DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed by Applicant on 4/16/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant on 3/2/2026 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Response to Amendment
Applicant presents amendments to claims 1–3 and 8. All amendments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 1–3 and 8. The claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous indefinite rejection of claims 1 and 3–7, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees that Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous combination of references serving as the basis for the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Neither the primary reference, Sarkar, nor the secondary reference, Park, teaches defaulting to manual user input operation of the vehicle component upon failure of a code update as asserted in the amended claims. Therefore, a new search was required and a new reference was identified to teach this limitation. A new mapping is presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments with respect to claims 1–12. All arguments have been fully considered.
As stated above, the Examiner agrees that the previous combination of references fail to teach each and every limitation of the amended claims. A new search was conducted and a new rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US 2019/0324858 A1, published Oct. 24, 2019) in view of Jantz (US 2017/0169208 A1, published Jun. 15, 2017) in view of Park (US 2018/0290583 A1, published Oct. 11, 2018, See IDS filed 1/28/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Sarkar discloses: a vehicle system comprising: a controller configured to: control update of [a light distribution] control program (processing center manages updating for ECUs that operation control signals that operate vehicle features of the vehicle. Sarkar ¶¶2 and 31.), using update data acquired via wireless communication (remote updating ECU software through a wireless communication network. Sarkar ¶¶ 25 and 27.);
Sarkar does not disclose: control program that operates light distribution functions of a vehicle; perform light distribution control of a vehicle lamp based on the light distribution control program; perform the light distribution control when the update of the light distribution control program using the update data fails by restricting automatic light distribution control of the vehicle lamp such that the vehicle lamp is controlled by a manual dimmer switch.
However, Jantz does disclose: perform the [light distribution control] when the update of the light distribution control program using the update data fails by restricting automatic [light distribution] control [of the vehicle lamp] such that the vehicle lamp is controlled by a manual [dimmer] switch (if the update of the control code fails, the vehicle system defaults to manual mode until the autonomous system is corrected through software update or system reset. Jantz Figure 3 and ¶ 48.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote ECU updating system using previous software configurations to serve as a failsafe of Sarkar with defaulting to manual mode of device operation if the update of the control software fails based upon the teachings of Jantz. The motivation being to default to a user-control safe mode in case of software update failure.
Sarkar in view of Jantz does not disclose: control program that operates light distribution functions of a vehicle; perform light distribution control of a vehicle lamp based on the light distribution control program; and manually operating lights via a switch.
However, Park does disclose: control program that operates light distribution functions of a vehicle (system for operating an adaptive leadlight system (AHS) that adjusts light distribution patterns generated by one or more lamps of the vehicle. Park ¶¶ 6 and 8.); perform light distribution control of a vehicle lamp based on the light distribution control program (vehicle control device 800 controls components of the vehicle that capture an image of an area in front of the vehicle, extract from the image a light distribution pattern formed by the lamp and control the lamp according to a reference pattern. Park ¶¶ 9–10, and 285.); and manually operating lights via a dimmer switch (receiving user input for vehicle operation in manual mode through a driving control apparatus. Park ¶ 76. It is well-known that integral to the operation of a vehicle is control over lights and that lights are manually operated by a user through a dimmer switch.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote ECU updating system using previous software configurations to serve as a failsafe of Sarkar with ECU functionality controlling light distribution functions of a vehicle based upon the teachings of Park. The motivation being that updates to a vehicle computing controller can be applied to the software functions being controlled by that controller.
Regarding claim 2, Sarkar discloses: a vehicle system comprising: a controller, using update data acquired via wireless communication (remote updating ECU software through a wireless communication network. Sarkar ¶¶ 25 and 27.); and a storage configured to store data for change configured to change the [light distribution] control program to a state before the update using the update data or to a predetermined state, wherein, when the update of the light distribution control program using the update data fails, the controller is configured to control the light distribution control program to be changed to the state before the update or to the predetermined state, based on the data for the change (when a software update is unsuccessful, a rollback is executed in order to recover the ECU from an inoperative state to its previous software configuration. Sarkar Figure 3 and ¶ 37.).
Sarkar does not disclose: a controller configured to control update of a light distribution control program for performing light distribution control of a vehicle lamp; and the controller is further configured to restrict automatic light distribution control of the vehicle lamp such that the vehicle lamp is controlled by a manual dimmer switch.
However, Jantz does disclose: the controller is further configured to restrict [automatic light distribution] control of the vehicle [lamp] such that the vehicle lamp is controlled by a manual [dimmer] switch (if the update of the control code fails, the vehicle system defaults to manual mode until the autonomous system is corrected through software update or system reset. Jantz Figure 3 and ¶ 48.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote ECU updating system using previous software configurations to serve as a failsafe of Sarkar with defaulting to manual mode of device operation if the update of the control software fails based upon the teachings of Jantz. The motivation being to default to a user-control safe mode in case of software update failure.
Sarkar in view of Jantz does not disclose: a controller configured to control update of a light distribution control program for performing light distribution control of a vehicle lamp; and manually operating lights via a dimmer switch.
However, Park does disclose: a controller configured to control update of a light distribution control program for performing light distribution control of a vehicle lamp (system for operating an adaptive leadlight system (AHS) that adjusts light distribution patterns generated by one or more lamps of the vehicle. Park ¶¶ 6 and 8. Vehicle control device 800 controls components of the vehicle that capture an image of an area in front of the vehicle, extract from the image a light distribution pattern formed by the lamp and control the lamp according to a reference pattern. Park ¶¶ 9–10, and 285.); and manually operating lights via a dimmer switch (receiving user input for vehicle operation in manual mode through a driving control apparatus. Park ¶ 76. It is well-known that integral to the operation of a vehicle is control over lights and that lights are manually operated by a user through a dimmer switch.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote ECU updating system using previous software configurations to serve as a failsafe of Sarkar with ECU functionality controlling light distribution functions of a vehicle based upon the teachings of Park. The motivation being that updates to a vehicle computing controller can be applied to the software functions being controlled by that controller.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Sarkar in view of Jantz in view of Park discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 2, respectively, wherein the controller is further configured to output a signal notifying a user of a vehicle that the update of the light distribution control program has failed (sending update report when update fails. Sarkar ¶ 36.).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Sarkar in view of Jantz in view of Park discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 2, respectively, wherein the controller is further configured to: perform light distribution control of the vehicle lamp, based on the light distribution control program (system for operating an adaptive leadlight system (AHS) that adjusts light distribution patterns generated by one or more lamps of the vehicle. Park ¶¶ 6 and 8.); and determine, in a case where the update of the light distribution control program is successful, whether the light distribution control performed by the controller based on the updated light distribution control program is normal (check whether the ECUs have been successfully updated to their intended final states. Sarkar Figure 4, element 404 and ¶ 42.).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Sarkar in view of Jantz in view of Park discloses the limitations of claims 5 and 10, respectively, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the light distribution control performed by the controller is normal, based on an image obtained by capturing a light distribution test pattern irradiated by the vehicle lamp based on the updated light distribution control program (Park ¶¶ 306–310.).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Sarkar in view of Jantz in view of Park discloses the limitations of claims 5 and 10, respectively, wherein the determination by the controller includes determining whether the light distribution control performed by the controller is normal, based on a current value of each light source provided in the vehicle lamp in a case where the vehicle lamp irradiates a light distribution test pattern based on the light distribution control program (Park ¶¶ 306–310.).
Claims 4, 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar in view of Jantz in view of Park in view of Ogawa (US 2020/0133812 A1, published Oct. 11, 2018, See IDS filed 4/18/2024).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Sarkar in view of Jantz in view of Park discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 2, respectively. Sarkar in view of Jantz in view of Park does not disclose: wherein, in a case where a remaining amount of a battery of a vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, the controller is configured to perform control to update the light distribution control program.
However, Ogawa does disclose: wherein, in a case where a remaining amount of a battery of a vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, the controller is configured to perform control to update the light distribution control program (determining the vehicle battery’s remaining battery level using the state of charge and a threshold to decide whether to perform software updates. Ogawa ¶ 111.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote ECU updating system using previous software configurations to serve as a failsafe of Sarkar with determining whether the execute a software update on an ECU based upon a determination of a remaining level of batter charge based upon the teachings of Ogawa. The motivation being to ensure the vehicle controller can complete its update process and is not interrupted due to exhaustion of electrical power.
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 VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights