (¶¶[0053]–[0054]).
Albou discloses a vehicle light device comprising a light module having a semiconductor light source S divided into a plurality of selectively activatable light zones, and a shaping optic O arranged such that each light zone is imaged as a single pixel p of a global image I, the global image forming a low beam F projected ahead of the vehicle (Albou, FIGS. 1, 4; description of the light module M and light source S). The low beam F so formed exhibits a horizontal cut-off line 41 and an oblique cut-off line 42 (Albou, FIG. 4).
Albou discloses that the luminance of the individual light zones is independently controllable. The light source is mounted on an electronic card carrying a driving device 29 that selectively powers each light zone (Albou, claims 11–13). Albou states that a control signal corresponding to a given light beam shape, comprising a spatial distribution of the light intensity, is transcribed into activation — optionally at a given intensity, or deactivation of the individual light zones. That spatial distribution of light intensity, sent to the driving device and mapped one-to-one onto the pixels of the projected beam, is an input image within the meaning of the claims: it specifies, pixel by pixel, the luminance of the emitted light distribution. Albou further discloses a control method comprising sending a control signal corresponding to a given light beam and selecting the light zones to be powered on the basis of that signal.
Albou further discloses that the height of the cut-off line is set and varied by the boundary between the activated and deactivated pixel rows. The row of activated light zones at the upper edge of the lit pattern produces the pixels immediately beneath the horizontal cut-off line 41 and thereby forms that cut-off line (Albou, FIG. 4). Switching on the next row above raises the horizontal cut-off line of the low beam by 0.4°; FIG. 4 depicts a lower limit image I′ with a cut-off line 41′ and an upper limit image I″ with a cut-off line 41″, between which several rows of pixels lie, and Albou describes switching those rows on successively to produce a progressive upward movement of the cut-off line. Albou claims this expressly at claim 16: the light beam and/or the cut-off line are displaceable by activation and/or deactivation of certain ones of the selectively activatable light zones.
Albou further discloses that this cut-off height adjustment is performed in accordance with a driving scene. Albou describes raising the cut-off line to convert the low beam into a motorway beam and lowering it to convert the low beam into a town beam; and describes a computer that, from data received from sensors including a camera, determines the inclination of the vehicle and sets the position of the low beam in real time so as not to dazzle the drivers of oncoming vehicles or of vehicles being followed.
Albou also discloses separately controllable left-side and right-side upper portions of the low beam. In the embodiment of FIG. 5, a bottom portion 55 is switched on whenever a low beam is produced, while a top right portion 56 and a top left portion 57 are switched on or off independently of one another. In the embodiment of FIG. 7, one group of pixel rows (rows 73) forms the horizontal cut-off line and a separate group of triangular and trapezoidal pixel rows (rows 75) is switched on or off to form the oblique cut-off line for right-hand or left-hand traffic. Albou therefore confirms that the two cut-off segments on either side of the junction between the horizontal and oblique portions can be addressed independently in a pixelated low beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Daicho's cut-off line using the pixelated light source and driving device of Albou in place of Daicho's mechanically displaced screen, for the following reasons:
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Both Daicho's movable screen and Albou's array of selectively activatable light zones are art-recognized means for defining the upper boundary of a low beam light distribution and for varying the height of that boundary. Substituting one for the other yields the predictable result of a low beam cut-off line whose height can be varied. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Daicho expressly invites the substitution. At paragraph [0053], Daicho states that "There can be adopted various methods for forming beams having the aforesaid cut-off lines," describing two mechanical alternatives and stating that "a variety of methods can be adopted." A person of ordinary skill would have understood Daicho's cut-off-forming mechanism to be a matter of design choice among known equivalents.
Motivation supplied by Daicho's own stated objective and by Albou's stated advantage. Daicho's paragraph [0069] arrangement requires physically dividing the cut-off-defining screen into two independently movable parts, each with its own actuator. Implementing the same separate left/right control with Albou's pixelated source accomplishes Daicho's stated purpose — controlling the two lane-side cut-off segments individually — with no moving parts at all. Albou identifies precisely this benefit: it states that the apparent displacement of the beam is produced with no mechanical displacement device, while achieving a fluidity of movement close to that obtained by mechanical correctors or actuators, and that a light module is thereby obtained which generates an adjustable low beam despite having no mechanical actuators. Albou further teaches that the vertical adjustment step can be as fine as 0.4°, or 0.1° in the higher-resolution central zone — finer than the mechanical travel increments available to Daicho's screen-and-solenoid arrangement. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the substitution in order to eliminate the two actuators Daicho's separate lane-side control would otherwise require, and to obtain finer and smoother control of each cut-off segment.
Reasonable expectation of success. Both references address the same problem in the same field — setting the height of the upper cut-off of a motor vehicle low beam so as to maximize forward visibility without dazzling leading and oncoming vehicles — and Albou's light module is expressly presented as a drop-in means of producing a regulatory low beam with a horizontal and an oblique cut-off. Nothing in either reference suggests any incompatibility.
Regarding claim 12, Daicho in view of Albou discloses a vehicle lamp apparatus comprising the variable light distribution lamp itself in combination with the controller. As set forth above, Albou discloses the variable light distribution lamp including the patterning device and emitting the low beam corresponding to the input image, and Daicho discloses the controller structured to control the light distribution of the low beam and to independently control the height of the first cutoff line on the vehicle lane side and the height of the second cutoff line on the opposite side relative to the elbow point, in accordance with a driving scene. The rationale set forth above applies equally.
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses a program product for a controller structured to control a variable light distribution lamp, the program product causing a processor to determine a driving scene, to independently determine the heights of the first and second cutoff lines in accordance with the driving scene, and to generate the input image specifying the light distribution of the low beam. Daicho's illumination control means 13 executes a program that determines the driving scene from the captured image and sets the cut-off line position accordingly (¶¶[0071]–[0088], [0102]–[0117]; FIGS. 10, 13, Daicho expressly describes "a switch for activating a program for controlling the cut-off line through a flowchart shown in FIG. 10"). Generating the input image that specifies the light distribution follows from the substitution of Albou's pixelated light source, which is driven by a control signal specifying a spatial distribution of light intensity across the pixels of the beam.
Claims 2–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daicho in view of Albou, as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 2–5 recite the four permutations of raising one of the two cutoff lines while maintaining the other at four hill transitions:
Claim
Location
Raise
Maintain
2
start point of uphill road
first (vehicle lane side)
second
3
end point of downhill road
first
second
4
end point of uphill road
second (oncoming lane side)
first
5
start point of downhill road
second
first
Daicho discloses controlling the height of the cut-off line in response to detected hill geometry. At paragraph [0040] and FIGS. 2A–2B, Daicho describes that on a hill or upward slope 5, the cut-off line ILcut of the beam IL is located near the top 6 of the hill, and that as the subject vehicle 1 approaches the top 6, that is, as it reaches the end point of the uphill road, "the cut-off line ILcut is lowered gradually... and therefore, even in the event that an oncoming vehicle 7 appears near the top of the hill, there is caused no risk that a glare is given to the oncoming vehicle." Conversely, at paragraphs [0037]–[0039] and FIGS. 1A–1B, Daicho describes raising the cut-off line to the limit angle at which the road boundary can still be captured, so as to extend the illuminated range ahead. Daicho thus teaches raising the cut-off line to extend forward visibility on the approach to a slope, and lowering it on the oncoming-lane side as the crest is reached in order to avoid glare to a vehicle appearing over the crest.
Daicho further teaches, at paragraph [0069] and FIG. 9, that these adjustments may be applied separately to the subject-vehicle-lane segment and the oncoming-lane segment, each being set by reference to the vehicle relevant to that lane, the leading vehicle for the subject vehicle lane, the oncoming vehicle for the oncoming lane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Daicho's separate lane-side control of paragraph [0069] to Daicho's hill-transition control of paragraph [0040], and thereby to raise the subject-vehicle-lane cut-off segment while maintaining the oncoming-lane segment at the start of an uphill road (claim 2), and to adjust the oncoming-lane segment while maintaining the subject-vehicle-lane segment at the end of an uphill road (claim 4). The motivation is that expressly stated by Daicho: the subject-vehicle-lane segment governs visibility of the road and of a preceding vehicle, while the oncoming-lane segment governs glare to an oncoming vehicle, and these two concerns arise from different objects at different positions and therefore call for separate treatment (¶¶[0069], [0040]).
The corresponding downhill limitations of claims 3 and 5 are the geometric complements of claims 2 and 4 and would have been obvious for the same reasons; the start and end points of a downhill road present the same relationship between road gradient, forward visibility, and glare to an oncoming vehicle, merely inverted. Selecting which of the two lane-side segments to move at a given transition, and by how much, is a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable — the trade-off between forward visibility and glare that Daicho identifies throughout (¶¶[0003], [0009]–[0010], [0034]–[0042]). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claims 6–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daicho in view of Albou, as applied to claims 1–5 above.
Note: These claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. The following rejection is made on the assumption that the "first horizontal cutoff line" and "second horizontal cutoff line" of claim 6 are the "first cutoff line" and "second cutoff line" of claim 1, further characterized as horizontal.
Regarding claim 6, Daicho discloses that the light distribution of the low beam has a Z-shaped pattern. At paragraph [0052], Daicho describes "a cut-off line of a beam which is referred to as a Z-beam," having "a right side part which extends horizontally below a horizontal line which intersects the optical axis on a right side in the transverse direction of the vehicle and a left side part which extends horizontally at a position slightly above the right side part on a left side in the transverse direction of the vehicle... connected to each other by a central portion which inclines upwardly toward the left side."
Daicho's Z-beam accordingly comprises a first horizontal cutoff line on one lane side of the elbow point and a second horizontal cutoff line on the opposite side of the elbow point, joined by an oblique central portion. Daicho further discloses independently controlling the heights of these two horizontal segments at paragraph [0069] and FIG. 9, as set forth in Rejection A above. Daicho also notes at paragraph [0003] that the contour is reversed for right-hand-traffic jurisdictions, consistent with the present specification at paragraph [0133].
Albou independently discloses the same Z-type geometry realized in a pixelated low beam: the low beam F of FIG. 4 has a horizontal cut-off line 41 on one side and an oblique cut-off line 42 on the other, and in FIG. 7 the horizontal cut-off line is formed by one group of pixel rows (rows 73) while the oblique cut-off line is formed by a separate group of triangular and trapezoidal pixel rows (rows 75) that are switched on or off according to whether the vehicle is in right-hand or left-hand traffic. Albou therefore establishes that each horizontal segment of the Z-shaped cut-off is separately addressable in the pixel array, so that Daicho's separate lane-side control of paragraph [0069] maps directly onto the pixelated implementation.
Regarding claims 7–10, these recite the same four hill-transition permutations as claims 2–5, expressed in terms of the first and second horizontal cutoff lines of the Z-shaped pattern. They are rejected on the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth in Rejection B above.
Conclusion
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
9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights