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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/20/2025, with respect to claims objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims objections has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/20/2025, with respect to claims rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive partially, since all the issues raised in previous office action has not been resolved. Furthermore, Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection as being explained below.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Specifically, Wang does not disclose or suggest the features of claim 1 requiring: (i) an initial detection zone determined from a dataset of object positions; and (ii) an initial photometry of a light beam associated with that zone. First, claim 1 requires "determining, based on the dataset, a lighting model ... defining at least one initial detection zone ... and an initial photometry of a light beam intended to be emitted ... in the initial detection zone." This feature refers to zones and photometries determined a priori from datasets of multiple object positions, before an object is detected in real time. In contrast, Wang only describes "regions" that correspond to the location of a recognized object or the area through which an object will pass. See Wang, paragraphs [0043], [0050]-[0054]. These "regions" are merely reactive bounding areas created after object recognition, not proactively modeled "initial detection zones" that are defined independently of current detection events. Thus, Wang fails to disclose the claimed "initial detection zone." (please see Remarks, page 10 and page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “zones and photometries determined a priori from datasets of multiple object positions, before an object is detected in real time” (please see Remarks, page 10, last paragraph)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Secondly, as previously pointed out by Examiner paragraph 50, discloses the lighting adjustment configuration may be selected based on the type of the object obtained from object recognition. FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a process of adjusting a lighting system of a vehicle according to exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 4, the process includes collecting environmental information (S402). The environmental information includes an image of an environment of the vehicle, a location of an object in the environment relative to the vehicle, and a type of the object. Hence as can be seen from the above passage that the lighting of the vehicle is adjusted (i.e., claimed an initial photometry of a light beam associated with that zone, and also please see paragraphs 44 and 51-52, which further elaborate on lighting adjustment based on type of object) based on collected environmental information. The environmental information includes an image of an environment of the vehicle, a location of an object in the environment relative to the vehicle, and a type of the object (i.e., claimed an initial detection zone determined from a dataset of object position). Therefore Wang reference reads on the argued limitation as presented by the Applicant. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on “initial detection zone” if different from the cited reference in order to overcome the cited reference.
Applicant further argues that “Second, claim 1 requires determining "an initial photometry" for the initial detection zone. The term "initial photometry" denotes a photometric distribution that is determined and associated with the modeled zone before real-time detection, with the goal of optimizing detectability of objects by the vehicle's sensors. Wang, by contrast, only discloses selecting from pre-stored lighting adjustment configurations and adjusting lamp intensity or direction in response to a detected object type. See Wang, paragraphs [0043], [0051]-[0052]. Such reactive adjustments to illumination patterns (on/off, brightness, beam angle) do not amount to generating an "initial photometry" as recited in the claims. Wang's disclosure is thus fundamentally different in purpose: it adapts beams to reduce glare or highlight recognized objects for the benefit of human drivers, whereas the claimed subject matter proactively models photometries to maximize the probability of detection by sensors as soon as objects enter the field of view. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Wang fails to disclose or suggest at least the aforementioned features recited in amended independent claim 1.” (please see Remarks, page 11, second paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagree, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “photometric distribution that is determined and associated with the modeled zone before real-time detection”, please see Remarks, page 11, second paragraph) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Secondly, explained above that the claim limitations as presented by the Applicant are very broad and can be interpreted in multiple ways, for instance as Wang discloses in paragraphs 44 and 50-51, lighting adjustment configuration may be selected based on an image of an environment of the vehicle, a location of an object in the environment relative to the vehicle, and a type of the object, and further discloses in paragraph 52, “a current lamp having a light beam passing through a region associated with the object may be identified (S404). The illumination pattern of the current lamp on the region may be at a first mode. The illumination pattern may include an intensity of the current lamp (e.g., on/off status, brightness level) and/or an illuminate direction of the current lamp. After identifying the current lamp, the illumination pattern of the current lamp on the region may be adjusted to a second mode based on the lighting adjustment configuration corresponding to the type of the object”. Hence as can be seen from above passage that Wang discloses current lamp having a light beam passing through a region associated with the object may be identified (S404). The illumination pattern of the current lamp on the region may be at a first mode (i.e., claimed initial photometry for the initial detection zone). Therefore Wang reference reads on the argued limitation as presented by the Applicant. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on “initial photometry” if different from the cited reference in order to overcome the cited reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, and 10-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
claim 2, lines 3-4, recites “it was detected”, the claim language “it was detected” is ambiguous and it is not clear which object being referred to, rendering claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-4, and 12-20, indefinite.
Claim 10, line 1, recites “a system”, however its respective independent claim also recites “a system” in line 2. Hence from the claim language it is not clear if the claimed “a system” in claim 10, is same or different, rendering claim 10 indefinite. Similar issue exist in claims 11, 15, and 19, hence same rejection is applicable to said claims.
claim 11, line 1, recites “an object detection system”, and further in line 2, recites “an environment” and further in line 3, recites “a lighting system”, “a system”, however its respective independent claim 1, also recites “an object detection system”, “an environment”, “a lighting system”, “a system”. Hence from the claim language it is not clear whether the claimed limitations in claim 11, are same or different, rendering claim 11 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, and 11-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US PGPUB 2021/0046862 A1).
As per claim 1, Wang discloses a method for controlling a lighting system for a motor vehicle equipped with an object detection system comprising a system for acquiring images of all or part of an environment of the vehicle (Wang, Fig. 1:100, and paragraphs 6, 19, and 23), the method comprising
defining at least one set of types of objects intended to be detected by the object detection system of the motor vehicle (Wang, paragraph 37, discloses Any suitable types/classes of objects may be detectable by the computing system, such as traffic sign, road lane mark, pedestrian, animal, car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, tree, building, etc.);
acquiring via the object detection system a dataset relating to a position, in the environment of the motor vehicle, of a plurality of objects of types belonging to said set (Wang, paragraph 20, discloses The sensing system 102 may also include at least one proximity sensor. ….. For example, the LiDAR sensor may be configured to scan all directions (360 degrees) around the vehicle at one or more height levels to obtain relative locations of surrounding objects and measure the distances between the vehicle and the surrounding objects, and also please see paragraph 37);
determining, based on the dataset, a lighting model associated with said set defining at least one initial detection zone associated with the set of types of objects and able to be addressed by the lighting system, and an initial photometry of a light beam intended to be emitted by the lighting system in the initial detection zone associated with the set (Wang, paragraphs 31, 44, and 50-52, discloses the lighting adjustment configuration may be selected based on the type of the object obtained from object recognition. FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a process of adjusting a lighting system of a vehicle according to exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 4, the process includes collecting environmental information (S402). The environmental information includes an image of an environment of the vehicle, a location of an object in the environment relative to the vehicle, and a type of the object),
controlling the lighting system on the basis of the determined lighting model so as to emit a light beam having the initial photometry in the initial detection zone of the lighting model (Wang, paragraph 52, discloses a current lamp having a light beam passing through a region associated with the object may be identified (S404). The illumination pattern of the current lamp on the region may be at a first mode. The illumination pattern may include an intensity of the current lamp (e.g., on/off status, brightness level) and/or an illuminate direction of the current lamp. After identifying the current lamp, the illumination pattern of the current lamp on the region may be adjusted to a second mode based on the lighting adjustment configuration corresponding to the type of the object (S406)).
As per claim 2, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dataset relating to the position of the objects comprises, for each object, an initial position of the object at a time when it was detected by the object detection system (Wang, paragraphs 20 and 37).
As per claim 5, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in determining the lighting model, said initial photometry of the light beam is determined on the basis of at least one of the types of objects of the set of types of objects (Wang, paragraph 52).
As per claim 7, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising
defining at least three sets of types of objects including a first set comprising at least objects of ground marking type, a second set comprising at least objects of road user type and a third set comprising at least objects of traffic sign type (Wang, paragraphs 37 and 51, discloses identify one or more objects in the environment of the vehicle. A result of the object recognition may be included in the environmental information and used to determine adjustment of the lighting system. The result of object recognition may include, for each recognized object, a bounding area corresponding to the object and a type of the object. In some embodiments, multiple instances of a same type of object may be detected in the image. Any suitable types/classes of objects may be detectable by the computing system, such as traffic sign, road lane mark, pedestrian, animal, car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, tree, building, etc.);
determining three lighting models each associated with one of the at least three sets, including a first lighting model associated with the first set, a second lighting model associated with the second set and a third lighting model associated with the third set (Wang, paragraphs 37 and 51, discloses Types of objects corresponding to light intensity increasing adjustment may include, for example, a traffic light, a traffic sign, a road lane mark, etc. Increasing the light intensity may facilitate the computing system to obtain an image of the object with higher quality and analyze/recognize details of the object with higher accuracy. Types of objects corresponding to light intensity decreasing adjustment may include, for example, a car, a truck, a pedestrian, a building, etc. Decreasing lighting intensity may avoid glare to other vehicle drivers, avoid startling a pedestrian, and/or filtering out information having low relevance (e.g., background objects, stable objects) ); and
controlling the lighting system on the basis of the determined lighting models so as to emit a first light beam having the initial photometry of the first lighting model in the initial detection zone of the first lighting model (Wang, paragraphs 37, and 51-53), a second light beam having the initial photometry of the second lighting model in the initial detection zone of the second lighting model and a third light beam having the initial photometry of the third lighting model in the initial detection zone of the third lighting model (Wang, paragraphs 37, and 51-53).
As per claim 8, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, the method further comprising:
the object detection system of the motor vehicle detecting an object of a given type from among said set of types of objects (Wang, paragraphs 37 and 50-51); and
controlling the lighting system so as to modify the light beam on the basis of type of the detected object (Wang, paragraphs 51 and 52).
As per claim 9, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein controlling the lighting system comprises generating a zone in the light beam level with the detected object, the zone having a photometry adapted to the type of the detected object (Wang, paragraphs 53 and 54), and moving said zone on the basis of the movement of the detected object in the reference frame of the image acquisition system (Wang, paragraphs 53 and 54).
As per claim 11, Wang discloses a motor vehicle comprising an object detection system comprising a system for acquiring images of all or part of an environment of the motor vehicle, a lighting system, a system for partially or fully autonomous driving (Wang, paragraphs 18-19, and 23), and a controller for the lighting system (Wang, Fig. 1:104:106), the controller being designed to implement the method according to claim 1 (please see analysis of claim 1).
As per claim 12, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein, in determining the lighting model, said initial photometry of the light beam is determined on the basis of at least one of the types of objects of the set of types of objects (Wang, paragraphs 31, 37 and 39).
As per claim 13, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising:
defining at least three sets of types of objects including a first set comprising at least objects of ground marking type, a second set comprising at least objects of road user type and a third set comprising at least objects of traffic sign type (Wang, paragraphs 37 and 51, discloses identify one or more objects in the environment of the vehicle. A result of the object recognition may be included in the environmental information and used to determine adjustment of the lighting system. The result of object recognition may include, for each recognized object, a bounding area corresponding to the object and a type of the object. In some embodiments, multiple instances of a same type of object may be detected in the image. Any suitable types/classes of objects may be detectable by the computing system, such as traffic sign, road lane mark, pedestrian, animal, car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, tree, building, etc.);
determining three lighting models each associated with one of the at least three sets, including a first lighting model associated with the first set, a second lighting model associated with the second set and a third lighting model associated with the third set (Wang, paragraphs 37 and 51, discloses Types of objects corresponding to light intensity increasing adjustment may include, for example, a traffic light, a traffic sign, a road lane mark, etc. Increasing the light intensity may facilitate the computing system to obtain an image of the object with higher quality and analyze/recognize details of the object with higher accuracy. Types of objects corresponding to light intensity decreasing adjustment may include, for example, a car, a truck, a pedestrian, a building, etc. Decreasing lighting intensity may avoid glare to other vehicle drivers, avoid startling a pedestrian, and/or filtering out information having low relevance (e.g., background objects, stable objects)); and
controlling the lighting system on the basis of the determined lighting models so as to emit a first light beam having the initial photometry of the first lighting model in the initial detection zone of the first lighting model, a second light beam having the initial photometry of the second lighting model in the initial detection zone of the second lighting model and a third light beam having the initial photometry of the third lighting model in the initial detection zone of the third lighting model (Wang, paragraphs 37 and 51-53, discloses Types of objects corresponding to light intensity increasing adjustment may include, for example, a traffic light, a traffic sign, a road lane mark, etc. Increasing the light intensity may facilitate the computing system to obtain an image of the object with higher quality and analyze/recognize details of the object with higher accuracy. Types of objects corresponding to light intensity decreasing adjustment may include, for example, a car, a truck, a pedestrian, a building, etc. Decreasing lighting intensity may avoid glare to other vehicle drivers, avoid startling a pedestrian, and/or filtering out information having low relevance (e.g., background objects, stable objects)).
As per claim 14, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, the method further comprising:
detecting, via the object detection system of the motor vehicle an object of a given type from among said set of types of objects (Wang, paragraphs 37 and 50-51); and
controlling the lighting system so as to modify the light beam on the basis of type of the detected object (Wang, paragraphs 51 and 52).
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.
Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US PGPUB 2021/0046862 A1) and further in view of Futamura (US PGPUB 2015/0003087 A1).
As per claim 6, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 5, the method further comprising Wang does not explicitly disclose providing at least one range of values of a parameter relating to the behavior of the motor vehicle or to the environment, and wherein the determining the lighting model associated with said set is a step of determining a lighting model, associated with said set, that is variable on the basis of said values of the parameter.
Futamura discloses providing at least one range of values of a parameter relating to the behavior of the motor vehicle or to the environment (Futamura, Fig. 1:6:2, and paragraphs 69-72), and wherein the determining the lighting model associated with said set is a step of determining a lighting model, associated with said set, that is variable on the basis of said values of the parameter (Futamura, paragraphs 74-78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang teachings by implementing a control unit to the system, as taught by Futamura.
The motivation would be to prevent dazzling of the driver of the target object due to delay of the swivel operation of the headlights (paragraph 62), as taught by Futamura.
Claim(s) 10, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US PGPUB 2021/0046862 A1) and further in view of Monroe (US PGPUB 2018/0178652 A1).
As per claim 10, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the motor vehicle is equipped with a system for partially or fully autonomous driving (Wang, paragraph 23), wherein the implementation of controlling the lighting system is conditional on the activation of the autonomous driving system (Wang, paragraph 69), and the method further comprises:
controlling the lighting system so as to emit at least one predetermined regulatory lighting and/or signaling beam (Wang, paragraphs 69 and 73).
Wang does not explicitly disclose receiving, by an occupant of the motor vehicle an instruction to take back manual control of the motor vehicle;
Monroe discloses receiving, by an occupant of the motor vehicle an instruction to take back manual control of the motor vehicle (Monroe, paragraph 63),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang teachings by implementing a central controller to the system, as taught by Monroe.
The motivation would be to provide an improved advance warning system (paragraph 63), as taught by Monroe.
As per claim 15, Wang further discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the motor vehicle is equipped with a system for partially or fully autonomous driving (Wang, paragraph 23), wherein controlling the lighting system is conditional on the activation of the autonomous driving system (Wang, paragraph 69), and the method further comprises:
controlling the lighting system so as to emit at least one predetermined regulatory lighting and/or signaling beam (Wang, paragraphs 69 and 73).
Wang does not explicitly disclose receiving, by an occupant of the motor vehicle an instruction to take back manual control of the motor vehicle; and
Monroe discloses receiving, by an occupant of the motor vehicle an instruction to take back manual control of the motor vehicle (Monroe, paragraph 63),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang teachings by implementing a central controller to the system, as taught by Monroe.
The motivation would be to provide an improved advance warning system (paragraph 63), as taught by Monroe.
Examiner’s Note: Claim 3-4, and 16-20, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and also by overcoming the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection and objections as being set forth above.
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 SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633