DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 06/25/2026 in which claims 1, 3-7, and 10 have been amended, claims 2 and 9 have been cancelled and claims 11-19 have been added. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-19 are presented for examination.
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 Amendment
The specification has been amended in response to the informalities cited in the previous action.
It is apparent that no new matter has been introduced to the specification by way of these amendments.
Applicant argues that no new matter has been introduced by way of the amendments to the claims.
The amended claims have been evaluated with respect to the originally filed disclosure, and it is apparent that no new matter has been introduced by way of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the specification
The amendments to the specification appear to overcome the objections set forth in the previous action. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn from the specification.
Objections to the claims
The claim objections have been resolved by way of applicant’s amendment and have accordingly been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been largely resolved by the amendments made by the applicant and have accordingly been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed toward an abstract idea but rather is directed to the generation of a glare-free high beam that does not dazzle the driver of the oncoming vehicle, without dimming the headlamp as a whole.
The argument made by the applicant recites limitations which are not claimed. What is required by the claims is (in short for sake of discussion): the definition of a virtual driving scenario, the definition of a virtual motor vehicle, the simulation of the virtual motor vehicle in the virtual driving scenario, collecting data by a virtual surroundings sensor, making a determination of a first group of pixels, collecting virtual surroundings sensor data again, performing an analysis of the sensor data, making a second determination of a second group of pixels, and changing the individual light intensities of the discrete pixels of the virtual headlamp. This combination of steps is one that, except for the recitation of generic computing components (virtual components, generic simulation, etc.), is a series of steps which may be practically performed in the human mind or using assistive aids. While the preamble recites the inclusion of an actual pixel headlamp system, the claimed invention appears to be largely rooted in the configuration of light functions. Such configuration of light function is the mere analysis and manipulation of data. The claim does not provide a practical application by which these determined functions are applied in any meaningful capacity.
Applicant further argues that many of the claimed steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Specifically, applicant points to simulating a virtual driving scenario with virtual scenes, including a virtual motor vehicle, virtual pixel headlamp, and virtual sensors which are expressly leveraged by a computer-based simulation environment. Further applicant states that the published specification says the process is performed without human intervention.
Such features of the claims which cannot practically be performed in the human mind have been identified as additional elements, as stated in the previous and present rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Using a generic computer as a tool to perform the claimed steps does not prohibit the claims from reciting an abstract idea such as a mental process. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the human mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper, nor do the courts distinguish between abstract ideas which are performed using a computer as a tool or in a computing environment (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The simulation of the claims is generically recited such that no particular machine is used to perform the simulation and accordingly any generic computer could be capable of performing said simulation. Likewise, the recording of virtual surroundings data by a virtual sensor is merely just the generation of data in a computing environment. There are no specifics claims that distinguish how such process is performed beyond what a human could reasonably do using assistive aids. The recitation of storing data is a well understood computer function that is likewise not described in any inventive capacity.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide a practical application under Step 2A because the features of the claim allegedly provide an improvement of operation of an actual pixel headlamp system by using an iterative feedback-based control process to adapt the distribution of the illuminance of the actual pixel headlamp.
Such features demonstrating the application of the manipulated data to an actual pixel headlamp do not appear to be claimed, at least in any inventive capacity. The claims largely encompass data manipulations in a virtual environment and there is no apparent mechanism by which the data is applied to an actual headlamp such that the recited exceptions would be integrated into a practical application. That is- the claims fail to recite how the data obtained as part of the steps which can be construed as mental process is meaningfully applied for use by an actual pixel headlamp.
The applicant further argues that the claim as a whole is integrated into a practical application of generating a glare-free high beam that does not dazzle the driver of oncoming vehicles, without dimming the headlamp as a whole. The applicant refers to Example 40 of USPTO 35 U.S.C. § 101 guidance examples and asserts that the present claims are relevant to the considerations of the example.
In example 40, the claim as a whole was found to integrate any recited exceptions into a practical application because the claimed mechanism provides an improvement to collecting traffic data. In the present application, the applicant argues that the improvement of the present invention is the generation of a glare-free high beam that would not impact the oncoming vehicle driver while simultaneously not reducing the overall lighting of the headlamp. However, the claims do not reflect such an improvement. The claims merely require the generation, analysis, and modification of data in computing environment. There are no additional elements alone, or in combination with the judicial exception(s) that provide any purported improvement to the generation or utilization of the functions (determined as part of the mental process) for an actual pixel headlamp, as alleged. Specifically, the changing of a light function does not require the manipulation or changes to an actual headlight system in any specific or inventive capacity so as to demonstrate the reduction in affects to oncoming traffic while maintaining brightness of the target vehicle’s illumination.
Applicant argues that the features of the claims provide an inventive concept under Step 2B in a conclusory manner with no particular evidence cited.
Respectfully, the arguments presented by the applicant are not convincing. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as presented in this office action.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose the determination of a second group of pixels of the virtual headlamp that are affected based on analyzing an obtained light intensity of virtual surroundings that are obtained after a light intensity associated with discrete affected pixels in the first group of pixels is reduced. Particularly, applicant argues that Johannes is silent regarding whether the evaluation of the camera data involves analyzing obtained light intensity.
Johannes discloses the capture and analysis of camera data, wherein the camera data is described as being able to detect brightness. Such a capability of a camera to detect brightness would be reasonably understood by a person having skill in the art to likewise detect light intensity because light intensity would be the objective, physical measurement of the light energy while brightness is merely the biological perception of how light appears, for example by a human. Because the camera is not biological by nature, it follows that the “brightness” detectable by the camera is actually the corresponding measured value, which is the light intensity. (See Johannes ¶67 describing the camera data being evaluated and the resultant environment being subjected to reduced light intensity, Johannes ¶ 52 discussing the vehicle camera data’s ability to detect ambient brightness, Johannes ¶70 discussing the brightness being captured by the human eye, and Johannes ¶33 describing the light sources emitting luminous intensity and the vehicle camera capturing the vehicle environment with respect to the luminous intensity).
The applicant further argues that the determination of the second group of pixels in subsequent images “is not done ‘based on analyzing the obtained light intensity’ where the obtained light intensity is determined after ‘reducing individual light intensities of discrete affected pixels in the determined first group of pixels of the virtual pixel headlamp.’”
This sequence of steps is not required by the claim. What is required by the claim is that the obtained light intensity is associated with the re-recorded virtual surroundings data. The particular association of the obtained light intensity does not require that the obtained light intensity is determined after reducing individual light intensities, as argued by the applicant.
The applicant further argues that Johannes only describes the evaluation of camera data so as to reduce glare caused by ice and water, but Johannes does not show or suggest the subsequent images are generated based on an illumination rule that is based on a light function to generate a glare-free beam.
In addition to Johannes showing the desired illumination for reducing glare caused by ice and water, Johannes further suggests capacity for specified light distributions for providing the target light distribution to create a beam, whereby the beam may be characterized to avoid glare for oncoming traffic ((Johannes,¶31) " The specified light distribution is a light distribution that is to be provided, for example, as the target light distribution by means of the pixel spotlight. The specified light distribution can be provided by a higher-level vehicle control system, a control element that can be operated manually by the driver of the motor vehicle, and/or the like. For example, the specified light distribution can represent high beam, low beam and/or the like. "). ((Johannes, ¶32) " The evaluation unit allows the camera data to be analyzed and, for example, oncoming vehicles or other road users to be detected. If other road users are detected, it may be possible to modify subsequent images in the image sequence in such a way that a spatial angle in which the other road user is located is hidden or unhidden. "); ((Johannes, ¶67) " Based on the camera data 18, the following images 20 are determined, in which the area 24 is reduced with regard to light intensity in order to glare away or block out an oncoming
object. "); ((Johannes, ¶6) " In combination with pixel headlights, for example, oncoming objects, especially oncoming motor vehicles, can be detected and the light distribution provided by the pixel headlight can be adjusted accordingly to avoid dazzling the detected objects as much as possible. "). Even so, it should be noted that the claim does not particularly characterize what the glare-free beam must entail such that it could not reasonably be a beam produced by the headlamps that enables the de-glaring of water features of the road, as argued by the applicant. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a glare-free beam is any beam output by the pixel headlamp without a glare- either for the driver, the oncoming traffic, or any other perspective in the scene.
Accordingly, the claimed limitations appear to remain sufficiently taught or at least fairly suggested by the prior art and therefore remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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, 3-8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 3-8, and 10-19 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
a) defining a virtual driving scenario, wherein the virtual driving scenario comprises a road and road surroundings, wherein the road surroundings include vegetation, curbs, road signs, road markings, road users, and/or weather-related features; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement on details for a virtual driving scenario to include a variety of features. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, since there are no limitations that impose how the scenario is defined and under broadest reasonable interpretation, a human being can write down a set of features characterizing such scenario. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
b) defining a virtual motor vehicle, wherein the virtual motor vehicle has a virtual pixel headlamp corresponding to the actual pixel headlamp and a virtual surroundings sensor for recording at least a portion of an illuminable area illuminable by the virtual pixel headlamp; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment on details for a virtual motor vehicle which include a virtual pixel headlamp and a virtual surroundings sensor. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, since there are no limitations that impose how the virtual motor vehicle is defined and under broadest reasonable interpretation a human can write down a set of features that characterize the motor vehicle.
e) analyzing the virtual surroundings data to automatically identify at a spatial selection region in the virtual scene, wherein the spatial selection region indicates a region in which illuminance is to be reduced due to a predefined illumination rule dependent on features of different regions of the illuminable area of the scene, wherein the illumination rule is based on a light function to generate a glare-free beam; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating recorded data so as to identify a spatial selection region. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. When read in light of the specification, ¶24, the disclosure states that a spatial selection region is automatically identified and does not involve any human intervention from a human operator or developer. However, the process is still one which could be performed practically in the human mind, except for the recitation of generic computing components to perform the mental process. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that can be performed entirely in the human mind and those which are performed using a computer. Accordingly, the limitation still recites the abstract idea of mental process.
f) determining a first group of pixels of the virtual pixel headlamp that are affected based on the spatial selection region, and reducing individual light intensities of discrete affected pixels in the first group of pixels of the virtual pixel headlamp according to the illumination rule; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making an evaluation and judgment as to a group of pixels that are affected based on an identified spatial region. The claim further entails making a judgement to modify light intensities according to an evaluation of the illumination rule. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by writing down a corresponding intensity for each discrete pixel value that corresponds to the rules. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
h) analyzing the re-recorded virtual surroundings data as to whether an obtained light intensity associated with the re-recorded virtual surroundings data satisfies the illumination rule in the spatial selection region; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating virtual surroundings and light intensity values with regard for the illumination rule. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
i) based on analyzing the obtained light intensity, determining a second group of pixels of the virtual pixel headlamp that are affected based on the spatial selection region, wherein the second group differs from the first group at least on account of one pixel, and further changing the individual light intensities of the discrete pixels of the virtual pixel headlamp according to the illumination rule, wherein a change amount for at least one pixel differs from the change amount of the corresponding at least one pixel one pixel in the first group, and repeating steps g), h), and i). The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to the affected group of pixels and/or further making a judgement as to how the light intensities of the discrete pixels should be modified according to an evaluation of the illumination rule. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
c) simulating a night drive by the virtual motor vehicle in the virtual driving scenario, with the virtual pixel headlamp switched on, by simulating successive virtual scenes, wherein each virtual scene represents a still image from the night drive together with the virtual motor vehicle in the virtual driving scenario;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components of a simulator as a tool to perform the judicial exception.
d) recording, by the virtual surroundings sensor, virtual surroundings data of the illuminable area illuminable by the virtual pixel headlamp in at least one of the virtual scenes,- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generically recited computing components to obtain data; Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering; and has further been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
g) re-recording virtual surroundings data by the virtual surroundings sensor;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generically recited computing components to obtain data; Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering and has further been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
d) recording, by the virtual surroundings sensor, virtual surroundings data of the illuminable area illuminable by the virtual pixel headlamp in at least one of the virtual scenes,- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim encompasses receiving data over a network and storing data in memory. These computer functions have been recognized by the courts as computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a merely generic manner.
g) re-recording virtual surroundings data by the virtual surroundings sensor; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim encompasses receiving data over a network and storing data in memory. These computer functions have been recognized by the courts as computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein the spatial orientation in the virtual scene is determined based on a global three-dimensional coordinate system, and the global coordinates are transferred into a headlamp- specific coordinate system., which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation of a coordinate system to make a judgement of an orientation of the virtual scene and further making an evaluation as to a change between global coordinates and headlamp-specific coordinates. These tasks can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein the virtual motor vehicle has at least one virtual environment camera, at least one virtual brightness sensor as at least one surroundings sensor, and at least one virtual vehicle sensor for recording vehicle data. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for using generically-recited computing components to execute the judicial exception and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that performing the judicial exception by way of a computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to performing the judicial exception in a computer environment and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation analyzing the recorded vehicle data to determine a third group of pixels of the virtual pixel headlamp on the basis of the recorded vehicle data; and, which can reasonably be read to entail observing and making a judgment on the recorded vehicle data. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim further recites the limitation changing individual light intensities of discrete pixels in the third group of pixels of the virtual pixel headlamp according to the illumination rule which can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the illumination rule and making a judgment as to how the light intensities should be modified. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation recording virtual vehicle data by the at least one virtual sensor of the virtual motor vehicle. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Under broadest reasonable interpretation, recording data entails receiving data over a network and storing data in memory. These computer functions have been recognized by the courts as well understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding activities that are well understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein the third group of pixels is a subset of the first group of pixels. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites the and a number of repetitions of step i) corresponds to a number of repetitions required until an obtained illumination satisfies the illumination rule. which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgment as to when to stop the repetitions, based on an evaluation of the illumination rule. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation wherein presentation of the virtual scenes one after the other is clocked such that a number of virtual scenes per second is predetermined. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers for presentation of scenes at a specified rate. This limitation is the mere usage of a computer as a tool to perform the tasks construed as mental process within the specified time constraints. The courts have ruled including mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount using generic computers as a tool to perform the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 additionally recites the wherein the individual light intensities are changed by respective change amounts based on multiplying each respective individual light intensity by a respective dimming factor, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating individual light intensities with respect to a dimming factor. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this claim limitation explicitly recites “multiplying” in terms of numeric values, the claim is also considered to include the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts (mathematical calculation).
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation wherein the illumination rule is determined by a desired two-dimensional distribution of the illuminance, which is dependent on a desired light function. This claim can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a desired light function so as to inform a judgment of a desired distribution of illuminance to characterize the illumination rule. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the based on determining the obtained light intensity satisfies the illumination rule generating [[…]]value pairs for a control to be created based on the obtained light intensity satisfying the illumination rule, wherein the value pairs are formed from the first group of pixels and respective change amounts for the discrete pixels in the group which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation of the obtained light intensity with regard for the illumination rule and making a judgement as to a corresponding value pair set of a group of pixels and the associated change amounts for achieving the intensity. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the and storing This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, storing value pairs is the computer function of storing information in memory. This has been found the courts to be a well understood, routine, and conventional computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in this claim. The courts have found that limitations which are well understood, routine, and conventional activities merely appended to the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation wherein the actual pixel headlamp is controlled by storing value pairs from the first group of pixels and respective change amounts of the discrete pixels in the first group of pixels, integrating the stored value pairs on a control device, and retrieving the stored value pairs This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claimed limitation is further identified as Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amount to the words “apply it” with regard to the values obtained as part of the judicial exception (using the value pairs for control of the pixel headlamp in an unspecified way and reciting the idea of an outcome rather than how to actually achieve the outcome). The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception and stating “apply it” or equivalent does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, storing value pairs encompasses storing information in memory, integrating the stored value pairs on a control device encompasses receiving or transmitting data over a network, and retrieving the stored value pairs encompasses retrieving information from memory. These functions have been identified as well understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claim. The courts have found that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception which has been found to be well understood, routine, and conventional is not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the judicial exception, nor is it sufficient to recite the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation wherein the value pairs from the first group of pixels and the respective change amounts are supplied as training data for a neural network. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled that additional elements identified as insignificant extra solution activity appended to the judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, supplying data to a neural network encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network. This computer function has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claim. The courts have found that limitations that have been found to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities appended to the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 recites and a number of repetitions of step i) corresponds to the number of repetitions that is temporally possible under a clock rate before a next lined-up virtual scene is analyzed which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgment as to when to stop the repetitions, based on an evaluation of temporal possibility capacity. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation wherein presentation of the virtual scenes one after the other is clocked such that a number of virtual scenes per second is predetermined This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers for presentation of scenes at a specified rate. This limitation is the mere usage of a computer as a tool to perform the tasks construed as mental process within the specified time constraints. The courts have ruled including mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount using generic computers as a tool to perform the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 additionally recites the wherein reducing individual light intensities of discrete affected pixels in the first group of pixels of the virtual pixel headlamp according to the illumination rule comprises the spatial selection region being excluded from the illuminable area. which further describes the mental process of the preceding claim from which this claim depends because the limitation merely imposes constraints on the area by which the determination of reduction of light intensities occurs. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 15 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 additionally recites the wherein excluding the spatial selection region from the illuminable area is based on determining a presence of an oncoming driver in the illuminable area. which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation of the presence of an oncoming driver and subsequently making a judgment of the spatial selection region to consider. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 16 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 additionally recites the wherein excluding the spatial selection region from the illuminable area reduces glare for the oncoming driver. which further details aspects of the mental process noted in claim 15 form which this claim depends by merely providing details of an intended outcome without positively reciting how such outcome may be achieved by exclusion of the spatial selection region. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation wherein the vehicle data comprises acceleration and/or steering angle and/or yaw rate.. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 19, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation wherein the desired light function is a glare-free high beam and/or projection of lines and/or symbols onto the road.. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes (DE102017211430A1), hereinafter referred to as Johannes, in view of Waldner et al (Waldner, M., Kramer, M., and Bertram, T., “Hardware-in-the-Loop-Simulation of the light distribution of automotive Matrix-LED-Headlights”, 2019, 2019 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), pp. 1311-1316), hereinafter referred to as Waldner.
Regarding claim 1, Johannes discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) A method for configuring light functions of an actual pixel headlamp system comprising an actual pixel headlamp, wherein a two-dimensional distribution of illuminance in an illuminable area of a scene that is illuminable by the actual pixel headlamp is based on features of different regions of the illuminable area of the scene, comprising: A method is disclosed for controlling a pixel headlight of a motor vehicle system that includes at least one pixel headlight. The method uses images representative of light distribution. The distribution of light is dependent upon roadway features ((Johannes, ¶1) "The invention relates to a method for controlling a pixel headlight of a motor vehicle arranged on a roadway, in which the pixel headlight emits light depending on a control signal representing a sequence of images in order to illuminate the roadway at least partially, wherein each individual image of the sequence corresponds to a respective light distribution to be provided by the pixel headlight, the illuminated roadway is detected by means of a vehicle camera which provides corresponding camera data, and the camera data are evaluated in order to determine at least one indicative roadway feature and to provide the control signal for controlling the pixel headlight depending on the determined indicative roadway feature.")
a) defining a [[virtual]] driving scenario, wherein the [[virtual]] driving scenario comprises a road and road surroundings, wherein the road surroundings include vegetation, curbs, road signs, road markings, road users, and/or weather-related features; A vehicle environment is characterized by a plurality of features including the road, road edge and traffic signs ((Johannes, ¶26) "The vehicle environment preferably includes the roadway, which may also simply be a carriageway on which the motor vehicle is driven, a footpath located next to a carriageway, a road edge, traffic signs associated with the roadway, combinations thereof or the like. Even sections of the vehicle's route may be recorded."). The vehicle environment may also include features including stop signs, directional arrows, lane markings, and other signage ((Johannes, ¶34) "Based on the camera data relating to the reference image, the evaluation unit can, for example using an algorithm, search the camera data for known objects as indicative road features, such as stop signs, directional arrows, double lane markings (yellow/white), warning signs and/or speed indications."). The vehicle environment may comprise precipitation and ambient brightness, as weather conditions ((Johannes, ¶52) "For example, it may be possible to use the vehicle camera to detect ambient brightness or precipitation, and then activate the corresponding procedure."). The vehicle environment may further comprise other vehicles and road users ((Johannes, ¶32) "The evaluation unit allows the camera data to be analyzed and, for example, oncoming vehicles or other road users to be detected.")
b) defining a [[virtual]] motor vehicle, wherein the [[virtual]] motor vehicle has a [[virtual pixel headlamp corresponding to the]] actual pixel headlamp and a [[virtual]] surroundings sensor for recording at least a portion of an illuminable area illuminable by the [[virtual]] pixel headlamp; A motor vehicle is characterized as a car ((Johannes, ¶3) "A motor vehicle of the type described is a vehicle which can be propelled by means of a drive device in its intended driving operation. The drive unit can be a drive unit that includes an internal combustion engine or an electric machine. Of course, combinations of these are also possible. The motor vehicle is preferably a car, in particular a passenger car. "). The motor vehicle is further characterized by having one or more pixel headlights and cameras that may capture information in the illuminated section of the road, which is illuminated by the pixel headlight ((Johannes, ¶4) "Modern motor vehicles have one or more pixel headlights, which can be used to provide highly flexible light distributions for illuminating the vehicle's surroundings, especially the road."); ((Johannes, ¶6) "Furthermore, modern motor vehicles include vehicle cameras to enable, for example, autonomous driving and/or to provide driver assistance systems with the necessary data"); ((Johannes, ¶24) "The vehicle camera can be, for example, a video camera, a photo camera and/or the like. Preferably, the vehicle camera has an electronic, in particular a digital, recording unit, so that camera data, preferably digital data, can be provided according to the captured vehicle environment. "); ((Johannes, ¶29) "At least the illuminated section of the road is recorded by the vehicle camera.")
c) [[simulating]] a night drive by the [[virtual]] motor vehicle in the [[virtual]] driving scenario, with the [[virtual]] pixel headlamp switched on, by [[simulating]] successive [[virtual]] scenes, Driving is performed in darkness using the headlights, indicative of a night drive wherein the headlights are implied to be on ((Johannes, ¶2) "Motor vehicles have headlights, in particular motor vehicle headlights, by means of which the vehicle environment of the motor vehicle, in particular the roadway on which the motor vehicle is positioned, can be illuminated. The purpose of lighting is twofold: firstly, to ensure good visibility of the motor vehicle for other road users in unfavorable visibility conditions, especially in darkness, and secondly, to illuminate the roadway or carriageway, enabling the driver of the motor vehicle to drive safely on the roadway. Furthermore, the lighting to be provided by the motor vehicle is regulated by legal regulations and standards."). The driving vehicle continues to collect a sequence of reference images and camera as the vehicle is driven ((Johannes, ¶48) "It is also advantageous if the image sequence repeatedly includes reference images, with successive reference images being spaced apart from each other by at least about 0.5 seconds, preferably at least about 0.8 seconds.") [[wherein each virtual scene represents a still image from the night drive together with the virtual motor vehicle in the virtual driving scenario;]]
d) recording, [[by the virtual surroundings sensor, virtual]] surroundings data of the illuminable area illuminable by the [[virtual]] pixel headlamp in at least one of the [[virtual]] scenes; The illuminated section of the road is recorded by a camera during the drive ((Johannes, ¶24) "The vehicle camera can be, for example, a video camera, a photo camera and/or the like. Preferably, the vehicle camera has an electronic, in particular a digital, recording unit, so that camera data, preferably digital data, can be provided according to the captured vehicle environment."); ((Johannes, ¶29) "At least the illuminated section of the road is recorded by the vehicle camera. Depending on the design, it may also be intended that the vehicle camera only records a predefined area of the illuminated vehicle path. Preferably, the vehicle camera may only capture a section of the illuminated area that is positioned in front of the vehicle in the direction of travel during normal driving operation. However, it may also be intended that the vehicle camera records the entire vehicle path. The vehicle camera can be designed as a single unit and positioned appropriately on the vehicle. The vehicle camera can also be designed with multiple components, so that it can, for example, selectively record the vehicle's path in different directions and provide corresponding camera data.”
e) analyzing the [[virtual]] surroundings data to automatically identify a spatial selection region in the [[virtual]] scene, wherein the spatial selection region indicates a region in which illuminance is to be reduced due to a predefined illumination rule dependent on features of different regions of the illuminable area of the scene, wherein the illumination rule is based on a light function to generate a glare-free beam Camera data (surroundings data) is evaluated by an evaluation unit to detect objects in the imaged scene, whereby the detected object corresponds to a spatial angle where the object is located. ((Johannes, ¶32) " The evaluation unit allows the camera data to be analyzed and, for example, oncoming vehicles or other road users to be detected. If other road users are detected, it may be possible to modify subsequent images in the image sequence in such a way that a spatial angle in which the other road user is located is hidden or unhidden. "). The area corresponding to the detected object(s) is representative of an area in the scene to deliver reduced light intensity in order to glare away detected oncoming objects ((Johannes, ¶67) "While this reference image 16 serves to control the pixel headlight 10, 12, the vehicle camera captures the vehicle's surroundings and provides camera data 18 (Fig. 4). Based on the camera data 18, the following images 20 are determined, in which the area 24 is reduced with regard to light intensity in order to glare away or block out an oncoming object."). The light distributions take into account the regions of the present environment (features of regions) ((Johannes, ¶4) " For example, predefined light distributions can be generated and provided, which illuminate, for example, one lane of the roadway on which the motor vehicle is driven. But the wider surroundings of the vehicle can also be illuminated by means of the pixel headlight"). The evaluation unit takes into account a predefined light distribution (illumination rule) to determine the controls for a pixel spotlight for the scene ((Johannes, ¶30) " Furthermore, an evaluation unit is provided that receives the camera data from the vehicle camera and evaluates it, for example, taking into account a predefined light distribution. This allows the control signal for controlling the pixel spotlight to be determined and provided. "). Specified light distributions (light function) provides the light distribution (illumination rule) to generate a beam, whereby the beam may be to avoid glare (See above citation ¶67) ((Johannes, ¶31) " The specified light distribution is a light distribution that is to be provided, for example, as the target light distribution by means of the pixel spotlight. The specified light distribution can be provided by a higher-level vehicle control system, a control element that can be operated manually by the driver of the motor vehicle, and/or the like. For example, the specified light distribution can represent high beam, low beam and/or the like. ").
