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 .
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 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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ewecker et al. ("Provident Vehicle Detection at Night for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems"; arxiv.org, Cornell University Library; Ithaca, New York; April 8, 2022; XP091193912; 24 pages; see IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Ewecker discloses a computer-implemented method for adaptive high beam control for a vehicle [see at least the abstract], the method comprising: obtaining a pose of the vehicle, the pose being indicative of the vehicle's position and orientation on a road [implied by the following steps]; obtaining a Three-Dimensional (3D) road model of a surrounding environment of the vehicle based on map data and the obtained vehicle pose [See at least the 4th para. of section 5.2, “method for estimating the distance of light artifacts by fusing the position of the object in the image with Predictive Street Data (PSD). The PSD protocol contains information about the road geometry ahead of the vehicle (see Fig. 4) based on map data and GPS and is used, for instance, for advanced navigation functionalities or adaptive cruise control. With this data, the road lying ahead can be projected into the vehicle coordinate system (see Fig. 5), giving a three-dimensional representation of the road geometry. For our implementation, the road ahead described by the PSD is defined as a set of n points P ={P0,P1, P2,...,Pn}, where Pi is a point in the vehicle coordinate system lying on the road ahead described by the PSD.”]; generating a 3D region of interest (3D-ROI) in the form of voxels defining a volume along the obtained 3D road model [see at least section 5.2 Distance estimator]; forming a dataset [see at least section 6.1 Datasets, test car, and software framework] for processing by an Adaptive High Beam Control (AHBC) unit [e.g. the unit controlling the adaptive headlights/high beams; or see at least abstract, section 5.2, section 6.5] configured to adaptively control an illumination of a space in front of the vehicle by controlling an illumination of one or more headlights of the vehicle [see at least section 6.5 Provident glare-free high beam], wherein the formed dataset is based on the generated 3D-ROI and perception data [e.g. the data detected by the object detector, see at least section 5.1 Object detector] indicative of one or more detected road users in the surrounding environment of the vehicle, and wherein the perception data is based on sensor data obtained from one or more sensors [e.g. camera; see at least section 5.1] for monitoring a surrounding environment of the vehicle; and transmitting the formed dataset to the AHBC unit so to control the illumination of the space in front of the vehicle based on the formed dataset so to avoid casting high beam illumination towards road users detected [see at least abstract] within the 3D-ROI.
Regarding claim 2, Ewecker discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the formed dataset comprises the 3D-ROI and the perception data indicative of one or more detected road users in the surrounding environment of the vehicle [see at least abstract, right column of page 2, left column of page 3].
Regarding claim 10, Ewecker discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: processing at least a portion of the perception data and the 3D road model by a trained machine-learning algorithm [see at least abstract, section 5.1, and Convolutional NN(CNN)] that is trained to identify approaching but currently occluded road users based on the perception data and the 3D road model and to generate a network output comprising information about the positions of any occluded road users; and wherein the formed dataset further comprises the position of the occluded road users.
Regarding claim 11, Ewecker discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: processing the formed dataset by the AHBC unit in order to output data [see at least section 6.1 Datasets, test car, and software framework] comprising information about an illumination level and illumination direction to be set for each of the one or more headlights of the vehicle so to avoid casting high beam illumination towards road users detected within the 3D-ROI; and controlling the illumination level and illumination direction of the one or more headlights of the vehicle in accordance with the output data from the AHBC unit.
Regarding claim 13, Ewecker discloses an apparatus for adaptive high beam control for a vehicle, the apparatus comprising control circuitry configured to: obtain a pose of the vehicle, the pose being indicative of the vehicle's position and orientation on a road; obtain a Three-Dimensional (3D) road model of a surrounding environment of the vehicle based on map data and the obtained vehicle pose; generate a 3D region of interest (3D-ROI) in the form of voxels defining a volume along the obtained 3D road model; form a dataset for processing by an Adaptive High Beam Control (AHBC) unit configured to adaptively control an illumination of a space in front of the vehicle by controlling an illumination of one or more headlights of the vehicle, wherein the formed dataset is based on the generated 3D-ROI and perception data indicative of one or more detected road users in the surrounding environment of the vehicle, and wherein the perception data is based on sensor data obtained from one or more sensors for monitoring a surrounding environment of the vehicle; and transmit the formed dataset to the AHBC unit so to control the illumination of the space in front of the vehicle based on the formed dataset so to avoid casting high beam illumination towards road users detected within the 3D-ROI. See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Ewecker discloses a vehicle [see at least abstract] comprising: an apparatus for adaptive high beam control for the vehicle according to claim 13.
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 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewecker et al. ("Provident Vehicle Detection at Night for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems"; arxiv.org, Cornell University Library; Ithaca, New York; April 8, 2022; XP091193912; 24 pages; see IDS) in view of Steiner et al. ("Cooperative Glare Reduction Using V2V Radio Technology", IEEE 5th International Symposium on Wireless Vehicular Communications (WIVEC); June 2; 2013; XP032547599; 5 pages).
Regarding claim 9, Ewecker discloses the method according to claim 1. Ewecker does not disclose to utilize vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) data from one or more other vehicles located in an occluded area of the surrounding environment of the vehicle, wherein the V2V data comprises information about a position of the one or more other vehicles. However, Steiner discloses to utilize vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) data from one or more other vehicles located in an occluded area of the surrounding environment of the vehicle, wherein the V2V data comprises information about a position of the one or more other vehicles [see at least abstract], such that the combination wherein the formed dataset further comprises the positions of the one or more other vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Ewecker in accordance with the teaching of Steiner regarding V2V in order to further reduce glare using V2V radio technology [abstract].
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewecker et al. ("Provident Vehicle Detection at Night for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems"; arxiv.org, Cornell University Library; Ithaca, New York; April 8, 2022; XP091193912; 24 pages; see IDS) in view of Zhou et al. (US 11,701,996)
Regarding claim 12, Ewecker discloses the method according to claim 1. Ewecker does not disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, when executed by a computing device of a vehicle, causes the computing device to carry out the method. However, it’s well-known to utilize a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, when executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to carry out the method. For example, Zhou discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, when executed by a computing device of a vehicle, causes the computing device to carry out the method [see at least Col. 11, line 61-Col. 12, line 61, figs. 3-4]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Ewecker in accordance with the teaching of Zhou regarding a non-transitory memory device in order to perform processes based on processor executing software instructions [Col. 11, line 61-Col. 12, line 61].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection as interpreted by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
‘Regarding the feature of Claim 1, "generating the 3D-ROI...", the Examiner has just made a general reference to "section 5.2 Distance Estimator" of Ewecker. However, Applicant disagrees with the Examiner because there is nothing in Ewecker that could reasonably be interpreted as a formation of a 3D ROI in the form of voxels defining a volume along the obtained 3D road model. In particular, there is no formation of a dataset based on the 3D-ROI and perception data and the subsequent transmission of the dataset to the AHBC unit to control the illumination of the space in front of the vehicle based on the formed dataset so to avoid casting high beam illumination towards road users detected within the 3D-ROI.
Instead, the solution of Ewecker transforms light artifacts ("Any form of artificial light in the image caused by headlamps. This includes light reflections, glaring of areas above a street, headlamp light cones") detected in the image plane to 3D positions in the vehicle coordinate system using the PSD and camera calibration parameters. In more detail, the 3D positions are based on a closest point Pi (which lies on the road ahead described by the PSD) that is an intersection between the road ahead and the ray. As stated in Ewecker, it is assumed that a detected light artefact always lies on or at least close to the road.
This cannot reasonably be interpreted as a formation of a 3D-ROI (i.e., a volume along the obtained 3D road model), and then a detection of road users within this 3D-ROI as claimed in Claim 1. Ewecker is completely silent with regards to any 3D-ROI for the purpose of detecting "relevant" road users for AHBC. For example, light source positioned next to the road would, by the methodology of Ewecker, be projected to a 3D position on the road, and accordingly generate a false positive.
While Ewecker does relate to AHBC, and uses a 3D road model, its technical approach is fundamentally different from the one claimed. Whereas, Claim 1 explicitly requires generating a 3D-ROI "in the form of voxels". This is a specific technical limitation defining the data structure of the 3D-ROI as a volumetric grid. Ewecker's 3D representation is described as a "PSD road-graph" or, more specifically, "a set of n points P={Po, PI, P2, ..., Pn} ... lying on the road ahead". This describes a 3D polyline or path, not a volumetric (voxel-based) representation. A "road-graph" as described in Ewecker and a "voxel volume" as taught in the claimed invention are not the same.
Therefore, Applicant submits that Ewecker fails to teach:
" generating a 3D region of interest... defining a volume...: Ewecker does not generate a 3D-ROI volume. It uses a 3D polyline as a localization target.
" dataset... based on the generated 3D-ROT: Ewecker's dataset is based on tracked 3D-localized artifacts, not on a predefined 3D-ROI.
" road users detected within the 3D-ROT: This limitation is absent. Ewecker's logic is to dim the beam in the direction of its localized 3D artifact, not to check if a detection falls "within" a predefined voxel volume.
As such, Applicant submits that Claim 1 is patentable over Ewecker for at least these reasons, and allowance of Claim 1 is respectfully requested.’
However, Ewecker discloses a method for estimating the distance of light artifacts by fusing the position of the object in the image with Predictive Street Data (PSD). The PSD protocol contains information about the road geometry ahead of the vehicle (see Fig. 4) based on map data and GPS and is used, for instance, for advanced navigation functionalities or adaptive cruise control. With this data, the road lying ahead can be projected into the vehicle coordinate system (see Fig. 5), giving a three-dimensional representation of the road geometry. See at least section 5.2 and abstract. Thus, Ewecker discloses 3D road model with region of interest (at least based on GPS/location). Also, voxel defines a point in three-dimensional space and a pixel defines a point in two-dimensional space. Thus, Ewecker discloses 3D ROI in the form of voxels defining a volume along the obtained 3D road model and discloses based on the generated 3D-ROI. In addition, Ewecker discloses (see page 2) a full detection pipeline is implemented consisting of: 1. the detection of light artifacts using the car’s front camera, 2. the distance estimation to all detected light artifacts to provide a three-dimensional localization, and 3. the tracking of the light artifacts to perform a plausibility check and to handle occlusions; and to use the detected light artifacts to control the glare-free high beam system proactively (react before the oncoming vehicle is directly visible). Also, Ewecker discloses generating a 3D region of interest (3D-ROI) in the form of voxels defining a volume along the obtained 3D road model [see at least section 5.2 Distance estimator]; forming a dataset [see at least section 6.1 Datasets, test car, and software framework] for processing by an Adaptive High Beam Control (AHBC) unit [e.g. the unit controlling the adaptive headlights/high beams; or see at least abstract, section 5.2, section 6.5] configured to adaptively control an illumination of a space in front of the vehicle by controlling an illumination of one or more headlights of the vehicle [see at least section 6.5 Provident glare-free high beam], wherein the formed dataset is based on the generated 3D-ROI and perception data [e.g. the data detected by the object detector, see at least section 5.1 Object detector] indicative of one or more detected road users in the surrounding environment of the vehicle, and wherein the perception data is based on sensor data obtained from one or more sensors [e.g. camera; see at least section 5.1] for monitoring a surrounding environment of the vehicle; and transmitting the formed dataset to the AHBC unit so to control the illumination of the space in front of the vehicle based on the formed dataset. Based at least on the above discussion, Ewecker discloses road users detected within the 3D-ROI.
Regarding claims 2, and 9-14, Applicant’s arguments are based on the arguments discussed above from claim 1. As discuss above, claim 1 is unpatentable at this point. Accordingly, claims 2, and 9-14 are unpatentable at this point.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:30.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights