DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/11/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on the second line of paragraph [0004], the word --the-- should be inserted after "includes". On line 4 of paragraph [0011], the word --an-- should be inserted before "adaptive", and on line 5 of this paragraph, the word "confirmed" should be changed to --determined--. On the penultimate line of paragraph [0023], "a" should be changed to --the--. On the second line of paragraph [0024], the word "both" should be changed to --opposite--. On the first line of paragraph [0028], "Following" should be changed to --The following--. On the first line of paragraph [0033], "servs" should be changed to --serves--. On the penultimate line of paragraph [0029], it appears that "remains on" should be changed to --remains in the reduced brightness state-- (note the indefiniteness rejection of claim 1 below). Also note the same change appears to be necessary on line 3 of paragraph [0030], on line 3 of paragraph [0038, on lines 2, 6, 9 and 10 of paragraph [0043], on lines 3, 10 12, 13, 15 and 16 of paragraph [0045], on lines 8 and 9 of paragraph [0048], on lines 6, 7 and 8 of paragraph [0049], on lines 6, 7 and 8 of paragraph [0050], and on the last two lines of paragraph [0056]. On the first line of paragraph [0046], the word "extremely" should be deleted because it is superfluous.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On the first line of claim 1, the comma should be deleted and replaced with the word --for--.
On the second line of claim 1, the word "and" should be deleted and replaced with a comma.
On line 4 of claim 1, the word "enters" should be changed to --has entered--.
On line 6 of claim 1, the word --that-- should be inserted after "detecting", and also on this line, the word "enters" should again be changed to --has entered--.
On line 7 of claim 1, "completely leaves" should be changed to --has completely left--.
On line 11 of claim 1, "following the obtained number of seconds of delay" should be changed to --after the obtaining the number of seconds of delay--.
On line 3 of claim 2, "detecting through a sensor" should be changed to
--detecting, using a sensor,--.
On line 4 of claim 2, the word "enters" should again be changed to
--has entered--.
On the first line of claim 3, the word --that-- should be inserted after "detecting".
On the second line of claim 3, the word "enters" should again be changed to
--has entered--.
On line 4 of claim 3, "detecting through the sensor" should be changed to
--detecting, using the sensor,--.
On line 4 of claim 3, "vehicle completely leaves" should be changed to --vehicle has completely left--.
On the second line of claim 5, "vehicle completely leaves" should again be changed to --vehicle has completely left--.
On the second line of claim 7, the word "and" should be deleted and replaced with a comma.
On line 3 of claim 7, the comma should be deleted and replaced with the word
--for--.
On line 4 of claim 7, the comma should be deleted.
On line 7 of claim 7, the word "enters" should again be changed to
--has entered--.
On line 9 of claim 7, the word "entering" should be changed to --having entered--.
On line 10 of claim 7, the word --and-- should be inserted after the comma.
On line 11 of claim 7, "vehicle completely leaves" should again be changed to
--vehicle has completely left--.
On line 14 of claim 7, "following the obtained number of seconds of delay" should be changed to --after obtaining the number of seconds of delay--.
On the second line of claim 9, the word "enters" should again be changed to
--has entered--.
On line 4 of claim 9, "vehicle completely leaves" should again be changed to
--vehicle has completely left--.
On the second line of claim 10, "vehicle completely leaves" should again be changed to --vehicle has completely left--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On lines 8-9 of claim 1, it appears that "remains on" should be changed to
--should remain in the reduced brightness state--, i.e., as indicated on lines 3-5 of claim 1, when the second vehicle has entered the light control range of the first vehicle, the first vehicle's lighting source brightness is reduced, and therefore it appears that lines 8-9 of claim 1 should recite obtaining the number of seconds of delay for which the lighting source remains in the reduced brightness state.
On line 5 of claim 5, "each sampling time" lacks antecedent basis, i.e., it appears that this should be changed to --each of a plurality of sampling times--.
On line 3 of claim 6, "remains on" again appears to be incorrect, i.e., it appears that this should again be changed to --should remain in the reduced brightness state--, for the same reason noted above in the rejection of claim 1.
On line 12 of claim 7, "remains on" again appears to be incorrect, i.e., it appears that this should again be changed to --should remain in the reduced brightness state--, for the same reason noted above in the rejection of claim 1.
On line 5 of claim 11, "at every sampling time" again lacks antecedent basis, i.e., again this should be apparently changed to --at each of a plurality of sampling times--.
Claims 2-4 are indefinite in view of their dependencies on indefinite claim 1, and claims 8-10 are indefinite in view of their dependencies on indefinite claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura (USP 10,279,729) in view of Stam et al (USP 6,049,171).
As to claim 1, Futamura discloses, in figures 2A through 6C,
a light control method for controlling a lighting source (the claimed lighting source reads on the lighting source of the vehicle shown in figure 3A of Futamura) through a processor (see column 4, lines 61-64, of Futamura) in a first vehicle (the claimed first vehicle is the vehicle shown in Futamura's figure 3A), comprising:
in response to the lighting source being turned on (when the above-noted lighting source of Futamura's first vehicle is activated), and in response to detecting that a second vehicle (the claimed second vehicle is shown in Futamura's figure 2B, i.e., it is the preceding vehicle F) traveling in front of the first vehicle has entered a light control range corresponding to the lighting source, reducing a brightness of the lighting source (during operation of the first vehicle in Futamura, when the second vehicle has entered into the light control range of the headlights of the first vehicle, and such is detected by camera 11 installed on Futamura's first vehicle, the brightness of the headlights of the first vehicle are reduced, note step S150 shown in Futamura's figure 4 together with the disclosure by Stam et al at column 8, lines 13-17, where Stam et al indicates that reducing the illumination range of a vehicle--such as Futamura’s first vehicle--can be accomplished by decreasing the intensity of the high beam headlights);
after detecting that the second vehicle has entered the light control range corresponding to the lighting source, in response to detecting that the second vehicle has completely left the light control range (as noted above, inherently in Futamura the second vehicle having entered the light control range of the first vehicle is detected, and applicant should note further that Futamura's light control method will inherently or obviously be able to detect the second vehicle completely leaving the above-noted light control range of the first vehicle), obtaining the number of seconds of delay for which the lighting source remains on (although indefinite, as noted above, this limitation is being interpreted by the examiner to mean obtaining the number of seconds of delay for which the lighting source remains in the reduced brightness state, note that this limitation is met by Futamura based on what is indicated in this reference at column 2, lines 38-59, where Futamura discloses a wait time setting means that determines how long the lighting source of the first vehicle will stay in the reduced brightness state, and inherently or obviously the wait time disclosed by Futamura will be measured in seconds of delay) based on a relative speed between the first vehicle and the second vehicle (again note column 2, lines 38-59, of Futamura which indicates that the number of seconds of delay is based on the relative speed of the two vehicles, i.e., the speed difference between the two vehicles) and an ambient light brightness (although Futamura does not indicate that the wait time is responsive to an ambient light brightness, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to control continuously variable headlights of a vehicle in response to changing ambient light conditions, note column 8, lines 36-39, of Stam et al as one example of this well-known concept); and
after obtaining the number of seconds of delay, increasing the brightness of the lighting source (inherently or obviously in Futamura, after determining the length of the above-noted wait time, and maintaining the first vehicle's headlights in the reduced brightness state for the duration of this wait time, when the wait time has expired in Futamura the headlights of the first vehicle will inherently or obviously be restored to the full brightness state, i.e., this is the operation disclosed by Futamura and illustrated in the flowchart of figure 4 of this reference).
As to claims 2 and 3, as noted above, the sensor installed on the first vehicle in Futamura is a camera, and this camera is used to detect when the second vehicle has entered the light control range of the first vehicle and also when the second vehicle has completely left the light control range of the first vehicle.
As to claim 4, note that the speed of the first vehicle is inherently detected from a controller area network bus (see column 4, line 67 of Futamura), and note that obtaining the speed of a second vehicle using an advanced driver assistance system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) is typically used to obtain the speed of a second vehicle.
As to claim 6, although Futamura as modified by Stam et al does not disclose using an adaptive brightness incremental lookup table, the use of such an incremental LUT also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use such a lookup table for the well-known purpose of automatically changing one variable in response to a different variable, i.e., this concept was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that in Futamura the speed relationship between the two vehicles is detected and then, based on such a varying relationship, the wait time will be varied in correspondence therewith, and any well-known lookup table could obviously be employed to quickly output the corresponding number of seconds based on the detected speed difference between the two vehicles.
As to claims 7-10 and 12, the limitations of these apparatus claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1-4 and 6 (the claimed storage device and processor recited on lines 3-4 of claim 7 are disclosed by Futamura at column 4, lines 61-64).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 5 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 7, respectively, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the light control method of claim 4 with the calculating and obtaining steps recited on the last seven lines of claim 5, nor does any of the prior art of letters disclose or suggest the light control apparatus of claim 10 wherein the processor is configured to perform the functions recited on the last seven lines of claim 11.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tatara discloses in paragraph [0088] switching between high beams and low beams in response to the relative speed difference between first and second vehicles.
Bechtel et al discloses in the abstract thereof automatic controlling of the headlights of a vehicle in response to the output of an ambient light sensor.
Shelton et al discloses in paragraph [0002] automatically dipping or dimming the headlights of a vehicle in response to detection of a second vehicle traveling in the same or opposite direction.
Conclusion
10. 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 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights