DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of TW113140058 filed on 10/22/2024 has been received/retrieved by the office.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 16-17 the claim recites term “the specific area” which renders the claim indefinite, as there is a lack of antecedent basis for said term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2019/0152379A1 hereinafter “Biswal”
Regarding claim 1, Biswal discloses a beam control method, applied to a beam control apparatus configured in a car (¶31L2-3: a system for vehicle headlight control), comprising:
obtaining, by the beam control apparatus, an image (¶40L8: receiving image data);
determining, by an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) of the beam control apparatus (¶40L8: driver asset system), whether at least one pedestrian is detected in front of the car according to the image (¶41L5-6: image processing unit is configured to detect at least one of a pedestrian);
when the ADAS detects at least one pedestrian in front of the car, obtaining, by a beam control device of the beam control apparatus, a pedestrian information of the at least one pedestrian (¶42L3-7: object may be identified with respect to their location in received image data and with respect to distance from a front facing camera; one or more characteristics of the object such as distance, height, size may be used) and a speed information of the car (¶42L7-8: characteristics of the vehicle, such as speed, acceleration may be used), and
determining whether to enable a polite mode according to the pedestrian information and the speed information (¶42L6-9: one or more characteristics of the object and characteristics of the vehicle may be used to determine control settings for lighting elements); and
when the beam control device enables the polite mode, controlling, by the beam control device, a display pattern of a beam device of the beam control apparatus according to the pedestrian information. (¶44L1-6: determine a control setting to modify illumination of at least one lighting element of vehicle; the control setting modifies the angular position and direction of at least one lighting element)
Regarding claim 2, Biswal discloses the beam control method of claim 1, wherein
the beam device comprises a matrix beam (¶64L16: illumination source arranged in rectangular pattern), and the data processing method further comprises:
when the beam control device enables the polite mode, according to the pedestrian information, controlling, by the beam control device, the matrix beam to display a ripple light pattern. (as shown in Fig.4A-4C for example)
Regarding claim 3, Biswal discloses the beam control method of claim 1, wherein
the pedestrian information comprises a region of interest (ROI) information corresponding to each pedestrian. (¶54L1-17: control unit may detect areas of grid element as being associated with detected object)
Regarding claim 4, Biswal discloses the beam control method of claim 3, further comprising:
in the polite mode, performing, by the beam control device, a priority value sorting according to the ROI information corresponding to each pedestrian. (¶74L1-13f: a control unit such that the object of high importance are made clearly visible; the importance of each object is estimated y AI system based on its visual characteristics)
Regarding claim 5, Biswal discloses the beam control method of claim 1, wherein
the determining whether to enable the polite mode comprises: determining, by the beam control device, whether an enable condition is met according to the pedestrian information and the speed information; and when the enable condition is met, enabling, by the beam control device, the polite mode. (¶42L6-9: one or more characteristics of the object and characteristics of the vehicle such as speed and acceleration may be used to determine control settings for lighting elements)
Regarding claim 8, Biswal discloses the beam control method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the beam control device, whether to disable the polite mode according to a disable condition. (¶71L1-18: when no objects are detect (e.g., NO path out of decision block) process continues to detect image data)
Regarding claims 11-15 and 18, the claims recites corresponding limitations as those recited in claims 1-5 and 8, respectively, with the only difference being in apparatus format, thus the same rejection applies.
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.
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 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biswal in view of machine translation of CN111731188A hereinafter “Yin”.
Regarding claim 6, Biswal discloses the beam control method of claim 1,
Biswal does not expclitly disclose:
the enable condition comprises that at least one pedestrian is in the specific area, a speed of the car is slower than a default value, and a distance between the car and the at least one pedestrian is shorter than a default distance value.
Yin discloses a vehicle system wherein the activation requirement is current vehicle speed is less than a first vehicle speed threshold and distance form the obstacle is less than then preset distance threshold. (Page.4 L1-10)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system to control vehicle headlight disclosed by Biswal to only activate under the same condition as disclosed by Yin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the system to work only during certain condition in order to reduce system usage.
Regarding claim 7, Biswal in view of Yin hereinafter “Biswal/Yin” discloses in Biswal the beam control method of claim 6, wherein
the specific area is defined based on a left boundary, a right boundary and a longest illumination distance of a front light of the car. (as shown in Fig.4 and Fig.7 for example)
Regarding claims 16-17, the claims recites corresponding limitations as those recited in claims 6-7, respectively, with the only difference being in apparatus format, thus the same rejection applies.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biswal in view of US2024/0351600A1 hereinafter “Allan”
Regarding claim 9, Biswal discloses the beam control method of claim 8, wherein the disable condition comprises that no person is detected in at least one frame of image (Biswal ¶71L1-18: when no objects are detect (e.g., NO path out of decision block) process continues to detect image data)
Biswal does not expclitly disclose:
a gear of the car is in D gear and a speed of the car is faster than a default value.
Allan discloses a system for deactivating a system for a vehicle wherein the system is disabled when the speed of the vehicle exceeds a threshold. (¶65L1-12: if the vehicle speed is greater than speed threshold, control process to disable the virtual spotter system)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system to control vehicle headlight disclosed by Biswal to be disabled when vehicle speed exceeds a threshold and disclosed by Allan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the system to work only during certain condition in order to reduce system usage.
Regarding claim 10, Biswal in view of Allan hereinafter “Biswal/Allan” discloses in Biswal the beam control method of claim 9, wherein
the beam device comprises a plurality of beams, and each beam comprises a low beam, a high beam, or a matrix beam. (¶36L1-5: controllable lighting element have multiple light settings, including a low beam and a high beam pattern)
Regarding claims 19-20, the claims recites corresponding limitations as those recited in claims 9-10, respectively, with the only difference being in apparatus format, thus the same rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights