DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed January 21st, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-12, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Martin et al. (US Pub. No. 20210213873 A1), herein after Martin, and further in view of previously cited of record Tryndin et al. (US Pub. No. 20230186593 A1), herein after Tryndin.
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches [a] computer-implemented method comprising: detecting, by a computing system, an object is outside a range associated with a vehicle (Martin: Para. 0269, teaching that the vehicle is detecting another vehicle outside the range of its headlights), wherein the vehicle is navigable in a plurality of modes of navigation including an autonomous level of navigation (Martin: Para. 0049, teaching that the vehicle can navigate via several different modes of navigation including autonomously); and determining, by the computing system, a trajectory of the object and geometry of a road on which the object is traveling (Martin: Para. 0069, teaching a sensor fusion and RWM management layer 212 that receives data on the road and its surroundings to determine where the vehicle is and how to navigate it).
Martin does not explicitly teach predicting, by the computing system, an occurrence of a first predetermined situation relating to a first state of an environment of the vehicle and a second predetermined situation relating to a second state of the environment of the vehicle; and causing, by the computing system, a lighting subsystem of the vehicle to perform a change based on the first predetermined situation relating to the first state of the environment of the vehicle instead of the second predetermined situation relating to the second state of the environment of the vehicle however Martin does disclose obtaining trajectory information related to an object which is utilized to determine that the ego vehicle’s headlights may interfere with the operation of the second vehicle (Para. 0253) and predicting whether the ego vehicle is about to be in a situation where its headlights interfere with the operation of the second vehicle (Para. 0262) or if it is not about to be in a situation where its headlights interfere with the operation of the second vehicle (Para. 0263). In reaction to this prediction, the vehicle predicts the interference will happen at a particular point, at which time the vehicle is operated under the assumption that the occurrence of the interference would be occurring (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching changing the direction the headlights are facing and/or switching from high beams to low beams based on when the second vehicle is near the main vehicle and the second vehicle would be blinded by the first vehicle's headlights; Para. 0262, teaching that the ego vehicle determines whether it will soon reach a point where its headlights would interfere with the operation of the second vehicle, and if not it will continue using the headlights in the current configuration) or if it predicts that the interference will not occur, then it will continue to operate the headlights under the assumption that the occurrence of the interference would be not occurring (Martin: Para. 0263, teaching that the ego vehicle determines whether it will soon reach a point where its headlights would interfere with the operation of the second vehicle, and if so it will switch its headlights to a low-beam configuration) for the benefit of preparing a vehicle for any necessary autonomous modifications which may otherwise be improperly delayed due to computing limitations and large data size.
It would have been obvious to modify Martin with the explicit disclosure of the predetermination of particular situations and the prediction that such situations are occurring and responding according to these situations accordingly for the benefit of preparing a vehicle for any necessary autonomous modifications which may be necessary which may otherwise be improperly delayed due to computing limitations and large data size.
Martin is silent to wherein responsiveness of the lighting subsystem to perform the change is based on (i) a detection confidence level associated with the first predetermined situation relating to the first state of the environment of the vehicle being higher than a detection confidence level associated with the second predetermined situation relating to the second state of the environment of the vehicle, and (ii) a determination that the first predetermined situation is predicted to occur within a threshold duration of time based on the trajectory of the object and the geometry of the road.
In a similar field, Tryndin teaches wherein responsiveness of the lighting subsystem to perform the change is based on (i) a detection confidence level associated with the first predetermined situation relating to the first state of the environment of the vehicle being higher than a detection confidence level associated with the second predetermined situation relating to the second state of the environment of the vehicle (Tryndin: Para. 0113, teaching a system that detecting multiple objects and determining a level of confidence for each detection being accurate and adjusting the response to controlling a vehicle based on the detection that has the highest level of confidence of being correct), and (ii) a determination that the first predetermined situation is predicted to occur within a threshold duration of time based on the trajectory of the object and the geometry of the road (Tryndin: Para. 0155, teaching that the system determines whether a driver has taken a corrective action regarding a predicted collision with a detected object within a specified time) for the benefit of reducing the risk of acting on unreliable data.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of when it is appropriate to control the headlights from Martin to account for how confident the system is that the situation calls for adjusting the headlights of the vehicle, as taught by Tryndin, for the benefit of reducing the risk of accidentally blinding the other vehicle due to unreliable data.
Regarding claim 2, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 1, and Martin goes on to further teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the range is associated with high beam headlights of the lighting subsystem of the vehicle (Martin: Para. 0269, teaching that the vehicle is detecting another vehicle outside the range of the high beams of the headlights).
Regarding claim 5, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 1, and Martin goes on to further teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the change is associated with deactivation of high beam headlights and activation of low beam headlights (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching that the first vehicle switches their headlights from high beam to low beam when the second car approaches).
Regarding claim 8, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 1, and Tryndin goes on to further teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the first predetermined situation will occur within the threshold duration of time (Tryndin: Para. 0155, teaching that the system determines whether a driver has taken a corrective action to avoid a collision with a detected object within a specified time), and Martin goes on to further teach wherein the detecting the object occurs before occurrence of the first predetermined situation (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching switching illumination modes until reaching a point of visual interference based upon velocity and/or position data related to a second vehicle received at a first vehicle implicitly equates to a threshold quantity at which a predetermined situation will occur).
Regarding claim 9, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 1, and Martin goes on to further teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of modes of navigation include a manual mode of navigation (Martin: Para. 0049, teaching that the vehicle can navigate via several different modes of navigation including manually).
Regarding claim 10, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 1, and Martin goes on to further teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined situation is associated with at least one of moving vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles carrying people (Martin: Para. 0035 teaching that the system identifies objects and classifies them based on if they are other vehicles driving on the opposite side of the road, cyclists, or people; and Para. 0080, teaching that the system also considers the occupants' safety in the vehicles it is in communication with).
Regarding claim 11, Martin teaches [a] system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising (Martin: Para. 0294, teaching a processor and a non-transitory memory programmed to perform the functions of the invention): detecting an object is outside a range associated with a vehicle (Martin: Para. 0269, teaching that the vehicle is detecting another vehicle outside the range of its headlights), wherein the vehicle is navigable in a plurality of modes of navigation including an autonomous level of navigation (Martin: Para. 0049, teaching that the vehicle can navigate via several different modes of navigation including autonomously); and determining a trajectory of the object and geometry of a road on which the object is traveling (Martin: Para. 0069, teaching a sensor fusion and RWM management layer 212 that receives data on the road and its surroundings to determine where the vehicle is and how to navigate it).
Martin does not explicitly teach predicting an occurrence of a first predetermined situation relating to a first state of an environment of the vehicle and a second predetermined situation relating to a second state of the environment of the vehicle; and causing a lighting subsystem of the vehicle to perform a change based on the first predetermined situation relating to the first state of the environment of the vehicle instead of the second predetermined situation relating to the second state of the environment of the vehicle however Martin does disclose obtaining trajectory information related to an object which is utilized to determine that the ego vehicle’s headlights may interfere with the operation of the second vehicle (Para. 0253) and predicting whether the ego vehicle is about to be in a situation where its headlights interfere with the operation of the second vehicle (Para. 0262) or if it is not about to be in a situation where its headlights interfere with the operation of the second vehicle (Para. 0263). In reaction to this prediction, the vehicle predicts the interference will happen at a particular point, at which time the vehicle is operated under the assumption that the occurrence of the interference would be occurring (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching changing the direction the headlights are facing and/or switching from high beams to low beams based on when the second vehicle is near the main vehicle and the second vehicle would be blinded by the first vehicle's headlights; Para. 0262, teaching that the ego vehicle determines whether it will soon reach a point where its headlights would interfere with the operation of the second vehicle, and if not it will continue using the headlights in the current configuration) or if it predicts that the interference will not occur, then it will continue to operate the headlights under the assumption that the occurrence of the interference would be not occurring (Martin: Para. 0263, teaching that the ego vehicle determines whether it will soon reach a point where its headlights would interfere with the operation of the second vehicle, and if so it will switch its headlights to a low-beam configuration) for the benefit of preparing a vehicle for any necessary autonomous modifications which may otherwise be improperly delayed due to computing limitations and large data size.
It would have been obvious to modify Martin with the explicit disclosure of the predetermination of particular situations and the prediction that such situations are occurring and responding according to these situations accordingly for the benefit of preparing a vehicle for any necessary autonomous modifications which may be necessary which may otherwise be improperly delayed due to computing limitations and large data size.
Martin is silent to wherein responsiveness of the lighting subsystem to perform the change is based on (i) a detection confidence level associated with the first predetermined situation relating to the first state of the environment of the vehicle being higher than a detection confidence level associated with the second predetermined situation relating to the second state of the environment of the vehicle, and (ii) a determination that the first predetermined situation is predicted to occur within a threshold duration of time based on the trajectory of the object and the geometry of the road.
In a similar field, Tryndin teaches wherein responsiveness of the lighting subsystem to perform the change is based on (i) a detection confidence level associated with the first predetermined situation relating to the first state of the environment of the vehicle being higher than a detection confidence level associated with the second predetermined situation relating to the second state of the environment of the vehicle (Tryndin: Para. 0113, teaching a system that detecting multiple objects and determining a level of confidence for each detection being accurate and adjusting the response to controlling a vehicle based on the detection that has the highest level of confidence of being correct), and (ii) a determination that the first predetermined situation is predicted to occur within a threshold duration of time based on the trajectory of the object and the geometry of the road (Tryndin: Para. 0155, teaching that the system determines whether a driver has taken a corrective action regarding a predicted collision with a detected object within a specified time) for the benefit of reducing the risk of acting on unreliable data.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of when it is appropriate to control the headlights from Martin to account for how confident the system is that the situation calls for adjusting the headlights of the vehicle, as taught by Tryndin, for the benefit of reducing the risk of accidentally blinding the other vehicle due to unreliable data.
Regarding claim 12, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 11, and Martin goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 11, wherein the range is associated with high beam headlights of the lighting subsystem of the vehicle (Martin: Para. 0269, teaching that the vehicle is detecting another vehicle outside the range of the high beams of the headlights).
Regarding claim 15, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 11, and Martin goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 11, wherein the change is associated with deactivation of high beam headlights and activation of low beam headlights (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching that the first vehicle switches their headlights from high beam to low beam when the second car approaches).
Regarding claim 16, Martin teaches [a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising (Martin: Para. 0294, teaching a processor and a non-transitory memory programmed to perform the functions of the invention): detecting an object is outside a range associated with a vehicle (Martin: Para. 0269, teaching that the vehicle is detecting another vehicle outside the range of its headlights), wherein the vehicle is navigable in a plurality of modes of navigation including an autonomous level of navigation (Martin: Para. 0049, teaching that the vehicle can navigate via several different modes of navigation including autonomously); and determining a trajectory of the object and geometry of a road on which the object is traveling (Martin: Para. 0069, teaching a sensor fusion and RWM management layer 212 that receives data on the road and its surroundings to determine where the vehicle is and how to navigate it).
Martin does not explicitly teach predicting an occurrence of a first predetermined situation relating to a first state of an environment of the vehicle and a second predetermined situation relating to a second state of the environment of the vehicle; and causing a lighting subsystem of the vehicle to perform a change based on the first predetermined situation relating to the first state of the environment of the vehicle instead of the second predetermined situation relating to the second state of the environment of the vehicle however Martin does disclose obtaining trajectory information related to an object which is utilized to determine that the ego vehicle’s headlights may interfere with the operation of the second vehicle (Para. 0253) and predicting whether the ego vehicle is about to be in a situation where its headlights interfere with the operation of the second vehicle (Para. 0262) or if it is not about to be in a situation where its headlights interfere with the operation of the second vehicle (Para. 0263). In reaction to this prediction, the vehicle predicts the interference will happen at a particular point, at which time the vehicle is operated under the assumption that the occurrence of the interference would be occurring (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching changing the direction the headlights are facing and/or switching from high beams to low beams based on when the second vehicle is near the main vehicle and the second vehicle would be blinded by the first vehicle's headlights; Para. 0262, teaching that the ego vehicle determines whether it will soon reach a point where its headlights would interfere with the operation of the second vehicle, and if not it will continue using the headlights in the current configuration) or if it predicts that the interference will not occur, then it will continue to operate the headlights under the assumption that the occurrence of the interference would be not occurring (Martin: Para. 0263, teaching that the ego vehicle determines whether it will soon reach a point where its headlights would interfere with the operation of the second vehicle, and if so it will switch its headlights to a low-beam configuration) for the benefit of preparing a vehicle for any necessary autonomous modifications which may otherwise be improperly delayed due to computing limitations and large data size.
It would have been obvious to modify Martin with the explicit disclosure of the predetermination of particular situations and the prediction that such situations are occurring and responding according to these situations accordingly for the benefit of preparing a vehicle for any necessary autonomous modifications which may be necessary which may otherwise be improperly delayed due to computing limitations and large data size.
Martin is silent to wherein responsiveness of the lighting subsystem to perform the change is based on (i) a detection confidence level associated with the first predetermined situation relating to the first state of the environment of the vehicle being higher than a detection confidence level associated with the second predetermined situation relating to the second state of the environment of the vehicle.
In a similar field, Tryndin teaches wherein responsiveness of the lighting subsystem to perform the change is based on (i) a detection confidence level associated with the first predetermined situation relating to the first state of the environment of the vehicle being higher than a detection confidence level associated with the second predetermined situation relating to the second state of the environment of the vehicle (Tryndin: Para. 0113, teaching a system that detecting multiple objects and determining a level of confidence for each detection being accurate and adjusting the response to controlling a vehicle based on the detection that has the highest level of confidence of being correct), and (ii) a determination that the first predetermined situation is predicted to occur within a threshold duration of time based on the trajectory of the object and the geometry of the road (Tryndin: Para. 0155, teaching that the system determines whether a driver has taken a corrective action regarding a predicted collision with a detected object within a specified time) for the benefit of reducing the risk of acting on unreliable data.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of when it is appropriate to control the headlights from Martin to account for how confident the system is that the situation calls for adjusting the headlights of the vehicle, as taught by Tryndin, for the benefit of reducing the risk of accidentally blinding the other vehicle due to unreliable data.
Regarding claim 17, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 16, and Martin goes on to further teach [t]he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the range is associated with high beam headlights of the lighting subsystem of the vehicle (Martin: Para. 0269, teaching that the vehicle is detecting another vehicle outside the range of the high beams of the headlights).
Regarding claim 20, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 16, and Martin goes on to further teach [t]he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the change is associated with deactivation of high beam headlights and activation of low beam headlights (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching that the first vehicle switches their headlights from high beam to low beam when the second car approaches).
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Tryndin as applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of over previously cited of record McGregor et al. (US Pub. No. 20180083901 A1), herein after McGregor.
Regarding claim 3, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are silent to [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined situation and the second predetermined situation are included in a plurality of predetermined situations that are tiered based on associated thresholds.
In a similar field, McGregor teaches [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined situation and the second predetermined situation are included in a plurality of predetermined situations that are tiered based on associated thresholds (McGregor: Para. 0095, teaching in the automation of responses, a ranking system that utilizes confidence of concept detection correlated to appropriate responses to detected event) for the benefit of quickly ascertaining an appropriate operation of the lighting without requiring excessive processing to definitively determine a situation when a statistical probability of correctness will suffice.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the identification and classification of situations and objects that are of interest to the vehicle and determining a confidence value associated with how certain the system is that the objects were correctly identified from Martin in view of Tryndin with the ability to include a tiered list of predetermined situations a determinate one from the other based on confidence level thresholds, as taught by McGregor, for the benefit of quickly ascertaining an appropriate operation of the lighting without requiring excessive processing to definitively determine a situation when a statistical probability of correctness will suffice.
Regarding claim 4, Martin, Tryndin, and McGregor remain as applied as in claim 3, and McGregor goes on to further teach [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the associated thresholds are detection confidence level thresholds such that a highest priority predetermined situation is associated with a highest detection confidence level threshold (McGregor: Para. 0095, teaching in the automation of responses, a ranking system that utilizes confidence of concept detection correlated to appropriate responses to detected event).
Regarding claim 13, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 11, however they are silent to [t]he system of claim 11, wherein the first predetermined situation and the second predetermined situation are included in a plurality of predetermined situations that are tiered based on associated thresholds.
In a similar field, McGregor teaches [t]he system of claim 11, wherein the first predetermined situation and the second predetermined situation are included in a plurality of predetermined situations that are tiered based on associated thresholds (McGregor: Para. 0095, teaching in the automation of responses, a ranking system that utilizes confidence of concept detection correlated to appropriate responses to detected event) for the benefit of quickly ascertaining an appropriate operation of the lighting without requiring excessive processing to definitively determine a situation when a statistical probability of correctness will suffice.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the identification and classification of situations and objects that are of interest to the vehicle from Martin in view of Tryndin with the ability to include a tiered list of predetermined situations a determinate one from the other based on confidence level thresholds, as taught by McGregor, for the benefit of quickly ascertaining an appropriate operation of the lighting without requiring excessive processing to definitively determine a situation when a statistical probability of correctness will suffice.
Regarding claim 14, Martin, Tryndin, and McGregor remain as applied as in claim 13, and McGregor goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 13, wherein the associated thresholds are detection confidence level thresholds such that a highest priority predetermined situation is associated with a highest detection confidence level threshold (McGregor: Para. 0095, teaching in the automation of responses, a ranking system that utilizes confidence of concept detection correlated to appropriate responses to detected event).
Regarding claim 18, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 16, however they are silent to [t]he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the first predetermined situation and the second predetermined situation are included in a plurality of predetermined situations that are tiered based on associated thresholds.
In a similar field, McGregor teaches [t]he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the first predetermined situation and the second predetermined situation are included in a plurality of predetermined situations that are tiered based on associated thresholds (McGregor: Para. 0095, teaching in the automation of responses, a ranking system that utilizes confidence of concept detection correlated to appropriate responses to detected event) for the benefit of quickly ascertaining an appropriate operation of the lighting without requiring excessive processing to definitively determine a situation when a statistical probability of correctness will suffice.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the identification and classification of situations and objects that are of interest to the vehicle from Martin in view of Tryndin with the ability to include a tiered list of predetermined situations a determinate one from the other based on confidence level thresholds, as taught by McGregor, for the benefit of quickly ascertaining an appropriate operation of the lighting without requiring excessive processing to definitively determine a situation when a statistical probability of correctness will suffice.
Regarding claim 19, Martin, Tryndin, and McGregor remain as applied as in claim 18, and McGregor goes on to further teach [t]he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the associated thresholds are detection confidence level thresholds such that a highest priority predetermined situation is associated with a highest detection confidence level threshold (McGregor: Para. 0095, teaching in the automation of responses, a ranking system that utilizes confidence of concept detection correlated to appropriate responses to detected event).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Tryndin as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of over previously cited of record Bengtsson et al. (US Pub. No. 20130274999 A1), herein after Bengtsson.
Regarding claim 6, Martin and Tryndin remain as applied as in claim 5, however they are silent to [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein a first threshold associated with a first level of brightness is selectable to trigger the deactivation of the high beam headlights.
In a similar field, Bengtsson teaches [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein a first threshold associated with a first level of brightness is selectable to trigger the deactivation of the high beam headlights (Bengtsson: Para. 0020; teaching a threshold below which the high beam headlights are not active) for the benefit of ensure that safety is ensured where over bright lights could pose a danger to those participating in the nearby environment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the control of the headlights from Martin in view of Tryndin with the inclusion of a threshold where high beams are triggered to be deactivated, as taught by Bengtsson, for the benefit of ensure that safety is ensured where over bright lights could pose a danger to those participating in the nearby environment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Tryndin in view of Bengtsson as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of over previously cited of record Liken et al. (US Pub. No. 20180083901 A1), herein after Liken.
Regarding claim 7, Martin, Tryndin, and Bengtsson remain as applied as in claim 6, however they are silent to [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein a second threshold associated with a second level of brightness different from the first threshold is selectable to trigger the activation of the high beam headlights.
In a similar field, Liken teaches [t]he computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein a second threshold associated with a second level of brightness different from the first threshold is selectable to trigger the activation of the high beam headlights (Liken: Para. 0012, teaching that two brightness options may be utilized to determine control of the high-beams) for the benefit of accurately reflecting ambient light changes which could be impacted by particular light sources without causing undesirable light application for the situation.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the headlight adjustment based on the level of brightness of the target area from Martin in view of Tryndin in view of Bengtsson with the ability to use multiple different thresholds, as taught by Liken, for the benefit of accurately reflecting ambient light changes which could be impacted by particular light sources without causing undesirable light application for the situation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AJA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AJA/25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3,9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 1, 3, 2, 10, 13, 13, 11, 16, 19, 19, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,987,172 in view of Martin (US 2021/0213873)
As per claim 1, ‘172 does not explicitly disclose detecting by a computing system, an object is outside a range associated with a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is navigable in a plurality of modes of navigation including an autonomous mode of navigation or determining by the computing system, a trajectory of the object and geometry of a road on which the object is traveling. However, in a related invention, Martin teaches detecting, by a computing system, an object is outside a range associated with a vehicle ([0269] “the first and second vehicles are far enough apart (shown as distance D1) that the high-beam headlights will not visually interfere with the vision of the driver of the other vehicle”), wherein the vehicle is navigable in a plurality of modes of navigation including an autonomous level of navigation ([0049] “Various embodiments include methods, vehicles, vehicle management systems, and processing devices configured to implement the methods for collaboratively directing headlights of two or more vehicles, such as autonomous vehicles, semi-autonomous vehicles, driver-operated vehicles, etc., to improve illumination on and off a roadway of the vehicles”); determining, by the computing system, a trajectory of the object and geometry of a road on which the object is traveling ([0069] “the sensor fusion and RWM management layer 212 may receive information from vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications (such as via the CAN bus) regarding other vehicle positions and directions of travel, and combine that information with information from the radar perception layer 202 to refine the locations and motions of other vehicles”).
It would have been obvious to modify patented claim 1 at the effective time of filing with a reasonable expectation of success with the limitations above cited to Martin in order to better enable a system to determine if a predetermined situation involving a moving object must be acted upon by the lighting sub-system.
As per claim 11, ‘172 does not explicitly disclose detecting by a computing system, an object is outside a range associated with a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is navigable in a plurality of modes of navigation including an autonomous mode of navigation or determining by the computing system, a trajectory of the object and geometry of a road on which the object is traveling. However, in a related invention, Martin teaches detecting, by a computing system, an object is outside a range associated with a vehicle ([0269] “the first and second vehicles are far enough apart (shown as distance D1) that the high-beam headlights will not visually interfere with the vision of the driver of the other vehicle”) , wherein the vehicle is navigable in a plurality of modes of navigation including an autonomous level of navigation ([0049] “Various embodiments include methods, vehicles, vehicle management systems, and processing devices configured to implement the methods for collaboratively directing headlights of two or more vehicles, such as autonomous vehicles, semi-autonomous vehicles, driver-operated vehicles, etc., to improve illumination on and off a roadway of the vehicles”); determining, by the computing system, a trajectory of the object and geometry of a road on which the object is traveling ([0069] “the sensor fusion and RWM management layer 212 may receive information from vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications (such as via the CAN bus) regarding other vehicle positions and directions of travel, and combine that information with information from the radar perception layer 202 [] to refine the locations and motions of other vehicles”).
It would have been obvious to modify patented claim 10 at the effective time of filing with a reasonable expectation of success with the limitations above cited to Martin in order to better enable a system to determine if a predetermined situation involving a moving object must be acted upon by the lighting sub-system.
As per claim 16, ‘172 does not explicitly disclose detecting by a computing system, an object is outside a range associated with a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is navigable in a plurality of modes of navigation including an autonomous mode of navigation or determining by the computing system, a trajectory of the object and geometry of a road on which the object is traveling. However, in a related invention, Martin teaches detecting, by a computing system, an object is outside a range associated with a vehicle ([0269] “the first and second vehicles are far enough apart (shown as distance D1) that the high-beam headlights will not visually interfere with the vision of the driver of the other vehicle”), wherein the vehicle is navigable in a plurality of modes of navigation including an autonomous level of navigation ([0049] “Various embodiments include methods, vehicles, vehicle management systems, and processing devices configured to implement the methods for collaboratively directing headlights of two or more vehicles, such as autonomous vehicles, semi-autonomous vehicles, driver-operated vehicles, etc., to improve illumination on and off a roadway of the vehicles”); determining, by the computing system, a trajectory of the object and geometry of a road on which the object is traveling ([0069] “the sensor fusion and RWM management layer 212 may receive information from vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications (such as via the CAN bus) regarding other vehicle positions and directions of travel, and combine that information with information from the radar perception layer 202 to refine the locations and motions of other vehicles”).
It would have been obvious to modify patented claim 16 at the effective time of filing with a reasonable expectation of success with the limitations above cited to Martin in order to better enable a system to determine if a predetermined situation involving a moving object must be acted upon by the lighting sub-system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21st, 2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s request (see page 7 lines 8-9, filed January 21st, 2026) that the Double Patenting rejection of the claims 1, 2,3,9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2,3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,987,172 in view of Martin be held in abeyance has been fully considered.
While the reply is a bona fide reply, the double patenting rejections will not be held in abeyance as such issues must be resolved prior to issuance of the application or the mailing of a notice of allowability.
Applicant's arguments filed January 21st, 2026 with regards to the 103 rejection of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 8 line 7 through page 9 line 27, filed January 21st, 2026) that the rejection of claim 8 is based on improper hindsight reasoning as the prior art of Martin discloses changing the headlights based on locations rather than a point in time that is “independent of distance”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, a person skilled in the art of tracking the trajectories of two vehicles to determine overlap in their trajectories or when their high-beams would visually impair each other would be able to derive a duration of time in which the high-beams of two vehicles would impair the vision of the other driver as one such skilled artisans would be trained in known equations of motion such as [change in distance = initial velocity x time + ½ acceleration x time^2] and would be able to apply it to system of two moving vehicles to solve at what time would the two vehicles have their high-beams face each other. This reasoning is also supported by both Martin in paragraph 0270 which recites “In accordance with various embodiments, a first vehicle processor (e.g., 164 in FIGS. 1C and 4) may receive a communication (e.g., a first collaborative lighting message) from the second vehicle 100b that provides the first vehicle 100a with information that may be used by the first vehicle 100a to switch to low-beams in time to avoid causing headlight interference with the driver of the other vehicle 100b” (emphasis added) and Tryndin in paragraph 0155 which recites “AEB systems detect an impending forward collision with another vehicle or other object, and may automatically apply the brakes if the driver does not take corrective action within a specified time or distance parameter” (emphasis added). Regardless, the rejection of the newly presented limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 16 have been rejected using the prior art of Tryndin and the rejection of dependent claim 8 has been updated accordingly.
Applicant contends (see page 9 lines 29-30, filed January 21st, 2026) that the independent claims are allowable over the prior art of record in light of the amendments of record and that the dependent claims are allowable as they depend upon claims that were rendered allowable. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that as the amendments have not rendered the independent claims allowable over the prior art of record, the dependent claims stand to fall with the claims they depend upon.
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 Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663