DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
In the IDS, The Examiner notes that reference no. 3, “9,083,844” appears to still have a typographical error and has not been interpreted. US 9,802,844 is by Tamiya (not Chad as listed), and is directed towards a computer readable medium and information processing apparatus, that does not have relevance to the current application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the the control hub” which appears to have a typographical error.
Claim 1, 18 recites “input/output adaptors”. It is unclear what structure or functions the “adaptors” require. The term “adapter” is defined as “a device for connecting pieces of equipment that cannot be connected directly”. It is unclear what the adaptor is adapting from and adapting to. Furthermore, adapters are well known in the art, and a necessity in most electronic systems. Having an additional adapter does not affect the operation of the device. I.e., there appears to be no difference between a system that has an adaptor and a system that has a direction connection.
The Examiner suggests reciting the specific structure of the adaptor if it is critical to the device, e.g. the CAN adapter recited in Adams.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “adaptor” as “interface”. I.e. “a point where two systems connect”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 12, 14-18, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (U.S. 11,268,673, filed 11/5/2020) in view of Walker (U.S. 12,156,314, filed 10/21/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Adams teaches a vehicle lighting system (vehicle light fixture system, see fig. 1), comprising:
a control hub (control bus 250, power bus 252, microprocessor 210 see figure 2) comprising two or more input/output adaptors (trigger wire connections, see col. 12 lines 43-65, inherently require adaptors to input or output);
two or more cables (trigger wires) having first ends connected to two or more input/output adaptors in the the control hub (trigger wires, see col. 12 lines 43-65) and second ends (connection point with lights), configured to connect with two or more modular light (see fig. 2, LED groups) disposed on various locations on a vehicle (see fig. 1);
a vehicle adaptor configured to connect the control hub to an existing vehicle light controller on the vehicle (see col. 26 lines 47-67, see specifically col. 29 lines 17-35, single control module may work with native vehicular CAN bus system); and
a control panel (local control mechanism 228) connected to the control hub.
Adams does not specifically recite input/output adaptors.
Walker teaches input/output adaptors (see fig. 1, see col. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used adaptors as taught by Walker to enable connections from the vehicle system to the lighting modules of Adams and thereby enable control and power in the same connection, see col. 2 of Walker.
Regarding claim 2, Adams teaches further comprising:
one or more sensors (sensors 240, see col. 7 lines 1-25) connected to the control hub, wherein the control hub receives measurements from the one or more sensors and sends to the modular lights based on received measurements to generate adaptive drive beams (manipulation of light fixture by angular velocity among other sensors, see col. 7, see fig. 4a-4e).
Regarding claim 3, Adams teaches further comprising:
a drive circuit (circuits of microprocessor 210, remote control 224, sensors 240) disposed in the control hub (see fig. 2), wherein the drive circuit is configured to drive the two or more modular lights (drives LED groups directly).
Regarding claim 11, Adams teaches that the control panel (local control mechanism 228) is integrated with a factory control panel on the vehicle (see col. 22 lines 1-5).
The Examiner notes that the manner of installation of the control panel, i.e. into a factory control panel of the vehicle, does not appear to materially affect the operation of the device. There is no clear structural requirement for the claim.
I.e., the Examiner finds that the recitation of the location of installation appears to be directed towards the intended use of the structure, not the claimed structure itself.
“(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 12, Adams teaches that the control panel comprises a switch panel configured to allow the driver to turn on and off the two or more modular lights individually (see col. 21 line 67-col. 22 lines 45, switches used for control of respective light fixtures).
Regarding claim 14, Adams teaches that each of the two or more cables comprises wiring to convey control signals from the control hub to the corresponding modular lights (transmits signals, see col. 12 lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 15, Adams teaches that the two or more input/output adaptors comprise an input/output adaptor for vehicle headlights (see col. 24, headlight control).
Regarding claim 16, Adams teaches that the control hub (250, 252, 210, see fig. 2) is configured to install in a trunk, a cabin, or under a hood of the vehicle (in cabin of vehicle see col. 12 lines 42-50).
The Examiner notes that the installation location of the control hub does not affect the structure or operation of the device. There is no clear structural requirement for the claim.
I.e., the Examiner finds that the recitation of the location of installation appears to be directed towards the intended use of the structure, not the claimed structure itself.
“(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 17, Adams teaches that the two or more modular lights include vehicle headlights (see col. 24).
Regarding claim 18, Adams teaches a vehicle lighting system (vehicle light see fig. 1, 2), comprising:
a control hub (control bus 250, 252, 210, see fig. 2) configured to connect with a factory vehicle light controller on a vehicle (CAN bus connection, see fig. 2, see col. 26, col. 29):
a first input/output adaptor (trigger wire connection); and
a second input/output adaptor (trigger wire connection);
a first cable (trigger wire) connecting between the first input/output adaptor and a first vehicle light installed on the vehicle (see fig. 2);
a second cable connected between the second input/output adaptor and a second vehicle light installed on the vehicle (see fig. 2); and
a sensor panel (sensor panel 240) connected to the control hub, wherein the control hub is operable to switch between the first vehicle light and the second vehicle light according to signals from the sensor panel (see col. 21 lines 40-60).
Adams does not specifically recite input/output adaptors.
Walker teaches input/output adaptors (see fig. 1, see col. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used adaptors as taught by Walker to enable connections from the vehicle system to the lighting modules of Adams and thereby enable control and power in the same connection, see col. 2 of Walker.
Regarding claim 22, Adams teaches further comprising a control panel (228) connected to control hub.
Regarding claim 23, Adams teaches that the control panel comprises a switch panel (rocker switches, see col. 12) configured to allow a driver of the vehicle to turn on and off the first and second vehicle lights.
Claim(s) 13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams and Walker in view of Bummel (U.S. 9,180,808).
Regarding claim 13, Adams does not teach that the control panel comprises indicator lights to show status of the two or more modular lights.
Bummel teaches that the control panel comprises indicator lights to show status of the two or more modular lights. (see abstract, indicator lights indicating lighting mode operation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used indicator light as taught by Bummel to indicate to the user of Adams the lighting modules that are active and what lighting modes the vehicle is in, such visual feedback is desirable to avoid blinding other drivers.
Regarding claim 24, Adams does not teach that the control panel comprises indicator lights to show status of the first and second vehicle lights.
Bummel teaches that the control panel comprises indicator lights to show status of the first and second vehicle lights (see abstract, indicator lights indicating lighting mode operation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used indicator light as taught by Bummel to indicate to the user of Adams the lighting modules that are active and what lighting modes the vehicle is in, such visual feedback is desirable to avoid blinding other drivers.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams and Walker in view of Kinoshita (U.S. 10,076,994)
Regarding claim 19, Adams teaches that the first vehicle light is a low beam headlight (see col. 24).
Adams does not specifically teach that the second vehicle light is a high beam headlight.
Kinoshita teaches that that the second vehicle light is a high beam headlight (see col. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a high beam headlight through adaptive driving beam control as taught by Kinoshita in the headlight of Adams to enable brighter illumination for on road and other driving, while preventing glare, see col. 2 of Kinoshita.
Regarding claim 20, Kinoshita and Adams further teaches that the control hub comprises hardware and software operable to receive and process measurement from the sensor panel to achieve adaptive driving beam (ADB) technology (See Adams, adaptive lighting technology, see col. 24 line 50-col. 25 line 30; see Kinoshita col. 2).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams and Walker in view of Kinoshita and Rudy (U.S. 12,000,552)
Regarding claim 21, Adams teaches that the sensor panel comprises an accelerometer (214), a gyroscope (212).
Adams does not specifically teach a laser imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor.
Rudy teaches a laser imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (see col. 31-32).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a LIDAR sensor as taught by Rudy for 3d sensing for use with 3d or 2d imaging techniques for adaptive driving beams, vehicle sensors, or self-driving functions, see col. 82 of Rudy, and to control the lighting structures in response to the LIDAR detection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875