DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 03/30/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendments to the claims now necessitate new grounds of rejection, as set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 9 of claim 2, it appears that the word --source-- should be inserted at the end of the line after the word "light".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins-Luthman et al (USPAP 2010/0020170) in view of Wipple (USPAP 2012/0191279) and further in view of any one of Solar et al (USPAP 2019/0311206), Kitazawa (USPAP 2025/0376047) and Yim (USPAP 2024/0369872), and further in view of either Solar et al (USPAP 2019/0311206) or Pertsel et al (USP 9,896,022).
As to claim 1, Higgins-Luthman et al discloses
a light control device (the claimed light control device is the device in Higgins-Luthman et al which automatically controls the vehicle lighting system referred to in paragraph [0031] of this reference) having a processor (the claimed processor is disclosed in the abstract of Higgins-Luthman et al, on lines 10-11 thereof), wherein the processor is configured to execute the following processes:
controlling an amount of light of a light unit provided in a vehicle in response to detection results of a detection unit for monitoring the environment around the vehicle (note paragraph [0031] of Higgins-Luthman et al where this reference discloses reducing the light generated by the vehicle lighting system in response to the output of an image sensor which monitors the environment around the vehicle, note that this function of controlling the amount of light of the light unit in Higgins-Luthman et al will inherently be performed by the above-noted processor), and in response to a monitoring result of a power balance of a power supply unit provided in the vehicle (although not disclosed by Higgins-Luthman et al, monitoring a power balance of the power supply unit, i.e., the battery of the electric vehicle disclosed by Higgins-Luthman et al, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to monitor a power balance of a power supply unit, i.e., the battery of an electric vehicle, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Wipple, see paragraphs [0003], [0008] and [0029] of this reference, note that such monitoring of the power balance of an electric vehicle's battery is performed for the well-known purpose of monitoring the state of charge of the electric vehicle’s battery in order to be able to determine the maximum range of the electric vehicle so that the driver of the electric vehicle will be able to determine how much farther the vehicle can be driven before the battery charge is depleted);
based on the monitoring result of the power balance, determining a power consumption of the power supply unit (inherently or obviously in the light control device of Higgins-Luthman et al as modified by Wipple, the power consumption of the power supply unit of the electric vehicle, i.e., the battery, will be determined in response to the power balance output, i.e., when Wipple's power balance monitoring is performed in Higgins-Luthman et al, the Higgins-Luthman et al processor will determine the current power consumption of the battery, and such determination will be responsive to the output of the obvious power balance detector used in Higgins-Luthman et al),
upon determining that the power consumption of the power supply unit should be reduced, detecting an irradiation object based on an output value of a lidar device included in the detection unit (although neither Higgins-Luthman et al nor Wipple discloses detecting an irradiation object based on the output of a lidar device, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use a lidar device for this purpose, note paragraph [0037] of Solar et al, paragraph [0060] of Kitazawa, and paragraph [0089] of Yim as three examples of this well-known concept, and note further that the motivation for using lidar in the Higgins-Luthman et al as modified by Wipple light control device would be to obtain the well-known advantages associated with using a lidar device for detecting an object, i.e., highly accurate 3D imaging, high-resolution mapping and spatial awareness while working effectively in low light and complex environments, rapid data collection, vegetation penetration, high precision, etc),
upon detecting the irradiation object, calculating an adjusted irradiation level which reduces the current irradiation level of the light unit and calculating an adjusted irradiation range so that the irradiation object is irradiated and so as not to irradiate a region where the irradiation object is not included compared with an irradiation range in a normal state (although not disclosed by Higgins-Luthman et al as modified by Wipple, calculating an adjusted irradiation level which reduces the current irradiation level of the light unit and calculating an adjusted irradiation range so that the irradiation object is irradiated and so as not to irradiate a region where the irradiation object is not included compared with an irradiation range and a normal state, wherein calculating the adjusted irradiation level and the adjusted irradiation range is performed in response to detecting the irradiation object, also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to perform such calculations, two examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Solar et al and Pertsel et al, as indicated in paragraph seven of the previous office action); and
reducing the amount of light of the light unit based on the adjusted irradiation level (inherently or obviously in the light control device of Higgins-Luthman et al as modified above, the amount of light of the light unit in this reference will be reduced based on the above-noted adjusted irradiation level calculated by the Higgins-Luthman et al processor).
As to claim 2, inherently or obviously in the light control device of Higgins-Luthman et al as modified above, the light unit of this reference comprises a plurality of light sources arranged to illuminate a predetermined illumination range corresponding to the current irradiation level, and the Higgins-Luthman et al processor is inherently or obviously configured to reduce the amount of light of the light source by individually controlling the amount of light of each of the light sources in order to illuminate the adjusted irradiation range.
As to claim 5, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and, as indicated on page 8 of the previous office action, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light control device of Higgins-Luthman et al as modified above could be implemented as a non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program which causes the above-noted processor of this reference to execute processes corresponding to the above-noted functions recited in claim 1, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that a processor configured to execute a plurality of processes can obviously be implemented as a non-transitory storage medium for storing a computer program which causes a processor to perform such processes.
As to claim 6, using the above-noted processor of Higgins-Luthman et al to determine that the power consumption should be reduced upon determining that a current voltage of the power supply unit is equal to or lower than a preset threshold value also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from Wipple, i.e., as noted above, Wipple teaches determining the amount of charge left on the battery of an electric vehicle for the purpose of determining how far the vehicle will be able to travel based on the remaining amount of charge on the battery, and any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the remaining charge on the battery of an electric vehicle is typically determined by comparing the current voltage of the battery with a preset threshold value.
As to claim 7, as noted above, the light unit of Higgins-Luthman et al as modified above will inherently or obviously comprise a plurality of light sources which will inherently or obviously illuminate a predetermined illumination range corresponding to the current irradiation level inherently when the amount of light is reduced, or obviously in view of the above-noted teachings in Solar et al and/or Pertsel et al.
As to claim 8, the processor of Higgins-Luthman et al as modified above will inherently or obviously determine that the power consumption should be reduced upon determining that a current voltage of the power supply unit, i.e., battery, of this reference is equal to or lower than a preset threshold value, i.e., as noted above in the rejection of claim 6, using Higgins-Luthman et al's processor to determine that the power consumption should be reduced upon determining that a current voltage of the power supply unit is equal to or lower than a preset threshold value would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from Wipple, i.e., as noted above, this reference teaches determining the amount of charge left on the battery of an electric vehicle for the purpose of determining how far the vehicle will be able to travel based on the remaining amount of charge on the battery, and any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the remaining charge on the battery of an electric vehicle is typically determined by comparing the current voltage of the battery with a preset threshold value.
As to claims 9 and 10, inherently or obviously in the light control device of Higgins-Luthman et al as modified above, the irradiation range in the normal state is a predetermined irradiation area irradiated by the light unit in accordance with an irradiation level prior to determining that the power consumption should be reduced.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 03/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the limitations that the detection unit includes a lidar device, and the processor is configured to detect an irradiation object based on an output value of a lidar device included in the detection unit, and upon detecting the irradiation object, calculating an adjusted irradiation level which reduces the current irradiation level of the light unit, and calculating an adjusted irradiation range so that the irradiation object is irradiated and so as not to irradiate a region where the irradiation object is not included compared with an irradiation range in a normal state. This argument is not persuasive because, as noted above, the use of a lidar device for detecting an object was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, three examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Kitazawa in paragraph [0060], Yim in paragraph [0089] and Solar et al in paragraph [0037]. Applicant's argument that Solar et al teaches away from the use of lidar is not persuasive because paragraph [0037] of this reference clearly teaches that the detection unit can be a lidar device. Applicant should also note paragraph [0067] of Igarashi et al, paragraph [0058] of Ensign et al and paragraph [0039] of Bays, all cited on the attached PTO-892 form, as three additional examples of this well-known concept. Moreover, the use of a lidar device in Higgins-Luthman et al would have been obvious to any person having ordinary skill in the art in order to obtain the well-known benefits associated with lidar, i.e., as noted above lidar sensors provide the well-known advantages associated with using a lidar device for detecting an object, i.e., highly accurate 3D imaging, high-resolution mapping and spatial awareness while working effectively in low light and complex environments, rapid data collection, vegetation penetration, high precision, etc, and therefore there is clear motivation for using such a lidar sensor in the light control device of Higgins-Luthman et al as modified above.
Action is Final
6. 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, REGIS BETSCH can be reached at (571)270-7101. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 April 6, 2026