DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 and 6-29 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on December 11, 2025.
Rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter are maintained.
Rejection of claims 1, 8, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to point out and distinctly claim what the inventor considers the invention are withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldner 1 is maintained.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, 17, 20, and 22-29 as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of He is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 4, 9, 12, and 21 as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of He and Waldner 2 is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 6-7, 15, and 18 as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of He and Lowenau is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 13-14 and 16 as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of He and Brede is withdrawn.
New rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, 17, 20, 22-23, and 26-29 as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of Hessel.
New rejection of claims 4, 9, 12, and 21 as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of Hessel and Waldner 2.
New rejection of claims 6-7, 15, and 18 as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of Hessel and Lowenau.
New rejection of claims 13-14 and 16 as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of Hessel and Brede.
New rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of Hessel and Yamasaki.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner is persuaded by the submitted amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
As an initial matter, the limitation of “invoke a propagation model to simulate…” has been identified at Step 2A, Prong 1 as a mathematical concept and therefore an abstract idea. The Specification is sparse on details as to how the propagation model operates. As claimed, “the propagation model is configured to determine the distorted pattern by translating the coordinate associated with each of the original sample points to a coordinate associated with the corresponding distorted sample point.” Claim 1. While the term “translating” is not defined in the Specification, the closest disclosure that describes behavior that can be reasonably interpreted as “translating” is: “[i]n some embodiments, the propagation model can include a mechanism or function to map a pixel point of the representation of the original beam pattern transmitted via the propagation of the composite beam to a pixel point of the representation of the distorted beam pattern. For example, the mechanism can include a transformation matrix of a shape function which interpolates a mapping solution between the discrete values (e.g. corresponding to distortion of individual pixels).” Specification at [0069]. “Transformation matrices,” a “shape function,” and “interpolation” are all mathematical concepts and, based on the disclosure, are encompassed by the “propagation model.” Thus, in light of the Specification, the model is clearly a mathematical concept and therefore an abstract idea.
The Response first asserts that “the Office does not address whether any other limitation [apart from “accessing an original pattern…”] of Claim 1 constitutes an inventive concept that satisfies Step 2B” Response at pg. 9. However, the only portion of the claim that is not identified as a judicial exception is the limitation of “accessing an original pattern…” and therefore any inventive concept must be embodied in that limitation.
An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, “we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?”) (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”). Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). MPEP 2106.05.
Because the limitation of “accessing an original pattern” is a type of additional element that courts have found does not amount to significantly more (at Step 2B) and the inventive concept (i.e., the “significantly more”) cannot arise from limitations that are themselves abstract ideas, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Response further asserts that the cases cited in the previous Office Action are not analogous to the present claims. However, as indicated in the Office Action, these cases are cited in support of the identification of “accessing an original pattern…” as an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (at Step 2A, Prong 2) nor amount to “significantly more.” See Office Action at pg. 9 (“For example, regarding ‘accessing an original pattern…,’ courts have found that ‘receiving or transferring data over a network’ is an extra-solution activity that is not significantly more than the recited judicial exception,” followed by citations in support). Thus it is irrelevant that “a device or method for simulation is not addressed in any of the cited cases by the Office” because the cases are not cited in support of the identification of the simulation as an abstract idea.
Regarding the appeal Ex Parte Francis, the USPTO has not designated this case as precedential nor informative and therefore arguments relating to that decision are not applicable to the present claims.
The Response asserts that “[t]he circumstances of claim 1 of the present application are similar to the circumstances of Ex Parte Francis and Diamond v. Diehr, where the execution of a physical process is controlled by running a computer program based on mathematical relationships.” Response at pg. 11. Further, the Response asserts that “[i]n claim 1, the physical process which may be controlled by running a computer program is the propagation of a composite electromagnetic beam.” Id. However, claim 1 is not directed to a “process” but is instead directed to “a device.” No computer program nor computer components are recited in the claim.1 Further, the claim does not include any limitations directed to controlling the propagation of a composite electromagnetic beam. Thus, Examiner is not persuaded by these arguments.
Regarding the precedential case Ex Parte Dejardins, the USPTO has issued guidance and announced changes to the MPEP in light of that decision. See USPTO Guidance Memorandum of December 5, 2025 (hereinafter the “Memorandum”). In that decision,
the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Memorandum at pg. 2, indicating amendments to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Thus, the claims were identified as reciting an abstract idea but additional elements were determined to reflect improvements that were further detailed in the specification. Because the only additional elements in the present claims are “accessing an original pattern…” and that limitation does not integrate the abstract idea (i.e., the simulation via the model) into a practical application, Examiner is not persuaded by the argument.
Accordingly, rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Regarding rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldner 1:
The Response asserts that the amended claims, which include “wherein the reduced order propagation model takes into account fewer parameters than the first propagation model” is not taught by Waldner 1. Examiner disagrees. As disclosed in Waldner 1, “The summation hardware can generate the overlayed light texture with (7) in parallel for each texture element. Computing time can be further reduced by processing only the summation (7) on elements with at least one pixel. For each element of the set {(u, v)|0 ≤ u ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 ≤ v ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 < |IPA(u, v)|} , (8) the simulation creates one thread so that elements that are always dark will never be accessed online.” Waldner 1 at 588, paragraph 2. Because the simulation “takes into account” fewer input values, the reference teaches “wherein the reduced order propagation model takes into account fewer parameters than the first propagation model.”
The Response makes no argument to the contrary other than to assert the lack of teaching by the reference. Further, the Response asserts that the limitation is not taught by Lowenau. However, Lowenau is not cited in the rejection of claim 19 and, with regards to the other claims in which Lowenau is asserted, is cited for teaching or suggesting other aspects of the claimed invention that are separate from the number of variables that are taken into account by a model.
Accordingly, rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldner 1 is maintained.
Regarding rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of He:
Examiner agrees that the claims, as amended to be directed to a “composite electromagnetic beam [that] is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle,” are no longer in the same field and endeavor as the claimed invention.
Accordingly, rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of He are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of mathematical calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that courts have found to be insufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a product, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
1. A device for simulation of a propagation of a composite electromagnetic beam, configured to:
access an original pattern for the composite electromagnetic beam comprising a plurality of original sample points from a computer-readable structure, wherein the composite electromagnetic beam is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle and each of the original sample points is associated with a coordinate; and
invoke a propagation model to simulate the propagation of the composite electromagnetic beam towards a target by determining a distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points corresponds to one of the plurality of original sample points, wherein
the propagation model is configured to determine the distorted pattern by translating the coordinate associated with each of the original sample points to a coordinate associated with the corresponding distorted sample point.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Simulations include mathematical calculations to generate results. Thus, a simulation is comprised of mathematical functions to produce output. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
A model includes inputs that are utilized to execute one or more mathematical functions to output a result of the mathematical calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
A distortion pattern is a transformation function that maps an input (i.e., the original pattern) to an output pattern, which is mathematical calculation that is comprised of one or more functions or matrix manipulations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
1. A device for simulation of a propagation of a composite electromagnetic beam, configured to:
access an original pattern for the composite electromagnetic beam comprising a plurality of original sample points from a computer-readable structure, wherein the composite electromagnetic beam is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle and each of the original sample points is associated with a coordinate; and
invoke a propagation model to simulate the propagation of the composite electromagnetic beam towards a target by determining a distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points corresponds to one of the plurality of original sample points, wherein
the propagation model is configured to determine the distorted pattern by translating the coordinate associated with each of the original sample points to a coordinate associated with the corresponding distorted sample point.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Receiving data is extra-solution activity that the courts have determined is “mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information…so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process…” MPEP 2106.05, discussing CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim 1 recites only abstract ideas and additional elements that courts have found to be insignificantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(d). For example, regarding “accessing an original pattern…,” courts have found that “receiving or transferring data over a network” is extra-solution activity that is not significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d), Subsection II(i). See also, e.g.. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites wherein the propagation model represents a geometric distortion of the composite electromagnetic beam. This limitation further specifies the type of propagation model that is being utilized to determine the distorted pattern. Because the propagation model is an abstract idea, specifying the type of model does not add additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 2 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the propagation model represents a chromatic distortion of the composite electromagnetic beam. This limitation further specifies the operations that are included in the model and does not add additional elements to claim 1. Thus, because the propagation model is an abstract idea, the limitation does not add additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the propagation model comprises sub-models and wherein each of the sub-models is related to a different frequency of the composite electromagnetic beam. This limitation further specifies the type of propagation model that is being utilized to determine the distorted pattern. Because the propagation model is an abstract idea, the limitation does not add additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein a ratio between a sample size of the original pattern and a sample size of the distorted pattern is: equal to 1;smaller than 1; or greater than 1. This limitation further specifies the input and output of the propagation model, which is an abstract idea, and does not add any additional elements to the claim. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein a sample size of: the original pattern, the distorted pattern, or the propagation model depends on one or more of the following parameters: a user input; a received information; a frequency of the original pattern and/or of the distorted pattern; a temperature in an environment of the composite electromagnetic beam; the original pattern and/or the distorted pattern itself. This limitation further specifies inputs of the model, outputs of the model, and the propagation model itself, which is an abstract idea. Further, the limitation includes additional elements of mere data gathering (e.g., temperature) and/or further specifies the operation of the propagation model. Accordingly, the claim does not add additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites wherein parameters including at least one member selected from the group consisting of the original pattern, of the distorted pattern, and/or the propagation model are time variant such that the parameters can be adjusted during the simulation. This limitation merely further specifies the type of input, output, and/or the propagation model itself and does not add additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites wherein the propagation model enables a simulation of the composite electromagnetic beam in real-time. This limitation further specifies the type of simulation that is performed by the model, which is an abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 9 is not patent eligible because it does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites wherein the composite electromagnetic beam is represented by a plurality of beam pixels and wherein the original pattern depends on which of the beam pixels are activated and which are deactivated. This limitation further specifies a source of the data gathered to provide to the model, which is an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and further does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites wherein the plurality of pixel beams are sourced from an electromagnetic wave system. This limitation further specifies a source of the data gathered to provide to the model, which is an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and further does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites wherein a representation of a first pixel beam is processed with the first propagation model and a representation of a second pixel beam is processed by a second propagation model. This limitation includes a second propagation model, which is an abstract idea, as previously indicated regarding the first propagation model recited in claim 1. Because the claim does not add additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and further do not add significantly more, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites configured to determine the distorted pattern based on the first propagation model and on representations of the activated pixel beams. The claim further specifies the operation of the model, which is an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites configured to: receive a second original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam; and determine a second distorted pattern based on the propagation model and on the second original pattern. The claim recites additional data gathering, which is an additional element that courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, the claim recites additional limitations regarding the operation of the propagation model, which is an abstract idea. Because the claim does not include additional elements that are significantly more than the claimed judicial exception, claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites further configured to: present a user interface indicating a difference of the distorted pattern in comparison to second distorted pattern determined by a measurement and/or in comparison to the second distorted pattern determined by a second propagation model. This claim recites an additional element of data outputting, which is an additional element that courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Accordingly, claim 15 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites wherein the propagation model represents an energy distortion of the composite electromagnetic beam. This limitation further specifies the type of simulation that is performed by the model, which is an abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 16 is not patent eligible because it does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 17
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
17. A method for generation of a reduced order propagation model for simulation of a composite electromagnetic beam in a plurality of patterns, comprising the steps:
accessing an original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam comprising a plurality of original sample points from a computer-readable structure, wherein each of the plurality of original sample points is associated with a coordinate and the composite electromagnetic beam is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle;
simulating a propagation of the original pattern towards a target based on the original pattern and based on a first propagation model to provide a simulated distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points is associated with a coordinate and corresponds to one of the plurality of original sample points; and
generating the reduced order propagation model based on a
selection of the coordinates of the original sample points and a corresponding selection of the coordinates of the distorted sample points.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Generating a model includes utilizing one or more functions to represent physical phenomena, which includes executing the one or more functions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Simulating using a model includes inputs that are utilized to execute one or more mathematical functions to output a result of the mathematical calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Generating a model includes utilizing one or more functions to represent physical phenomena, which includes executing the one or more functions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Selecting coordinates is a mental process that includes observation, evaluation, opinion, and judgment to determine whether a particular coordinate should be included in the model or excluded. Further, generating a model includes selecting one or more functions to include in the model, which is a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 17
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
17. A method for generation of a reduced order propagation model for simulation of a composite electromagnetic beam in a plurality of patterns, comprising the steps:
accessing an original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam comprising a plurality of original sample points from a computer-readable structure, wherein each of the plurality of original sample points is associated with a coordinate and the composite electromagnetic beam is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle;
simulating a propagation of the original pattern towards a target based on the original pattern and based on a first propagation model to provide a simulated distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points is associated with a coordinate and corresponds to one of the plurality of original sample points; and
generating the reduced order propagation model based on a selection of the coordinates of the original sample points and a corresponding selection of the coordinates of the distorted sample points.
Accessing data is an extra-solution activity that does not incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Alternatively, even if generating a model is not a judicial exception, the limitation is an idea of a solution that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Claim 17 recites only abstract ideas and additional elements that courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore insignificantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(d). For example, regarding “accessing an original pattern…,” courts have found that “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is not significantly more that the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). See also, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, claim 17 is ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites wherein the reduced order propagation model has less complexity than the first propagation model. This limitation merely further specifies the type of propagation models that are utilized and/or generated by the method. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that amount to significantly more. Accordingly, claim 18 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 19
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
19. A method for generation of a reduced order propagation model for simulation of a composite electromagnetic beam in a plurality of patterns, comprising the steps:
measuring a propagation of the original pattern to obtain an original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam comprising a plurality of original sample points, wherein each of the plurality of original sample points is associated with a coordinate, and the composite electromagnetic beam is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle;
measuring a propagation of the original pattern towards a target to provide a measured distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points is associated with a coordinate;
corresponding each of the plurality of distorted sample points to one of the plurality of original sample points; and
generating the reduced order propagation model based on a
selection of the coordinates of the original sample points and a corresponding selection of the coordinates of the distorted sample points, wherein the reduced order propagation model takes into account fewer parameters than the first propagation model.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Generating a model includes utilizing one or more functions to represent physical phenomena, which includes executing the one or more functions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Corresponding between points is a mathematical concepts that can include, for example, utilizing one or more functions to perform the correspondence and/or a transition matrix to map one set of coordinates to another, thus corresponding particular points. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Generating a model includes utilizing one or more functions to represent physical phenomena, which includes executing the one or more functions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Selecting coordinates is a mental process that includes observation, evaluation, opinion, and judgment to determine whether a particular coordinate should be included in the model or excluded. Further, generating a model includes selecting one or more functions to include in the model, which is a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 19
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
19. A method for generation of a reduced order propagation model for simulation of a composite electromagnetic beam in a plurality of patterns, comprising the steps:
measuring a propagation of the original pattern to obtain an original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam comprising a plurality of original sample points, wherein each of the plurality of original sample points is associated with a coordinate, and the composite electromagnetic beam is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle;
measuring a propagation of the original pattern towards a target to provide a measured distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points is associated with a coordinate;
corresponding each of the plurality of distorted sample points to one of the plurality of original sample points; and
generating the reduced order propagation model based on a selection of the coordinates of the original sample points and a corresponding selection of the coordinates of the distorted sample points, wherein the reduced order propagation model takes into account fewer parameters than the first propagation model.
Measuring is a form of data gathering, which is and extra-solution activity that the courts have determined is “mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information…so that the information can be analyzed…” MPEP 2106.05, discussing CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also MPEP 2106.05(g).
Measuring is a form of data gathering, which is and extra-solution activity that the courts have determined is “mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information…so that the information can be analyzed…” MPEP 2106.05, discussing CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim 19 recites only abstract ideas and additional elements that courts have found to be insignificantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(d). For example, “measuring a propagation…” includes performing multiple repetitive calculations, which courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d), Subsection II(ii); Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."). See also Waldner, et al., “Hardware-in-the-Loop-Simulation of the light distribution of automotive Matrix-LED-Headlights,” pg. 1312, col. 2, paragraph 1, disclosing the use of a goniophotometer to measure light propagation (The measured maximum intensity Iv of the headlight with a goniophotometer type C determinates the luminous intensity Iv of the virtual headlight so that the relative power of all virtual lights is physically correct.).
Accordingly, claim 19 is ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites wherein the selection of the coordinates of the original sample points is a subset of the coordinates of the plurality of original sample points of the original pattern. The claim merely limits the coordinates that are selected for inclusion in the model. Because corresponding coordinates with each other is a mathematical concept, the claim does not include additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites wherein the first propagation model is a full propagation model comprising parts external to the device that produces the composite electromagnetic beam but which affect the propagation of the composite electromagnetic beam, and characteristics of an environment surrounding the composite electromagnetic beam. The claim merely includes details of the type of model and influences on the model, which are not additional elements nor integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites wherein each of the plurality of original sample points corresponds to a source pixel or elementary pixel of the composite electromagnetic beam. The claim merely indicates a correspondence between a physical object and the model, which is an additional element that generally links the model to a particular element or environment. Limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use is an additional elements that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, limitations that indicate a particular field of use are insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010); Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags). Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites further comprising: interpolating between the corresponding selection of the coordinates of the distorted sample points. Interpolation is a mathematical concept that includes utilizing one or more mathematical functions to perform the interpolation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites wherein the interpolating is done by a 2-D polynomial geometric transformation function. The claim merely further specifies details of the interpolation, which includes mathematical concepts (e.g., a transformation function). Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 25
Claim 25 recites further comprising: generating an error map depicting the deviations between simulations of the first propagation model and simulations of the reduced order propagation model. Generating a map can either be a mathematical concept, if performed using one or more functions to generate the map, or a mental process, which can be performed in the human mind using pencil and paper by identifying calculated deviations and plotting the deviations on a map. In either case, the limitation is directed to a judicial exception and therefore is not an additional element to be further evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 26
Claim 26 recites wherein the propagation model is a reduced order propagation model generated based on a prior distorted pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam. The claim merely specifies additional details of the model, which is a mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 27
Claim 27 recites wherein the prior distorted pattern is determined by invoking a prior propagation model to simulate a propagation of the original pattern towards a target. The claim recites utilizing a model to perform simulation, which is a mathematical concept that is an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 28
Claim 28 recites wherein the prior propagation model utilizes more coordinates in the representations than the reduced order propagation model. The claim merely recites additional limitations to the model and does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 29
Claim 29 recites wherein the prior distorted pattern is determined by measuring the propagation of the original pattern towards the target. Measuring a quantity involves data gathering, which is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldner, et al. (“Simulation of High-Definition Pixel-Headlights”, hereinafter “Waldner 1”).
Claim 19
Waldner discloses:
A method for generation of a reduced order propagation model for simulation of a composite electromagnetic beam in a plurality of patterns, comprising the steps:
The summation hardware can generate the overlayed light texture with (7) in parallel for each texture element. Computing time can be further reduced by processing only the summation (7) on elements with at least one pixel. For each element of the set {(u, v)|0 ≤ u ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 ≤ v ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 < |IPA(u, v)|} , (8) the simulation creates one thread so that elements that are always dark will never be accessed online. Waldner at 588, paragraph 2.
measuring a propagation of the original pattern to obtain an original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam comprising a plurality of original sample points, wherein each of the plurality of original sample points is associated with a coordinate
The basic approach of the algorithm is visualizing the many matrix-lights by using one virtual point light. The same principle is used by [16] for the virtual representation of pixel-headlights. By using one virtual light as the source, the matrix lights are superposed by dynamically online generating and modifying the light texture. Similar to [15], the illumination of many real lights is created by one virtual light. This means for a texture I ∈ Rn×n with n ∈ N discrete elements, that each element I(u, v) is the superposition of all m ∈ N matrix-light sources with the distribution IP,i ∈ Rn×n. The variables u and v are coordinates of the texture, which is square for simplification of the presented equations. Waldner at pg. 584, paragraph 4.
the composite electromagnetic beam is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle;
This contribution proposes a novel Hardware-in the-Loop (HiL)-simulation of the light distribution of matrix headlights to reduce the duration and number of real night test drives. Waldner at Abstract.
measuring a propagation of the original pattern towards a target to provide a measured distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points is associated with a coordinate;
One approach for the conversion is to interpret the texture as a plane in front of the light source and to use a central (gnomonic) projection to map the spherical light distribution on the texture. Then the texture itself is projected into the world from the virtual light source [9,10] to simulate the illumination. Waldner at pg. 584, paragraph 3.
corresponding each of the plurality of distorted sample points to one of the plurality of original sample points; and
The online part only overlays the discrete texture element (u, v) of lights that illuminate the element with an intensity higher than the intensity threshold Iv,Thr ∈ R. The first step in the offline part is to determine the pixels that actually illuminate a solid angle. The pixel mapping
PNG
media_image1.png
60
257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is the database of illumination pixels for each of the n2 elements of the texture. In this contribution, PID is interpreted as a three-dimensional set. The first two dimensions each contain n elements like I as a matrix structure and the third dimension is variable for each entry. Thus, an element of PID(u, v) is PID(u, v)(i) ∈ N, where the operation (u, v) gets a set similar to accessing a texture element and (i) returns a pixel index. Waldner at pg. 586, paragraph 1.
generating the reduced order propagation model based on a selection of the coordinates of the original sample points and a corresponding selection of the coordinates of the distorted sample points.
The summation hardware can generate the overlayed light texture with (7) in parallel for each texture element. Computing time can be further reduced by processing only the summation (7) on elements with at least one pixel. For each element of the set {(u, v)|0 ≤ u ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 ≤ v ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 < |IPA(u, v)|} , (8) the simulation creates one thread so that elements that are always dark will never be accessed online. Waldner 1 at 588, paragraph 2.
wherein the reduced order propagation model takes into account fewer parameters than the first propagation model.
The summation hardware can generate the overlayed light texture with (7) in parallel for each texture element. Computing time can be further reduced by processing only the summation (7) on elements with at least one pixel. For each element of the set {(u, v)|0 ≤ u ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 ≤ v ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 < |IPA(u, v)|} , (8) the simulation creates one thread so that elements that are always dark will never be accessed online.” Waldner 1 at 588, paragraph 2.
The simulation “takes into account” fewer input values, which is analogous to “wherein the reduced order propagation model takes into account fewer parameters than the first propagation model.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3, 8, 10-11, 17, 20, 22-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Waldner, et al. (“Simulation of High-Definition Pixel-Headlights”, hereinafter “Waldner 1”) in view of Hessel, et al., (“Simulating Headlamp Illumination Using Photometric Light Clusters”, hereinafter “Hessel”).
Claim 1
Waldner 1 discloses:
A device for simulation of a propagation of a composite electromagnetic beam, configured to:
This contribution presents a novel algorithm for real-time simulation of adaptive matrix- and pixel-headlights for motor vehicles. Waldner 1 at Abstract.
access an original pattern for the composite electromagnetic beam…from a computer-readable structure,
The offline part creates a light database that is used by the online component to generate the illumination in memory access efficient way. Waldner 1 at Abstract.
The offline part of the simulation loads the lighting data, for example measured intensity distributions form every matrix-light, and prepares them for the online part. At startup, the processed data set is transferred to the simulation hardware (the GPU as recommendation), which dynamically generates the illumination texture I. The simulation generates I by evaluating the control data p01,i of all relevant pixels. Waldner 1 at 585, paragraph 4.
[an original pattern for the composite electromagnetic beam] comprising a plurality of original sample points…wherein each of the original sample points is associated with a coordinate; and
The first step in the offline part is to determine the pixels that actually illuminate a solid angle. The pixel mapping
PNG
media_image2.png
66
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is the database of illumination pixels for each of the n2 elements of the texture. In this contribution, PID is interpreted as a three-dimensional set. The first two dimensions each contain n elements like I as a matrix structure and the third dimension is variable for each entry. Waldner 1 at pg. 586, Paragraph 1.
the composite electromagnetic beam is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle and
This contribution proposes a novel Hardware-in the-Loop (HiL)-simulation of the light distribution of matrix headlights to reduce the duration and number of real night test drives. Waldner at Abstract.
invoke a propagation model to simulate the propagation of the composite electromagnetic beam towards a target by
Figure 6 tries to compare the simulation with reality. It shows the illumination of the same matrix headlight simulated from photometer data in the upper left and from the real device in the right. Both illuminate a projection surface. The headlamp has 84 pixels, which are ordered in 3 rows. To be able to compare reality and simulation better, the light distribution is digitized with the image processing approach in [21,22] and used as a virtual headlight in the same environment. This is shown in the part down left. The typical blue edges and yellow colors caused by chromatic aberration are visible in all cases in the same areas of illumination. The base color, gradients and sharpness are also similar. Waldner 1 at pg. 589, paragraph 1.
Waldner 1 does not explicitly teach:
determining a distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points corresponds to one of the plurality of original sample points, wherein
the propagation model is configured to determine the distorted pattern by translating the coordinate associated with each of the original sample points to a coordinate associated with the corresponding distorted sample point.
Hessel, which is analogous art, discloses:
determining a distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points corresponds to one of the plurality of original sample points, wherein
In this illustration, a light source sits behind a projection map through which the light passes to project an image further away. The projection through this map results in the light being filtered to match the actual light spread and intensity of the photographed headlamp. In the actual computer environment, this map is not separate from a light source (as shown in the concept image Figure 3), but rather an algorithm assigned to a light source, defining the distribution of light emitted from the light source according to the specific pattern of light and dark. Hessel at pg. 3, col. 2.
The “projected light image” is the “distorted pattern.”
PNG
media_image3.png
325
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the propagation model is configured to determine the distorted pattern by translating the coordinate associated with each of the original sample points to a coordinate associated with the corresponding distorted sample point.
It is relevant at this step to record one light value at a known point of the projected headlamp using a light meter for calibrating the calculations performed in the computer generated scene. Hessel at pg. 6, col. 1.
It should be noted that each projection map is only part of the overall light. In other words, each projection map only accounts for the amount of light coming from one area of the headlamp. When light passing through all three image maps, the projected light is collectively the same as the light coming from the actual headlamp. This enables a more accurate light simulation since it accounts for the complex light distribution that is caused by the parabolic reflector and lenses of the headlamp. Hessel at pg. 4, cols. 1-2.
The “area of the headlamp” is analogous to a “coordinate associated with each of the original sample points” and the “projection map” is analogous to the “coordinate associated with the corresponding distorted sample point.”
Hassel is analogous art because both are related to modeling vehicle headlight propagation and distortion patterns resulting from the propagation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the distorted pattern determination of Hassel with the light propagation model of Waldner to result in a process that determines the distortion pattern of light propagating through a lens of a headlight. Motivation to combine includes improved processing time for the resulting process by reducing the number of sample points required to be calculated when performing the pattern of the headlight.
Claim 2
Waldner 1 discloses:
composite electromagnetic beam
This contribution presents a novel algorithm for real-time simulation of adaptive matrix- and pixel-headlights for motor vehicles. Waldner 1 at Abstract.
Hessel discloses:
wherein the propagation model represents a geometric distortion of the
The beam pattern for a headlamp is complicated by two predominate geometrical features of the headlamp assembly. Parabolic reflectors collect light from the bulb and focus the light out toward the front of the headlamp. In addition, lenses or shape differences on the surface where light is being focused redirect this focused light to maximize visibility for the driver while minimizing glare to other drivers…. Hessel at pg. 4, col. 2.
“Shape differences” is analogous to a “geometric distortion.”
Claim 3
Waldner 1 discloses:
wherein the propagation model represents a chromatic distortion of the original composite beam.
Figure 6 tries to compare the simulation with reality. It shows the illumination of the same matrix headlight simulated from photometer data in the upper left and from the real device in the right. Both illuminate a projection surface. The headlamp has 84 pixels, which are ordered in 3 rows. To be able to compare reality and simulation better, the light distribution is digitized with the image processing approach in [21,22] and used as a virtual headlight in the same environment. This is shown in the part down left. The typical blue edges and yellow colors caused by chromatic aberration are visible in all cases in the same areas of illumination. The base color, gradients and sharpness are also similar. Waldner 1 at pg. 589, Paragraph 1.
Claim 8
Waldner 1 discloses:
wherein parameters including at least one member selected from the group consisting of the original pattern, of the distorted pattern, and/or the propagation model are time variant such that the parameters can be adjusted during the simulation.
Many driving simulators worldwide can simulate Adaptive Front Lighting System
(AFS) headlights in virtual night drives. The comparison of the presented approach and its performance with the publicly available state-of-the-art focuses on two simulators, which are Vrxperience and LucidDrive. According to the author, these software tools are the best known and most widely used in the industry for headlamp evaluation. Both simulators can simulate headlights in real-time in realistic night driving situations. They also offer visualization functions such as false colors or isolines for illumination levels. Waldner 1 at 583, paragraph 2.
Claim 10
Waldner 1 discloses:
wherein the composite electromagnetic beam is represented by a plurality of beam pixels and
The resolution of the matrix-headlamps increases with each new product generation, i.e. more individual light sources are integrated into a single light module. These small lights can be controlled individually and create the illumination in front of the headlamp by superposing their individual distributions. From the outside, it looks as if the light module consists of only one light source. The small light sources are arranged as a matrix and their illumination is called pixel in this article. A classic matrix headlight function is GFHB, which minimizes other road users’ glare by dynamically switching off the pixels that would illuminate other road users. Waldner 1 at 581, paragraph 2.
wherein the original pattern depends on which of the beam pixels are activated and which are deactivated.
Fig. 2 shows a simple example of the weighted superposition of two pixels. In combination with Projective Texture Mapping high-resolution matrix headlights can be simulated dynamically by using (2). Waldner 1 at pg. 585, paragraph 1.
See also Fig. 2, illustrating two original patterns and the interference pattern of the original patterns combined:
PNG
media_image4.png
155
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 11
Waldner discloses:
wherein the plurality of pixel beams are sourced from an electromagnetic wave system.
The simulation can generate the light distribution of a pair of pixel-headlamps… Waldner 1 at Abstract.
Visible light is an electromagnetic wave.
Claim 17
Waldner 1 discloses:
A method for generation of a reduced order propagation model for simulation of a composite electromagnetic beam in a plurality of patterns, comprising the steps:
This contribution presents a novel algorithm for real-time simulation of adaptive matrix- and pixel-headlights for motor vehicles. Waldner 1 at Abstract.
accessing an original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam…from a computer-readable structure,
The offline part creates a light database that is used by the online component to generate the illumination in memory access efficient way. Waldner 1 at Abstract.
The offline part of the simulation loads the lighting data, for example measured intensity distributions form every matrix-light, and prepares them for the online part. At startup, the processed data set is transferred to the simulation hardware (the GPU as recommendation), which dynamically generates the illumination texture I. The simulation generates I by evaluating the control data p01,i of all relevant pixels. Waldner 1 at 585, paragraph 4.
[an original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam] comprising a plurality of original sample points…wherein each of the plurality of original sample points is associated with a coordinate,
The first step in the offline part is to determine the pixels that actually illuminate a solid angle. The pixel mapping
PNG
media_image2.png
66
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is the database of illumination pixels for each of the n2 elements of the texture. In this contribution, PID is interpreted as a three-dimensional set. The first two dimensions each contain n elements like I as a matrix structure and the third dimension is variable for each entry. Waldner 1 at pg. 586, Paragraph 1.
and the composite electromagnetic beam is associated with a lighting system of an automotive vehicle;
This contribution proposes a novel Hardware-in the-Loop (HiL)-simulation of the light distribution of matrix headlights to reduce the duration and number of real night test drives. Waldner at Abstract.
simulating a propagation of the original pattern towards a target
Figure 6 tries to compare the simulation with reality. It shows the illumination of the same matrix headlight simulated from photometer data in the upper left and from the real device in the right. Both illuminate a projection surface. The headlamp has 84 pixels, which are ordered in 3 rows. To be able to compare reality and simulation better, the light distribution is digitized with the image processing approach in [21,22] and used as a virtual headlight in the same environment. This is shown in the part down left. The typical blue edges and yellow colors caused by chromatic aberration are visible in all cases in the same areas of illumination. The base color, gradients and sharpness are also similar. Waldner 1 at pg. 589, paragraph 1.
generating the reduced order propagation model based on a selection of the coordinates of the original sample points and a corresponding selection of the coordinates of the distorted sample points.
The summation hardware can generate the overlayed light texture with (7) in parallel for each texture element. Computing time can be further reduced by processing only the summation (7) on elements with at least one pixel. For each element of the set {(u, v)|0 ≤ u ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 ≤ v ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 < |IPA(u, v)|} , (8) the simulation creates one thread so that elements that are always dark will never be accessed online. Waldner 1 at 588, paragraph 2.
Waldner does not appear to explicitly disclose:
based on the original pattern and based on a first propagation model to provide a simulated distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points,
wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points is associated with a coordinate and corresponds to one of the plurality of original sample points; and
Hessel discloses:
based on the original pattern and based on a first propagation model to provide a simulated distorted pattern comprising a plurality of distorted sample points, wherein each of the plurality of distorted sample points is associated with a coordinate and corresponds to one of the plurality of original sample points;
In this illustration, a light source sits behind a projection map through which the light passes to project an image further away. The projection through this map results in the light being filtered to match the actual light spread and intensity of the photographed headlamp. In the actual computer environment, this map is not separate from a light source (as shown in the concept image Figure 3), but rather an algorithm assigned to a light source, defining the distribution of light emitted from the light source according to the specific pattern of light and dark. Hessel at pg. 3, col. 2.
Claim 20
Waldner 1 discloses:
wherein the selection of the coordinates of the original sample points is a subset of the coordinates of the plurality of original sample points of the original pattern.
The summation hardware can generate the overlayed light texture with (7) in parallel for each texture element. Computing time can be further reduced by processing only the summation (7) on elements with at least one pixel. For each element of the set {(u, v)|0 ≤ u ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 ≤ v ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 < |IPA(u, v)|} , (8) the simulation creates one thread so that elements that are always dark will never be accessed online. Waldner 1 at 588, paragraph 2.
Claim 22
Waldner discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of original sample points corresponds to a source pixel or elementary pixel of the composite electromagnetic beam.
Fig. 2 shows a simple example of the weighted superposition of two pixels. In combination with Projective Texture Mapping high-resolution matrix headlights can be simulated dynamically by using (2). Waldner 1 at pg. 585, paragraph 1.
Claim 23
Hessel discloses:
interpolating between the corresponding selection of the coordinates of the distorted sample points.
[T]he unit value in the computer must be calibrated to a unit in the same location and distance recorded on the projected image. Since the measurement of light by the light meter and the computer are both linear, only one value is needed for calibration. Hessle at pg. 6, col. 1.
By interpolating a single light path value, the propagation of one or more other points can be determined (i.e., “interpolated”).
Claim 26
Waldner discloses:
wherein the propagation model is a reduced order propagation model
The summation hardware can generate the overlayed light texture with (7) in parallel for each texture element. Computing time can be further reduced by processing only the summation (7) on elements with at least one pixel. For each element of the set {(u, v)|0 ≤ u ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 ≤ v ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 < |IPA(u, v)|} , (8) the simulation creates one thread so that elements that are always dark will never be accessed online. Waldner 1 at 588, paragraph 2.
Waldner does not appear to disclose:
generated based on a prior distorted pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam.
Hessel discloses:
generated based on a prior distorted pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam.
See FIG. 5, illustrating multiple distortion patterns to generate the final distorted pattern:
PNG
media_image5.png
322
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 27
Hessel discloses:
wherein the prior distorted pattern is determined by invoking a prior propagation model to simulate a propagation of the original pattern towards a target.
Figure 12 shows mesh models that are a three dimensional representations of photographs taken at 3’ intervals. Because the meshes are positioned in scale, a light location and light parameters can be determined and used to create a simulated light that projects the same light intensity as the headlamp recorded in the photographs. Hessel at pg. 6, cols. 1-2.
Claim 28
Waldner 1 discloses:
wherein the prior propagation model utilizes more coordinates in the representations than the reduced order propagation model.
The basic approach of the algorithm is visualizing the many matrix-lights by using one virtual point light. The same principle is used by [16] for the virtual representation of pixel-headlights. By using one virtual light as the source, the matrix lights are superposed by dynamically online generating and modifying the light texture. Waldner 1 at 584, paragraph 4.
The summation hardware can generate the overlayed light texture with (7) in parallel for each texture element. Computing time can be further reduced by processing only the summation (7) on elements with at least one pixel. For each element of the set {(u, v)|0 ≤ u ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 ≤ v ≤ n − 1 ∧ 0 < |IPA(u, v)|} , (8) the simulation creates one thread so that elements that are always dark will never be accessed online. Waldner 1 at 588, paragraph 2.
Claim 29
Waldner 1 discloses:
wherein the prior distorted pattern is determined by measuring the propagation of the original pattern towards the target.
The basic approach of the algorithm is visualizing the many matrix-lights by using one virtual point light. The same principle is used by [16] for the virtual representation of pixel-headlights. By using one virtual light as the source, the matrix lights are superposed by dynamically online generating and modifying the light texture. Waldner 1 at 584, paragraph 4.
Claims 4, 9, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldner 1 and Hessel in view of Waldner, et al. (“Hardware-in-the-Loop-Simulation of the light distribution of automotive Matrix-LED-Headlights”), hereinafter “Waldner 2.”
Claim 4
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
wherein the propagation model comprises sub-models and wherein each of the sub-models is related to a different frequency of the original composite beam.
Waldner 2 discloses:
wherein the propagation model comprises sub-models and wherein each of the sub-models is related to a different frequency of the original composite beam.
The image processing algorithm splits the image I into the three color channels (red, green, blue) and calculates for each channel the Luminous Intensity Distribution (LID). The LID’s are sent to the virtual environment for visualization. Waldner 2 at pg. 1312, col. 1, paragraph 2.
The three channels for processing the primary light colors are each a “sub-model” that processes a “different frequency” (i.e., different color) of the original beam.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the method of Brede could be combined with Waldner 1 to result in a headlight simulator that models pixels of varying colors separately as sub-models. Doing so would allow for greater flexibility in testing new headlight designs by providing information regarding both the outputted light pattern as well as the color of the light in various areas of the projected beam, thus saving the time and expense of redesigning headlights that do not perform as expected.
Claim 9
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
wherein the propagation model enables a simulation of the composite electromagnetic beam in real-time.
Waldner 2 discloses:
wherein the propagation model enables a simulation of the composite electromagnetic beam in real-time.
The simulation runs faster than 60 fps, the video stream from the cameras is at 30 fps and the delay in image processing is below 50 ms, so the approach is real-time capable. Waldner 2 at pg. 1315, col. 2, paragraph 3.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the method of Brede could be combined with Waldner 1 to result in a headlight simulator that operates in real time, thus allowing for adjustments to simulated headlight parameters that allow for instant feedback regarding the adjustments. By instituting a simulator that can provide instant feedback, the process of designing and fine-tuning prototype headlights can be performed more efficiently and quickly.
Claim 12
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
wherein a representation of a first pixel beam is processed with the first propagation model and a representation of a second pixel beam is processed by a second propagation model.
Waldner 2 discloses:
wherein a representation of a first pixel beam is processed with the first propagation model and a representation of a second pixel beam is processed by a second propagation model.
The selective non illumination is visible as a dark tunnel around the car. The dark tunnel is visible on the virtual projection wall behind the car (Fig. 1 top left). The second light module consists of 150 thousand lights and creates a more advanced and selective GFHB. Waldner 2, pg. 582, paragraph 1.
FIG. 1, top left, illustrates a first propagation model that simulates a first beam (i.e., a matrix-model with 84 lights) and bottom left illustrates a second propagation model of a second beam (i.e., a pixel-light-module with 150 thousand pixels).
Waldner 2 and the claimed invention are analogous art because both are directed to simulating vehicle headlights. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the method of the Brede could be combined with Waldner 2 to result in a simulation that takes into account multiple headlights in one simulation. By allowing for multiple headlights to be simulated together, the resulting model is more closely aligned with a typical configuration of headlights on a vehicle (i.e., two).
Claim 21
Waldner 2 discloses:
wherein the first propagation model is a full propagation model comprising parts of a device that produces the composite electromagnetic beam, parts external to the device that produces the composite electromagnetic beam but which affect the propagation of the composite electromagnetic beam, and characteristics of an environment surrounding the composite electromagnetic beam.
The novel approach of the contribution solves the problem of generating a nonidealized headlight model and its computation in realtime. The solution is using the complete real headlight system in a virtual testing scenario. With the HiL-simulation the engineer can evaluate real headlights in predefined and repeatable scenarios at any time in the lab. The virtual test scenarios can be reproductions form real test drives or worst case analysis for specialized applications. In the HiLtest the real headlight can be exposured to heat, cold or water to evaluate the effects of environmental conditions. Waldner 2 at pg. 1311, paragraph 3.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldner 1 and Hessel in view of Lowenau, et al. (“Advanced Lighting Simulation (ALS) for the Evaluation of the BMW System Adaptive Light Control (ALC)”), hereinafter “Lowenau.”
Claim 6
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
wherein a ratio between a sample size of the representation of the original pattern and of the representation of the distorted pattern is: equal to 1; smaller than 1; or greater than 1.
Lowenau, which is analogous art, discloses:
wherein a ratio between a sample size of the representation of the original pattern and of the representation of the distorted pattern is: equal to 1; smaller than 1; or greater than 1.
A much greater potential than in measuring light distributions is seen in deriving light patterns from virtual light bulbs and reflectors. The properties of such a virtual headlamp can be investigated and modified without hardware efforts. Based on the CAD data of the bulb and the reflector, the light distribution can be computed by ray tracing. In this approach the emission of a huge number of light rays from the light bulb and the reflection of these rays at the reflector are simulated. Lowenau at 867, col. 1, paragraphs 3-4.
By varying the amount of ray tracing that is performed (i.e., varying the number of rays), the original pattern (the light pattern of the headlight) can include more, fewer, or the same number of data points as the distorted pattern (i.e., the light distributions).
Lowenau and the claimed invention are analogous art because both are directed to headlight simulators. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the method of Brede could be combined with Lowenau to result in a simulation that allows for variance between sampling size of inputs and outputs to result in a simulator that can be adjusted to change the resolution of the simulation. By allowing for a larger or smaller sampling size ratio, the resulting simulator can be executed at a lower resolution (resulting in a faster execution time with less complexity) or a higher resolution (resulting in a more accurate simulation with higher complexity), thus improving headlight prototyping and development.
Claim 7
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
wherein the sample size of: the original pattern, the distorted pattern, or the propagation model depends on one or more of the following parameters: a user input); a received information); a frequency of the original pattern and/or of the distorted pattern; a temperature in the environment of the composite electromagnetic beam; the original pattern and/or the distorted pattern itself.
Lowenau discloses:
wherein the sample size of: the original pattern, the distorted pattern, or the propagation model depends on one or more of the following parameters: a user input (See Figure 8, illustrating a graphical user interface); a received information (under broadest reasonable interpretation, received information can include user input and/or any other limitation recited in this claim); a frequency of the original pattern and/or of the distorted pattern; a temperature in the environment of the composite electromagnetic beam; the original pattern and/or the distorted pattern itself.
The user is able to adjust and to tune the way the light distributions are applied in the Visual Simulation. With the method of flexible texture mapping even complex environments are illuminated realistically (see Figure 7). This is essential for the sensation of the ALC system in different driving situations and driving environments. Lowenau at pg. 867, col. 2, paragraph 1.
Thus, the user can adjust the ray tracing based on the patterns used as input, as output, environmental conditions, and/or any combination thereof.
Claim 15
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
present a user interface indicating a difference of the distorted pattern in comparison to second distorted pattern determined by a measurement and/or in comparison to the second distorted pattern determined by a second propagation model.
Lowenau discloses:
present a user interface indicating a difference of the distorted pattern in comparison to second distorted pattern determined by a measurement and/or in comparison to the second distorted pattern determined by a second propagation model.
A second step covered driving with different parameters for sway control, sway angle, sway velocity and for navigation data (2D and 3D maps). In a third step different light patterns simultaneously available in the Visual Simulation were changed while driving. Applying these steps repetitively light patterns together with ALC control algorithms could be evaluated in a valuable manner, e.g. ALC with two different parameter sets for a light pattern is shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12. Lowenau at pg. 868, paragraph 1.
Figure 11 and 12 illustrate two different light patterns (i.e., “distorted patterns”) generated from two different simulations.
Claim 18
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
wherein the reduced order propagation model has less complexity than the first propagation model.
Lowenau discloses:
wherein the reduced order propagation model has less complexity than the first propagation model.
The user is able to adjust and to tune the way the light distributions are applied in the Visual Simulation. With the method of flexible texture mapping even complex environments are illuminated realistically (see Figure 7). This is essential for the sensation of the ALC system in different driving situations and driving environments. Lowenau at pg. 867, col. 2, paragraph 1.
The same distortion pattern can be utilized to simulate different conditions by varying the complexity of the model based on one or more factors (e.g., different weather conditions).
Claims 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of Hessel and further in view of Brede, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0334086), hereinafter “Brede.”
Claim 13
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
The device according to claim 10, configured to determine the distorted pattern based on the first propagation model and on representations of the activated pixel beams.
Brede discloses:
The device according to claim 10, configured to determine the distorted pattern based on the first propagation model and on representations of the activated pixel beams.
Herein, the pixel can for example be executed as an LED (light emitting diode) and/or as a micromirror and/or as a display, i.e. as a pixel of the display, and/or as a shutter and/or as a blind and/or as an optical device for the modification and/or change and/or absorption of individual light beams. This has the advantage, that the light distribution pattern is variably adjustable and that various headlamp functions can be realized. Brede at [0015].
Thus, the light distribution pattern (analogous to “distorted pattern”) is generated by providing the original pattern as input, which varies based on which pixels are activated (i.e., the “original pattern”).
Brede is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to utilizing light patterns for matrix lighting of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Brede with Waldner and Hessel to result in a system that can simulate multiple sequential lighting patterns of a matrix light. Motivation to combine includes, as disclosed in Brede, the invention can be utilized to “propose a procedure for the operation of at least one headlamp of a vehicle allowing simpler maintenance and a more flexible adaptation of the light algorithms. Furthermore, reliability is to be increased and the manufacturing costs are to be reduced.” Brede at [0007].
Claim 14
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
receive a second original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam; and determine a second distorted pattern based on the propagation model and on the second original pattern.
Brede discloses:
receive a second original pattern of the composite electromagnetic beam; and determine a second distorted pattern based on the propagation model and on the second original pattern.
Furthermore, it can be planned, that in particular in section b) and/or section c) a calculation of at least one transfer information by means of a first headlamp-specific information and/or a first light pattern information and one second, subsequent in time (to the first information i.e. light pattern information) headlamp-specific information and/or second light pattern information is executed. Brede at [0030].
Thus, the model is utilized to simulate a “first light pattern information” and a “second light pattern information.”
Claim 16
Waldner 1 and Hessel do not appear to teach or disclose:
wherein the propagation model represents an energy distortion of the composite electromagnetic beam.
Brede discloses:
wherein the propagation model represents an energy distortion of the composite electromagnetic beam.
Light algorithms are used for the execution of the control of the pixels and for the determination of the control information required for this purpose, e.g. the brightness values per pixel. Brede at [0003].
The “brightness values” are an energy distortion and are controlled by “light algorithms” of the model.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Waldner 1 in view of Hassel and Yamasaki, et al., (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0067587, hereinafter “Yamasaki”).
Claim 24
Yamasaki discloses:
wherein the interpolating is done by a 2-D polynomial geometric transformation function.
As indicated in the explanation of the first embodiment, ψ_{AB}, a function for transforming coordinates in the coordinate system of the partial image B into those of the partial image A, and its inverse function ψ_{BA} can be defined. Hence, the composite function V_{AB} to be defined on D_{AB} is defined by equation 43 using the geometric transformation function T_B for the partial image B as defined on E_{BA} ∪ F_{BA} by equation 30. Yamasaki at [0093]
Yamasaki is analogous to the claimed invention because both are related to utilizing a geometric transformation function to interpolate light propagation samples. It would have been obvious to combine Yamasaki with Waldner and Hassel to result in a method that utilizes 2-D geometric transformation in place of processes disclosed in the other references. Motivation to combine includes improved accuracy and reliability of the resulting model. See Yamasaki at [0116]-[0117].
Conclusion
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Claim 25 overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; however, the claim is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, the claim, as currently presented, is not allowable. If the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome, claim 25 would be allowable if the claim is amended to include the limitations of any claim from which claim 25 depends.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lecocq, et al. "Interactive Headlight Simulation," https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2933376_Interactive_Headlight_Simulation. (2004).
Tsai, et al., “Design of free-form reflector for vehicle LED low-beam headlamp,” Optics Communications, Volume 372.
Viala, et al., “Lens distortion models evaluation,” APPLIED OPTICS, Vol. 49, No. 30, October 2010.
U.S. Pat. Pub. 2009/0073324
Benthin, et al., “Interactive Headlight Simulation – A Case Study of Interactive Distributed Ray Tracing,” Computer Graphics Group, Saarland University. Technical Report TR-2002-03.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
1 Because the claim does not recite any components in the “device,” the claim is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to software per se.