DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed June 8th, 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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 8th, 2026 has been entered.
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); 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), and the change occurs in response to generation of a prediction that the object will enter a range and field of view of the vehicle within the threshold duration of time, the predicted entry indicating a forthcoming occurrence of the first predetermined situation (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching 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. 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; and 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).
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, and prediction of the first predetermined situation satisfies a detection confidence level threshold associated with the first predetermined situation.
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), and prediction of the first predetermined situation satisfies a detection confidence level threshold associated with the first predetermined situation (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 Para. 0161, teaching determining a confidence score for a response to be taken to a detected object being calculated) 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); 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), and the change occurs in response to generation of a prediction that the object will enter a range and field of view of the vehicle within the threshold duration of time, the predicted entry indicating a forthcoming occurrence of the first predetermined situation (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching 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. 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; and 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).
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, and prediction of the first predetermined situation satisfies a detection confidence level threshold associated with the first predetermined situation.
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), and prediction of the first predetermined situation satisfies a detection confidence level threshold associated with the first predetermined situation (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 Para. 0161, teaching determining a confidence score for a response to be taken to a detected object being calculated) 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); 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), and the change occurs in response to generation of a prediction that the object will enter a range and field of view of the vehicle within the threshold duration of time, the predicted entry indicating a forthcoming occurrence of the first predetermined situation (Martin: Para. 0253, teaching 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. 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; and 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)=.
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 prediction of the first predetermined situation satisfies a detection confidence level threshold associated with the first predetermined situation.
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), and prediction of the first predetermined situation satisfies a detection confidence level threshold associated with the first predetermined situation (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 Para. 0161, teaching determining a confidence score for a response to be taken to a detected object being calculated) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments filed January 21st, 2026 have rendered 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 moot. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejections of claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 8th, 2026 with regards to the 103 rejection of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 10 lines 14-20, filed June 8th, 2026) that the prior art of Martin is deficient in teaching the newly presented limitation of the change occurs in response to generation of a prediction that the object will enter a range and field of view of the vehicle within the threshold duration of time, the predicted entry indicating a forthcoming occurrence of the first predetermined situation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Martin does appear to teach this limitation in at least paragraph 0253 which teaches determining a point where a vehicle’s headlights will interfere with a second vehicle’s vision and paragraphs 0262 and 0263 teaches that upon determining if the second vehicle is about to enter the range of the headlights manipulating the headlights to avoid any visual interference.
Applicant contends (see page 10 lines 20-25, filed June 8th, 2026) that the prior art of Tryndin is deficient in teaching the newly presented limitation of the prediction meets a detection confidence level threshold. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Tryndin does appear to teach this limitation in at least paragraph 0113 which teaches determining confidence levels with whether an object is accurately detected and Para. 0161 which teaches determining a confidence score for what response should be taken in response to detecting an object.
Applicant contends (see page 10 lines 26-28, filed June 8th, 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
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
Prosecution Insights