f) determining a first group of pixels of the [[virtual]] pixel headlamp that are affected based on the spatial selection region, and reducing individual light intensities of discrete affected pixels in the first group of pixels of the [[virtual]] pixel headlamp according to the illumination rule; Pixels corresponding to areas of interest identified by the evaluation of the camera data are modified reduce light intensity to avoid glare for an oncoming object and subsequently the pixels can be reactivated ((Johannes, ¶67-68) "A first image is formed by the reference image 16. While this reference image 16 serves to control the pixel headlight 10, 12, the vehicle camera captures the vehicle's surroundings and provides camera data 18 (Fig. 4). Based on the camera data 18, the following images 20 are determined, in which the area 24 is reduced with regard to light intensity in order to glare away or block out an oncoming object. The six images 20, which follow each other immediately, thus control the pixel spotlight 10, 12 with regard to light output for the next six cycles or frames. Further evaluation of the camera data 18, in particular taking into account area 26 (Fig. 4 ) areas 52 are also hidden or de-glared where reduced lighting is desired to reduce glare due to ice or water. This is achieved with the images 22 that follow images 20. A subsequent image 54 shows that the fade-out is reduced in areas 24 and 52. In these areas, the pixels are thus activated again to partially emit light.")
g) re-recording [[virtual]] surroundings data by the [[virtual]] surroundings sensor; Vehicle surroundings are captured by the vehicle camera as the vehicle progresses in the environment ((Johannes, ¶23) "To enable the vehicle's surroundings to be captured during the active reference image, the vehicle camera is synchronized accordingly."); ((Johannes, ¶24) "The vehicle camera can be, for example, a video camera, a photo camera and/or the like. Preferably, the vehicle camera has an electronic, in particular a digital, recording unit, so that camera data, preferably digital data, can be provided according to the captured vehicle environment. ")
h) analyzing the re-recorded [[virtual]] surroundings data as to whether an obtained light intensity associated with the re-recorded virtual surroundings data satisfies the illumination rule in the spatial selection region; and The camera data is provided to the evaluation unit for evaluation to determine if the lighting in a respective area is insufficient, whereby the evaluation unit considers camera data including excessive light exposure information ((Johannes, ¶33) "The vehicle camera, which is synchronized with respect to the reference image and captures the vehicle environment synchronously with respect to the reference image, delivers corresponding camera data to the evaluation unit. The evaluation unit can then use the camera data to determine details that would otherwise not be recognizable in the images of the image sequence, for example because the lighting in the respective area is insufficient, or because a corresponding area cannot be captured due to the vehicle camera being overloaded by excessive light exposure. In this way it is possible, for example, to identify road surfaces that are covered with ice or water. Furthermore, additional vehicle details can also be determined, for example from oncoming or preceding vehicles. Furthermore, it is of course possible to adjust the control signal accordingly by adapting images following the reference image, taking into account the insights gained from the evaluation. This makes it possible, for example, to illuminate a section of the road covered with ice or water less intensely, so that the driver of the motor vehicle or other road users are not blinded as much as possible."). The camera is capable of capturing ambient brightness for evaluation ((Johannes,¶52) " For example, it may be possible to use the vehicle camera to detect ambient brightness or precipitation, and then activate the corresponding procedure.")
i) based on analyzing the obtained light intensity, The camera data is evaluated with regards to the reference image as the vehicle traverses in the environment and is used to determine if further adjustments to the control signal are necessary ((Johannes, ¶20) " With regard to a generic control device, it is particularly proposed that the control signal unit is further configured to provide the image sequence with an image sequence frequency of greater than approximately 24 Hz, preferably greater than approximately 90 Hz, and particularly preferably greater than approximately 100 Hz, wherein the image sequence includes at least one reference image for uniformly illuminating the driving path, to synchronize the vehicle camera for capturing the driving path with respect to the reference image, and the evaluation unit is configured to determine the at least one indicating driving path feature and the information data associated with the indicating driving path feature from the provided camera data with respect to the reference image, and to compare the associated information data with data from a database, and the control signal unit is further configured to determine the control signal depending on the comparison.") determining a second group of pixels of the [[virtual]] pixel headlamp that are affected based on the spatial selection region, wherein the second group differs from the first group at least on account of one pixel, ). Figure 5 depicts a group of pixels that correspond to an area having reduced light intensity at item 24 and shows an image later in the sequence having a second group of pixels that correspond to an area with a desired reduced lighting.
PNG
media_image1.png
319
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and further changing the individual light intensities of the discrete pixels of the [[virtual]] pixel headlamp according to the illumination rule, The areas of interest are modified at different times to reduce light output (24) or hide light output (52) and then later both activated to partially emit light ((Johannes, ¶67-68) " Based on the camera data 18, the following images 20 are determined, in which the area 24 is reduced with regard to light intensity in order to glare away or block out an oncoming object. The six images 20, which follow each other immediately, thus control the pixel spotlight 10, 12 with regard to light output for the next six cycles or frames. Further evaluation of the camera data 18, in particular taking into account area 26 (Fig. 4) areas 52 are also hidden or de-glared where reduced lighting is desired to reduce glare due to ice or water. This is achieved with the images 22 that follow images 20. A subsequent image 54 shows that the fade-out is reduced in areas 24 and 52. In these areas, the pixels are thus activated again to partially emit light."); ((Johannes, ¶47) " In this configuration, the images following the reference image in the image sequence are adjusted accordingly based on the evaluation of the camera data during the reference image, in order to improve the illumination of the roadway, especially the road surface. This makes it possible to better illuminate specific areas of the road that are very bright and may dazzle the driver or the vehicle camera, or areas where visibility is poor due to insufficient lighting, by adjusting the images and consequently also adjusting the light output of the pixel headlight."). wherein a change amount for at least one pixel differs from the change amount of the corresponding at least one pixel in the first group, Change amounts in each control sequence image can be seen in different pixels than those identified in the first group (See Figure 5). For example, at least one pixel as required by the claim may refer to any pixel in the control image, whereby the corner-most pixels of the image are differently shaded than that of group 1, indicating a different change amount applied. The at least one pixel corresponding to the at least one pixel in the first group may be read to entail an alternative pixel in the same (corresponding) control image and repeating steps g), h), and i)The method is performed continuously along the drive of the vehicle to obtain information about a dynamic environment, wherein new reference images are received intermittently and the adaptation of the headlight control is continuously performed per sets of image sequences, thereby indicating repetition of the steps of the method ((Johannes, ¶37) "The control unit thus adapts static guidance road features of the roadway to the dynamic information from the sensors and data, thereby eliminating the information difference between static guidance road features and the actual environment.");((Johannes, ¶48) " It is also advantageous if the image sequence repeatedly includes reference images, with successive reference images being spaced apart from each other by at least about 0.5 seconds, preferably at least about 0.8 seconds. It has been shown that with such a distance between the reference images, impairment of the driver and/or other road users can be largely avoided, while at the same time ensuring reliable functionality according to the invention. Alternatively or additionally, it can also be provided that the temporal distance between the reference images depends on the vehicle speed of the motor vehicle. It may be provided that the reference images follow each other in time with a small interval at high vehicle speeds, whereas at low vehicle speeds, for example when maneuvering or the like, the time interval between them may be increased. In addition, other vehicle parameters can of course be taken into account in order to adjust the time interval between successive reference images. The reference images do not need to follow each other at equidistant intervals in time; furthermore, it can be provided that the time interval between the reference images varies. ")
Johannes does not disclose the utilization of a simulation that would contain the virtualized components of the method, does not disclose a virtual pixel headlamp corresponding to an actual pixel headlamp, does not disclose virtual scenes representing a still image from the simulation with the vehicle in the scenario, and does not explicitly disclose the storage of value pairs for control. However, Waldner discloses a virtual driving scenario ((Waldner, Page 1311, Col 2, ¶1) " 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."); ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 2, ¶2) " A traffic model simulates other road users in the virtual environment in order to create test scenarios for the headlight. The scenarios can also include different lighting, environment and weather conditions to simulate all important test scenarios.")
a virtual motor vehicle ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶2) " It also measures the dynamics of the simulated ego vehicle, which are necessary for the light functions, for example the steering wheel for cornering light [8].")
a virtual pixel headlamp corresponding to the actual pixel headlamp A virtual light is represented in a corresponding way to a real headlight within the simulation ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶1) "The vehicle dynamics simulation sets the origin and the direction of the light source to move the virtual light like the real headlight."); ((Waldner, Page 1311, Col 2, ¶3- Page 1312, Col 1, ¶1) "The virtual headlight representation is shown in section III. Section IV presents the adjustment process of the image processing system step-by-step. The HiL-system is evaluated in section V by comparing the virtual light distribution with a real one from a matrix-headlight.")
a virtual surroundings sensor ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶2) "In the virtual environment a virtual sensor system approximates the camera system by scanning the area in front of the ego vehicle.")
simulating a night drive ((Waldner, Page 1131, Col 1, Abstract) " A virtual testing simulation visualizes the digitized light distribution under consideration of the actual driving dynamics.")((Waldner, Page 1311, Col 2, ¶1) " By using the presented HiL-simulation the duration and number of necessary night test drives can be reduced. Also imperfections and faults can be found faster and earlier in the development process.")
virtual scenes See at least Figures 10 and 11 ((Waldner, Page 1316 Col 1, ¶2) " The next evaluation scenario is activating light functions in a test facility.")
wherein each virtual scene represents a still image from the night drive together with the virtual motor vehicle in the virtual driving scenario The simulation includes the vehicle dynamics of an ego vehicle in a virtual environment ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶4 – Col 2, ¶1) " A vehicle dynamic simulation calculates the headlight-trajectory to make the evaluation of the influence of driving dynamics on light distribution possible."). The simulation is further characterized by the environment experienced by the vehicle while driving as the scenario ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 2, ¶2) " A traffic model simulates other road users in the virtual environment in order to create test scenarios for the headlight. The scenarios can also include different lighting, environment and weather conditions to simulate all important test scenarios. The virtual sensors of the ego vehicle measure the current situation to close the test loop."); See at least Figures 10 and 11 showing still images taken from test scenarios. ((Waldner, Page 1316 Col 1, ¶2) " The next evaluation scenario is activating light functions in a test facility."). The simulation is further described in terms of frames per second, wherein a frame is understood to be a still image of each discretized part of the simulation ((Waldner, Page 1315, Col 2, ¶3) "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.")
Johansen is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of pixel-based headlight control. Waldner is similarly analogous to the claimed invention in that it is related to the same field of endeavor of pixel-based headlight control, particularly by including simulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the simulation aspect of Waldner into the methodology of Johansen because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Johansen discloses a methodology to be performed in physical use scenarios of night driving while Waldner discloses leveraging simulated scenarios of night driving to optimize control of pixel-based headlights. Waldner particularly notes that using a simulation-based approach reduces the duration and number of necessary night test drives needed for attaining such controls and further notes that imperfections and faults can be found earlier in the development process ((Waldner, Page 1311, Col 2, ¶1) "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. By using the presented HiL-simulation the duration and number of necessary night test drives can be reduced. Also imperfections and faults can be found faster and earlier in the development process."). Accordingly, the combination of references would have been obvious to one having skill in the art so as to achieve the purported benefits.
Regarding claim 3, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 1, as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Waldner discloses wherein the spatial orientation in the virtual scene is determined based on a global three- dimensional coordinate system, and the global coordinates are transferred into a headlamp- specific coordinate system. The world coordinate system of the simulated environment comprising a point defined by the directions x, y and z is converted to a texture coordinate system, which is the coordinate system of the light. ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶2) "The first step of the light simulation is converting a point pW = (xW yW zW)T from world coordinate system W into the point pT = (xT yT wT)T in the texture coordinate system T . T is also the light coordinate system because the texture spreads in the light direction like a spherical light distribution, which shows fig. 4. The coordinate transform WTT 2 R4_4 from W to T uses homogeneous coordinates:")
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the proposed combination because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art references would have led one to make the modification. Waldner discloses that projective texture mapping is leveraged because it is real-time capable and luminous intensity distributions can be used, and further describes the texture mapping in terms of converting real-world coordinates into the texture coordinate system ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶1) "The used method for the light simulation is projective Texture-Mapping [5], [10] because it is real-time capable and LIDs can be used. The vehicle dynamics simulation sets the origin and the direction of the light source to move the virtual light like the real headlight."). Accordingly, the combination would have been obvious to achieve the real-time benefits.
Regarding claim 4, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 1, as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Johannes discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) wherein the [[virtual]] motor vehicle has at least one [[virtual]] environment camera The vehicle has a camera ((Johannes, ¶24) "The vehicle camera can be, for example, a video camera, a photo camera and/or the like. Preferably, the vehicle camera has an electronic, in particular a digital, recording unit, so that camera data, preferably digital data, can be provided according to the captured vehicle environment.")., at least one [[virtual]] brightness sensor as at least one surroundings sensor, The vehicle camera may include its own sensor ((Johannes,¶23) " For this purpose, it may be provided that the vehicle camera has its own sensor that can determine the reference image. "). The vehicle camera is capable of detecting ambient brightness ((Johannes, ¶52) " For example, it may be possible to use the vehicle camera to detect ambient brightness or precipitation, and then activate the corresponding procedure. ") and at least one [[virtual]] vehicle sensor for recording vehicle data. The vehicle further has a mechanism by which to acquire data from the vehicle including steering angle and speed ((Johannes, ¶12) "The headlight or its headlight control is controlled by means of a control signal, taking into account data from the vehicle, such as steering angle, speed and fixed programmed values such as vehicle width and/or the like.") The dynamics information is obtained from sensors ((Johannes, ¶37) "The control unit thus adapts static guidance road features of the roadway to the dynamic information from the sensors and data, thereby eliminating the information difference between static guidance road features and the actual environment.").
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes does not disclose the virtual components of the claim. However, the proposed combination in further view of Waldner discloses simulated components as stated previously the virtual motor vehicle ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶2) "It also measures the dynamics of the simulated ego vehicle, which are necessary for the light functions, for example the steering wheel for cornering light [8].")
at least one virtual environment camera ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col. 1, ¶2) "In the virtual environment a virtual sensor system approximates the camera system by scanning the area in front of the ego vehicle.")
at least one virtual brightness sensor ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶2) " The resolution of the photometer or the camera determinates m; n, which represents the angular resolution of the system. "); ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶1) " As shown the distribution of the camera-system is similar in brightness curve to the goniophotometer data. ")
at least one virtual vehicle sensor ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶2) "The sensor system generates an object list from the road users. It also measures the dynamics of the simulated ego vehicle, which are necessary for the light functions, for example the steering wheel for cornering light [8].")
Regarding claim 5, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising: as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) recording [[virtual]] vehicle data by the at least one [[virtual]] sensor of the [[virtual]] motor vehicle; Data from the vehicle is obtained ((Johannes,¶12) "The headlight or its headlight control is controlled by means of a control signal, taking into account data from the vehicle, such as steering angle, speed and fixed programmed values such as vehicle width and/or the like."). The dynamics information is obtained from sensors ((Johannes, ¶37) "The control unit thus adapts static guidance road features of the roadway to the dynamic information from the sensors and data, thereby eliminating the information difference between static guidance road features and the actual environment."). Speed of the vehicle is known and can be evaluated as part of an algorithm used for tracking the movement, wherein the tracking is considered to be a record of such parameter ((Johannes, ¶79) "The program can implement a suitable algorithm. Since the speed of the motor vehicle is known and the position of the symbols or markings can be evaluated at high frequency using the vehicle camera from the images of image sequence 14, it is possible to track the movement and outlines of the symbols or markings within the driver's field of vision. "). Information such as sensor data and vehicle position may be stored in a database ((Johannes, ¶35) "This database contains data from the internet, GPS data, vehicle camera data, traffic sign analysis, traffic radio, other sensor data, information on the vehicle's position and/or the like. Depending on the comparison, the control signal is then determined using the control signal unit, which is coupled to the evaluation unit via communication technology").
analyzing the recorded vehicle data to determine a third group of pixels of the [[virtual]] pixel headlamp on the basis of the recorded vehicle data; and Dynamic information from sensor data is considered by the control unit for determining control ((Johannes, ¶37) " The control unit thus adapts static guidance road features of the roadway to the dynamic information from the sensors and data, thereby eliminating the information difference between static guidance road features and the actual environment."). Dynamics data such as speeds affect the supply of reference images, thereby indicating that any analysis done on camera images with regard to the reference images is associated (as the basis) of the vehicle data ((Johannes, ¶48) "Alternatively or additionally, it can also be provided that the temporal distance between the reference images depends on the vehicle speed of the motor vehicle. It may be provided that the reference images follow each other in time with a small interval at high vehicle speeds, whereas at low vehicle speeds, for example when maneuvering or the like, the time interval between them may be increased. In addition, other vehicle parameters can of course be taken into account in order to adjust the time interval between successive reference images."). Areas of interest can be identified for a multitude of scenarios, wherein each image sequence for accounts for the data from the vehicle, as stated previously, thereby indicating infinite identifiable groups of pixels depending on the current environment dynamics ((Johannes, ¶79) " The evaluation unit now reacts dynamically to the road symbols.
This can include a program-controlled computing unit. The program can implement a suitable algorithm. Since the speed of the motor vehicle is known and the position of the symbols or markings can be evaluated at high frequency using the vehicle camera from the images of image sequence 14, it is possible to track the movement and outlines of the symbols or markings within the driver's field of vision. Unwanted and incorrect information can now be hidden, changed, or reduced in the remaining or subsequent images. Useful information can be clarified. "); Furthermore, each scenario contains a sequence of images that correlate to control where at least three subsequent images in the sequence occur, thereby indicating that a third group may be identified within the same sequence- See at least Figs 5-9 depicting a variety of identified groups of pixels for modification.
changing individual light intensities of discrete pixels in the third group of pixels of the [[virtual]] pixel headlamp according to the illumination rule. Individual pixels of the headlight are controlled according to the image sequence, as depicted in at least Figs 5-9 ((Johannes, ¶25) "The pixel spotlight is a spotlight that has a plurality of matrix-like arranged, individually controllable pixels that can be controlled in a suitable manner to adjust the light output of the pixel spotlight according to the current image of the image sequence in accordance with the control signal. A pixel of the pixel spotlight therefore preferably represents an essentially point-shaped light source. The light source can be, for example, a light-emitting diode, but also, in principle, a gas discharge lamp, an incandescent lamp and/or the like. These light sources can be combined into a matrix, which may also include a headlight control system by means of which the individual light sources can be controlled in a corresponding manner according to the control signal."); ((Johannes, ¶47) "In this configuration, the images following the reference image in the image sequence are adjusted accordingly based on the evaluation of the camera data during the reference image, in order to improve the illumination of the roadway, especially the road surface. This makes it possible to better illuminate specific areas of the road that are very bright and may dazzle the driver or the vehicle camera, or areas where visibility is poor due to insufficient lighting, by adjusting the images and consequently also adjusting the light output of the pixel headlight. Of course, the invention does not need to be limited to a single area; several over- or underexposed areas can be identified simultaneously."). The image sequence is provided based on a desired illumination ((Johannes, ¶25) "Furthermore, the pixel spotlight can of course include other optically active elements that are able to adapt the light emitted by the individual light sources of the pixel spotlight in the desired way to emit light according to the light distribution, for example refractory elements such as lenses, prisms and/or the like, reflective elements such as mirrors, in particular micromirrors, DMDs (Digital Mirror Devices), combinations thereof and/or the like."); ((Johannes, ¶31-32) " The specified light distribution is a light distribution that is to be provided, for example, as the target light distribution by means of the pixel spotlight. The specified light distribution can be provided by a higher-level vehicle control system, a control element that can be operated manually by the driver of the motor vehicle, and/or the like. For example, the specified light distribution can represent high beam, low beam and/or the like. The evaluation unit allows the camera data to be analyzed and, for example, oncoming vehicles or other road users to be detected. If other road users are detected, it may be possible to modify subsequent images in the image sequence in such a way that a spatial angle in which the other road user is located is hidden or unhidden ")
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes does not disclose the virtual nature of the configuration, as stated above. However, Johannes is relied upon to teach these features virtual vehicle data ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶2) "The sensor system generates an object list from the road users. It also measures the dynamics of the simulated ego vehicle, which are necessary for the light functions, for example the steering wheel for cornering light [8].")
virtual vehicle sensor ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶2) "The sensor system generates an object list from the road users. It also measures the dynamics of the simulated ego vehicle, which are necessary for the light functions, for example the steering wheel for cornering light [8].")
virtual motor vehicle ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶2) "It also measures the dynamics of the simulated ego vehicle, which are necessary for the light functions, for example the steering wheel for cornering light [8].")
virtual pixel headlamp ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶1) "The vehicle dynamics simulation sets the origin and the direction of the light source to move the virtual light like the real headlight."); ((Waldner, Page 1311, Col 2, ¶3- Page 1312, Col 1, ¶1) "The virtual headlight representation is shown in section III. Section IV presents the adjustment process of the image processing system step-by-step. The HiL-system is evaluated in section V by comparing the virtual light distribution with a real one from a matrix-headlight.")
Regarding claim 6, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 5, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes discloses wherein the third group of pixels is a subset of the first group of pixels. Figure 5 depicts a sequence of images that correspond to the control of the pixels of the headlights, where subsequent images contain subsets of pixels of the preceding image for control, as shown in Fig.5. See also Figures 6-9 as further examples.
PNG
media_image2.png
408
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 1, as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Johannes discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) [[wherein presentation of the virtual scenes one after the other is clocked such that a number of virtual scenes per second is predetermined]] and a number of repetitions of step i) corresponds to a number of repetitions required until an obtained illumination satisfies the illumination rule The procedure is stopped according to satisfaction the conditions which started the procedure in the first place, thereby indicating that the iterative analysis and sequence of illuminance changes ceases when the illumination condition is met ((Johannes, ¶52) "In this way it is possible to use the procedure in an optimized way, especially when there are unfavorable lighting conditions and visibility is impaired, particularly for the driver of the motor vehicle or other road users. For example, it may be possible to use the vehicle camera to detect ambient brightness or precipitation, and then activate the corresponding procedure. Accordingly, the process can also be deactivated again if an improvement in visibility conditions has been determined using the vehicle camera or if the corresponding conditions that activated the process according to the invention no longer apply.").
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes does not particularly disclose a clock rate for the simulation because Johannes does not disclose a simulation. Accordingly, Waldner is relied upon to disclose wherein a presentation of the virtual scenes one after the other is clocked such that a number of virtual scenes per second is predetermined Frames per second of the simulation is known to be greater than 60 fps as a predetermined value ((Waldner, page 1315, Col 2, ¶3) "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. ")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the proposed combination to include a predetermined frame rate for the simulation because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one having skill in the art to make the modification in order to arrive at the claimed invention. The image sequence frequency per Johannes has preferred values that reflect desirable speeds for accuracy and processing purposes ((Johannes, ¶19) " With regard to a generic method, it is particularly proposed that the image sequence is provided with an image sequence frequency of greater than approximately 24 Hz, preferably greater than approximately 90 Hz, and particularly preferably greater than approximately 100 Hz, wherein the image sequence includes at least one reference image for uniformly illuminating the driving path, the vehicle camera is synchronized to capture the driving path with respect to the reference image, the at least one indicating driving path feature and the information data associated with the indicating driving path feature are determined from the provided camera data with respect to the reference image, the associated information data are compared with data from a database, and the control signal is determined depending on the comparison."). Setting a frame rate for the simulation to a specified value enables the turning clock rates for corresponding virtual sensors and processing which would, by virtue, rely on the simulation’s parameters. Knowing the frame rate further enables precise tuning such that real-time approaches can be implemented, as disclosed by Waldner ((Waldner, Page 1315, Col 2, ¶3) "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."). Accordingly the combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 1, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) wherein the individual light intensities are changed by respective change amounts [[based on multiplying each respective individual light intensity by a respective dimming factor.]] The control of the pixel headlights is described as being adaptable to change values of certain areas of the headlight per a desired intensity ((Johannes, ¶33) "Furthermore, it is of course possible to adjust the control signal accordingly by adapting images following the reference image, taking into account the insights gained from the evaluation. This makes it possible, for example, to illuminate a section of the road covered with ice or water less intensely, so that the driver of the motor vehicle or other road users are not blinded as much as possible."); ((Johannes, ¶36) "If there is no match, adjusting the images in the image sequence in certain areas can make the indicative road features, such as the road markings, less visually apparent. It is also possible to actively "overlay" or cross over the directional road markings with other projected markings."); ((Johannes, ¶25) "The pixel spotlight is a spotlight that has a plurality of matrix-like arranged, individually controllable pixels that can be controlled in a suitable manner to adjust the light output of the pixel spotlight according to the current image of the image sequence in accordance with the control signal."); ((Johannes, ¶47) "In this configuration, the images following the reference image in the image sequence are adjusted accordingly based on the evaluation of the camera data during the reference image, in order to improve the illumination of the roadway, especially the road surface. This makes it possible to better illuminate specific areas of the road that are very bright and may dazzle the driver or the vehicle camera, or areas where visibility is poor due to insufficient lighting, by adjusting the images and consequently also adjusting the light output of the pixel headlight. Of course, the invention does not need to be limited to a single area; several over- or underexposed areas can be identified simultaneously.")
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes does not particularly disclose establishing the change amounts by any particular mathematical calculation. However, the proposed combination in further view of Waldner discloses setting the illuminance for each point based on multiplying each respective individual light intensity by a respective dimming factor A distance function is multiplied by intensity values for each point where the distance function may be the inverse square law, wherein one having skill in the art would understand that the inverse square law describes how light intensity decreases proportionally to the inverse square of the distance from the source as a dimmed value ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶2) " The illuminance Ev(pW) at the point pW is approximately the multiplication of the intensity and th distance function fd(pW; pL,O) between pW and the origin pL,O of a point light [5], [9]. The inverse square law is a possible function for fd.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the prior art references to incorporate the multiplication by a dimming factor as disclosed by Waldner into the change values for the light intensity of the pixels as disclosed by Johannes because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having skill to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Johannes discloses modifying the light intensity of the pixels of the headlight but does not provide a particular mechanism by which to do so and Waldner explicitly provides a mechanism by which to achieve illuminance values for each pixel using a mathematical function.
Regarding claim 10, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 1, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes discloses wherein the illumination rule is determined by a desired two-dimensional distribution of the illuminance, which is dependent on a desired light function. Given light distributions correspond to high beam and de-glaring as desired functions ((Johannes, ¶62) "The camera data 18 are evaluated by means of an evaluation unit which is also not shown, taking into account a given light distribution, here a high beam, in order to determine and provide the control signal for controlling the pixel headlight 10 , 12."); ((Johannes, ¶68) "Further evaluation of the camera data 18, in particular taking into account area 26 ( Fig. 4) areas 52 are also hidden or de-glared where reduced lighting is desired to reduce glare due to ice or water."); ((Johannes, ¶31) "The specified light distribution can be provided by a higher-level vehicle control system, a control element that can be operated manually by the driver of the motor vehicle, and/or the like. For example, the specified light distribution can represent high beam, low beam and/or the like."). The light distributions correspond to an image of the sequence of images, which are two-dimensional representations of how illumination is to be distributed ((Johannes, ¶61) "Each individual image 20, 22 (Fig. 5) of an image sequence 14 corresponds to a respective light distribution to be provided by the pixel spotlight 10 , 12. ")
Regarding claim 11, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising: as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes discloses except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]]) based on determining the obtained light intensity satisfies the illumination rule Vehicle camera data may be evaluated to determine if an illumination procedure is satisfied such that deactivation of control may be imparted ((Johannes,¶52) "For example, it may be possible to use the vehicle camera to detect ambient brightness or precipitation, and then activate the corresponding procedure. Accordingly, the process can also be deactivated again if an improvement in visibility conditions has been determined using the vehicle camera or if the corresponding conditions that activated the process according to the invention no longer apply."). generating and [[storing]] value pairs for a control to be created based on the obtained light intensity satisfying the illumination rule, wherein the value pairs are formed from the first group of pixels and respective change amounts for the discrete pixels in the group. Control signals are generated for each pixel in the pixel headlight according to a sequence of images that contains pixel-value pairs corresponding to appropriate control ((Johannes, ¶25) " The pixel spotlight is a spotlight that has a plurality of matrix-like arranged, individually controllable pixels that can be controlled in a suitable manner to adjust the light output of the pixel spotlight according to the current image of the image sequence in accordance with the control signal. A pixel of the pixel spotlight therefore preferably represents an essentially point-shaped light source. The light source can be, for example, a light-emitting diode, but also, in principle, a gas discharge lamp, an incandescent lamp and/or the like. These light sources can be combined into a matrix, which may also include a headlight control system by means of which the individual light sources can be controlled in a corresponding manner according to the control signal. The pixel spotlight can also include a laser light source similar to a laser scanner, which is controlled accordingly to provide a light distribution in accordance with the control signal. "). The control signal is determined by accounting for the predefined light distribution as an illumination rule ((Johannes, ¶30) " Furthermore, an evaluation unit is provided that receives the camera data from the vehicle camera and evaluates it, for example, taking into account a predefined light distribution. This allows the control signal for controlling the pixel spotlight to be determined and provided. "). The image pixels correspond to the light output value as a change amount ((Johannes, ¶47) " The pixel spotlight is a spotlight that has a plurality of matrix-like arranged, individually controllable pixels that can be controlled in a suitable manner to adjust the light output of the pixel spotlight according to the current image of the image sequence in accordance with the control signal.")
Johannes does disclose the generation of control signal value pairs but does not disclose the storage of value pairs for control.
However, Waldner discloses storing value pairs for control purposes. Luminous intensity values for each light source in the pixel matrix are calculated and stored for control purposes ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶2) "The control algorithm adapts the light distribution on the collected data and calculates the individual luminous intensity I_v,I for each light source."); ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶2) "The luminous intensity values Iv,i are stored in an intensity matrix Iv in Rm*n.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the proposed combination to include this teaching of Waldner because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art references would have led one having skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Johannes discloses the generation of control data for a pixel headlamp using image data but does not contemplate the storage of such signals. Waldner also describes the generation of control data for a real headlight by way of simulated images and further describes the algorithmic process of calculating the pertinent luminous intensity values from image data and storing them within an intensity matrix. By imparting the storage capability disclosed by Waldner into the system of Johannes that merely generates data and sends to the pixel headlamp for control without any apparent storage steps, the combination yields the claimed invention. As stated previously in the combination described in the rejection of Claim 1, Waldner provides an explicit motivation to integrate simulated scenarios to optimize control of pixel-based headlights by touting the benefits of repeatability. ((Waldner, Page 1311, Col 2, ¶1) "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. By using the presented HiL-simulation the duration and number of necessary night test drives can be reduced. Also imperfections and faults can be found faster and earlier in the development process."). Storing of such relevant data enables repeatability and enables faster lookup instead of requiring re-generation for subsequent analyses. Accordingly, the combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 11, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Waldner teaches wherein the actual pixel headlamp is controlled by storing value pairs from the first group of pixels and respective change amounts of the discrete pixels in the first group of pixels, ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶2) "The luminous intensity values Iv,i are stored in an intensity matrix Iv 2 Rm_n.") integrating the stored value pairs on a control device, ((Waldner, Page 1312, Col 1, ¶2) " The control algorithm adapts the light distribution on the collected data and calculates the individual luminous intensity for each light source Iv,i") and retrieving the stored value pairs. ((Waldner, Page 1313, Col 1, ¶2) " The second step is accessing the corresponding intensity value. The function fI gives the value of Iv at the position (xT yT) or the best interpolation of the four neighborhood values when the texture coordinates are between the discrete elements of Iv.")
Regarding claim 14, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 7, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]])) [[wherein presentation of the virtual scenes one after the other is clocked such that a number of virtual scenes per second is predetermined]] and a number of repetitions of step i) corresponds to the number of repetitions that is temporally possible under a clock rate before a next lined-up [[virtual]] scene is analyzed. Reference images correspond to a new view of the environment scene, and the procedure is restarted per each active reference image as a finite duration for evaluation of camera data (as a repetition of steps g)- i)). ((Johannes, ¶48) "It is also advantageous if the image sequence repeatedly includes reference images, with successive reference images being spaced apart from each other by at least about 0.5 seconds, preferably at least about 0.8 seconds. It has been shown that with such a distance between the reference images, impairment of the driver and/or other road users can be largely avoided, while at the same time ensuring reliable functionality according to the invention. Alternatively or additionally, it can also be provided that the temporal distance between the reference images depends on the vehicle speed of the motor vehicle. It may be provided that the reference images follow each other in time with a small interval at high vehicle speeds, whereas at low vehicle speeds, for example when maneuvering or the like, the time interval between them may be increased. In addition, other vehicle parameters can of course be taken into account in order to adjust the time interval between successive reference images. The reference images do not need to follow each other at equidistant intervals in time; furthermore, it can be provided that the time interval between the reference images varies. "); ((Johannes, ¶19) " With regard to a generic method, it is particularly proposed that the image sequence is provided with an image sequence frequency of greater than approximately 24 Hz, preferably greater than approximately 90 Hz, and particularly preferably greater than approximately 100 Hz, wherein the image sequence includes at least one reference image for uniformly illuminating the driving path, the vehicle camera is synchronized to capture the driving path with respect to the reference image, the at least one indicating driving path feature and the information data associated with the indicating driving path feature are determined from the provided camera data with respect to the reference image, the associated information data are compared with data from a database, and the control signal is determined depending on the comparison. ")
Johannes does not disclose wherein presentation of the virtual scenes one after the other is clocked such that a number of virtual scenes per second is predetermined or the use of virtual scenes.
However Waldner teaches wherein presentation of the virtual scenes one after the other is clocked such that a number of virtual scenes per second is predetermined Frames per second of the simulation is known to be greater than 60 fps as a predetermined value ((Waldner, page 1315, Col 2, ¶3) "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. ")
Regarding claim 15, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 11, as stated previously.
The proposed combination further in view of Johannes teaches. wherein reducing individual light intensities of discrete affected pixels in the first group of pixels of the virtual pixel headlamp according to the illumination rule comprises the spatial selection region being excluded from the illuminable area. ((Johannes, ¶67) " Based on the camera data 18, the following images 20 are determined, in which the area 24 is reduced with regard to light intensity in order to glare away or block out an oncoming object.")
Regarding claim 16, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 15, as stated previously.
The proposed combination further in view of Johannes teaches wherein excluding the spatial selection region from the illuminable area is based on determining a presence of an oncoming driver in the illuminable area. ((Johannes, ¶32) "The evaluation unit allows the camera data to be analyzed and, for example, oncoming vehicles or other road users to be detected. If other road users are detected, it may be possible to modify subsequent images in the image sequence in such a way that a spatial angle in which the other road user is located is hidden or unhidden.")
Regarding claim 17, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 16, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes teaches wherein excluding the spatial selection region from the illuminable area reduces glare for the oncoming driver. ((Johannes, ¶6) " In combination with pixel headlights, for example, oncoming objects, especially oncoming motor vehicles, can be detected and the light distribution provided by the pixel headlight can be adjusted accordingly to avoid dazzling the detected objects as much as possible."); ((Johannes ,¶67) " Based on the camera data 18, the following images 20 are determined, in which the area 24 is reduced with regard to light intensity in order to glare away or block out an oncoming object.")
Regarding claim 18, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 4, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in view of Johannes further teaches wherein the vehicle data comprises acceleration and/or steering angle and/or yaw rate. The vehicle has a mechanism by which to acquire data from the vehicle including steering angle and speed ((Johannes, ¶12) "The headlight or its headlight control is controlled by means of a control signal, taking into account data from the vehicle, such as steering angle, speed and fixed programmed values such as vehicle width and/or the like.")
Regarding claim 19, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 10, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes teaches wherein the desired light function is a glare-free high beam Given light distributions correspond to high beam and de-glaring ((Johannes, ¶62) "The camera data 18 are evaluated by means of an evaluation unit which is also not shown, taking into account a given light distribution, here a high beam, in order to determine and provide the control signal for controlling the pixel headlight 10 , 12."); ((Johannes, ¶68) "Further evaluation of the camera data 18, in particular taking into account area 26 ( Fig. 4) areas 52 are also hidden or de-glared where reduced lighting is desired to reduce glare due to ice or water."); ((Johannes, ¶31) "The specified light distribution can be provided by a higher-level vehicle control system, a control element that can be operated manually by the driver of the motor vehicle, and/or the like. For example, the specified light distribution can represent high beam, low beam and/or the like."). and/or projection of lines and/or symbols onto the road. Side stripe projection or symbols may be a desired illumination pattern ((Johannes, ¶84) "Illustrations 74 and 80 refer to crossing the determined arrow 66 by means of a projection provided by the pixel spotlight according to an image of the image sequence 14 as light emission. The image shown is the one determined by means of the control signal unit, taking into account the evaluation of the camera data 18. The illuminated roadway is shown at 80. It can be seen that arrow 66 is not illuminated. In contrast, a cross 68 is projected brightly. The rest of the area of image 74 is illuminated according to a normal, predetermined light distribution. Figure 80 shows the projection onto the roadway. The cross 68 is easily recognizable visually. Arrow 66, on the other hand, is barely visible."); ((Johannes, ¶87) " Fig. 7 shows another example of the use of the invention, namely the visual projection of missing side stripes. [[…]]. Areas with the missing side stripes 94 are irradiated to the maximum extent. The road surface has a continuous pattern of shoulders, as shown with 90.")
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes in view of Waldner as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lopez et al (DE19916175A1), hereinafter referred to as Lopez.
Regarding claim 13, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 11, as stated previously.
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes teaches except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]])) wherein the value pairs from the first group of pixels and the respective change amounts [[are supplied as training data for a neural network.]] Control signals are generated for each pixel in the pixel headlight according to a sequence of images that contains pixel-value pairs corresponding to appropriate control ((Johannes, ¶25) " The pixel spotlight is a spotlight that has a plurality of matrix-like arranged, individually controllable pixels that can be controlled in a suitable manner to adjust the light output of the pixel spotlight according to the current image of the image sequence in accordance with the control signal. A pixel of the pixel spotlight therefore preferably represents an essentially point-shaped light source. The light source can be, for example, a light-emitting diode, but also, in principle, a gas discharge lamp, an incandescent lamp and/or the like. These light sources can be combined into a matrix, which may also include a headlight control system by means of which the individual light sources can be controlled in a corresponding manner according to the control signal. The pixel spotlight can also include a laser light source similar to a laser scanner, which is controlled accordingly to provide a light distribution in accordance with the control signal. ").
The proposed combination in further view of Johannes does not disclose using the value pairs for training a neural network. However, Lopez discloses supplying data to train a neural network for a similar image processing application where output signal data are supplied as training data for a neural network. ((Lopez, ¶21) "During this learning process, the neural network is supplied with images 52 with various illumination situations for which the correct setting of the reflector 12 of the headlight 10 and thus the correct output signal Onominal, which must be generated by the neural network, is known.")
Lopez is analogous to the claimed invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor of pixel headlamp control. The proposed combination in view of Johannes teaches the evaluation of camera data through an evaluation unit to inform the control of a pixel headlamp. Lopez alternatively teaches an evaluation device for evaluating image data to predict an output signal for the reflectors of the headlight, wherein the evaluation device is a neural network ((Lopez, ¶20) "The image 52 of the illumination situation generated by the processing device 52 is fed to an evaluation device 60, by means of which the image 52 is evaluated as to whether the illumination situation corresponds to an illumination situation with a correctly adjusted direction of the light bundle emitted by the headlight 10 and, in the case of a deviation existing, a proposal for a changed adjustment of the reflector 12 of the headlight 10 is generated in order to at least reduce the deviation. The evaluation device 60 is preferably constructed as a neural network, wherein each pixel 54 of the image 52 forms an input of the neural network."). Waldner teaches the use of synthetic simulated data for determining optimal control signals for a matrix headlight. Lopez further teaches the learning and re-learning by the evaluation device using known control signal, as given above (See Lopez ¶21) and teaches that the neural network based evaluation device may be trained using synthetic images ((Lopez, ¶22) " In the learning process of the neural network, it is possible to use theoretical or synthetic images of the lighting situation which are generated, for example calculated, on the basis of theoretical specifications about the light beam emitted by the headlight 10, and from which the image 52 is derived."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have modified the proposed combination of Johannes and Waldner to incorporate the teaching of Lopez because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Lopez explicitly states that the use of synthetic data for training the evaluation device is advantageous ((Lopez, ¶22) " These theoretical or synthetically produced images are advantageously used during a first phase of the learning process of the neural network.") and that the evaluation device enables quick and easy processing of image data to predict headlamp output signals ((Lopez, ¶19) " The image 30 is processed by the processing device 50 in such a way that it can be evaluated quickly and easily in the following evaluation device. "). By imparting the simulated imagery and corresponding control signals disclosed by the combination of Johannes and Waldner to the evaluation unit disclosed by Lopez, one would arrive at the claimed invention, wherein one would be compelled to do so in order to obtain an evaluation device that quickly and easily predicts control signals.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2018095718A1 discusses existing lighting functions including glare free high beam for pixel-wise adaptive headlamp systems. The reference further discusses a methodology for controlling a headlight module that illuminates the environment of a vehicle wherein an illumination intensity is set as a function of the luminance. The ambient intensity is evaluated to see if the target illuminance is achieved.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights