DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 07/29/2026. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 4, 12 and 15 are canceled;
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 16 and 18-20 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-14 and 16-20 are pending;
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 .
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.
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, 4-7, 11-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0065537A1 hereinafter “Abrams” in view of US2014/0253288A1 hereinafter “O’Brien” in view of Machine Translation of WO2019225375A1 hereinafter “Fujii”
Regarding claim 1, Abrams discloses a vehicle lighting control system (¶14L1-2: a vehicle is shown having a lighting system) comprising:
a vehicle lighting control device (¶16L8-10: a light control routine that is executable by the processor) communicatively connected to the main control device (¶16L2: a controller) and electrically connected to the vehicle lighting (¶14L1-10: a projector projects a light pattern on to a ground surface), the vehicle lighting control device configured to:
operate the vehicle lighting based on the vehicle lighting control signal of the main control device (¶16L9-10: the processor control the operational state of the projector); and change a position to which the vehicle lighting emits light based on a user movement. (¶16L12-23: as the person carrying the remote device moves relative to the vehicle, the direction in which the projector projects the light pattern may shift based on a change in the detected location of the remote device)
generate the vehicle lighting control signal including a signal causing an emission height of the vehicle lighting to be a first height below the UWB communication equipment carried by the user when the user position is detected to be within the set range of the vehicle. (Abrams ¶16L9-12: the light pattern includes side extends projected downwardly toward the ground surface away from the doors)
Abrams does not explicitly disclose the sensor that is used to detect the location of the user (¶16L10-13: the operation of the projector may be based on information provided to the controller from the sensor, the sensor detecting the presence of the remote device) is utilizing a UWB communication system.
O’Brien discloses a vehicle remote function system for determining location of a fob relative to a vehicle wherein:
a UWB communication equipment configured to transmit and receive a UWB communication signal (¶35L10-13: a fob for use in transmitting and/or receiving ultra-wide band wireless signal)
a vehicle-mounted UWB communication device (¶20L1-2: a vehicle remote function system) including:
a UWB processing module (¶21L4: the controller or ECU) configured to:
detect user position information based on the UWB communication signal received from the UWB communication equipment of the user (¶35L6-10: ultra-wide band wireless signal to and/or from the job) and convert the detected user position information into a vehicle-mounted communication signa (¶21L6: precisely locate the fob in and/or around the vehicle);
a plurality of vehicle-mounted UWB communication modules communicatively connected to the UWB processing module, the plurality of vehicle-mounted UWB communication modules (¶35L1-3: the system comprise a plurality of antenna to be mounted at different locations in the vehicle) configured to:
perform UWB communication with the UWB communication equipment carried by the user (¶35L6-9: each antenna is for use in transmitting and/or receiving ultra—wide band wireless signal to and/or from the fob); and transmit the UWB communication signal received from the UWB communication equipment of the user to the UWB processing module (¶32L9-13: the controller is configured to use a first filtering of the wireless signals to determine an initial location of the bob and to use a second filtering of the wireless signal to determine a subsequent location of the fob)
detect whether a user position is within a set range of a vehicle based on the vehicle-mounted communication signal of the vehicle- mounted UWB communication device when the conditions of the welcome operation mode or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting are satisfied (O’Brien ¶18L1-10: when fob is brought inside a range around the vehicle door; command may be issued)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams by replacing the sensor system with the UWB system disclosed by O’Brien.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the UWB system provides a more precise location of the fob relative to the vehicle. (¶16L6-12)
Abrams in view of O’Brien hereinafter “Abrams/O’Brien” does not explicitly disclose:
a main control device communicatively connected to the vehicle-mounted UWB communication device and configured to:
determine whether conditions of a welcome operation mode or an escort operation mode of vehicle lighting are satisfied; and generate a vehicle lighting control signal based on the vehicle- mounted communication signal of the vehicle-mounted UWB communication device when the conditions of the welcome operation mode or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting are satisfied;
Fujii discloses a lighting control device for a vehicle lamp wherein the system performs a certain lighting control mode when user is detected near the vehicle and a start signal is received (Page.1L29-42: when the start signal is output, the lighting control of the lamp is performed mased on the lighting mode) and that the lighting mode is performed based on a user condition being met. (Page.2 L46-49: lamp ECU is in a standby state so that “hospitality lighting” is performed; when user does not desire “hospitality lighting” is not executing by turning off the standby power of the lamp ECU in advance)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams/O’Brien by including the option to turn on/off the “hospitality lighting” mode discloses by Fujii.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the user to have customization and more control as to whether the lighting system should be active or not.
Regarding claim 5, Abrams/O’Brien in view of Fujii hereinafter “Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii” discloses the system of claim 1
Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii does not explicitly disclose:
the set range of the vehicle indicates a range of distances between the user and a front side, a rear side, a left side, and a right side of the vehicle, wherein the set range of the vehicle includes a first region, a second region, a third region, a fourth region, and a fifth region, wherein the first region is set as a region where the distance between the user and the front side, the rear side, the left side, and the right side of the vehicle is less than or equal to a first distance, wherein the second region is set as a region where the distance between the user and the right side of the vehicle is greater than the first distance and less than or equal to a second distance, wherein the third region is set as a region where the distance between the user and the left side of the vehicle is greater than the first distance and less than or equal to the second distance, wherein the fourth region is set as a region where the distance between the user and the front side of the vehicle is greater than the first distance and less than or equal to the second distance, and wherein the fifth region is set as a region where the distance between the user and the rear side of the vehicle is greater than the first distance and less than or equal to the second distance.
O’Brien does disclose in ¶24 that any number of zones of other shape and size/ranges may be employed and/or created.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii to have the 5 regions as required by the claims.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allow the user more customization for the lights to follow the user as they move around the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii discloses the system of claim 5
Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii does not explicitly disclose:
vehicle lighting control device includes a headlight controller, a side light controller, and a tail light controller, and wherein the headlight controller, the side light controller, and the tail light controller are configured to cause a headlight, a side light, and a tail light to respectively emit light to the first region when the user position information indicates that the user is in the first region, wherein the headlight controller, the side light controller, and the tail light controller cause the headlight, the side light, and the tail light respectively to emit light toward the right side of the vehicle when the user position information indicates that the user is in the second region, wherein the headlight controller, the side light controller, and the tail light controller are configured to cause the headlight, the side light, and the tail light to respectively emit light toward the left side of the vehicle when the user position information indicates that the user is in the third region, wherein the headlight controller, the side light controller, and the tail light controller are configured to cause the headlight, the side light, and the tail light to respectively emit light toward the front side of the vehicle when the user position information indicates that the user is in the fourth region, and wherein the headlight controller, the side light controller, and the tail light controller are configured to cause the headlight, the side light, and the tail light to respectively emit light toward the rear side of the vehicle when the user position information indicates that the user is in the fifth region.
Fujii does disclose that the lighting system utilizes front lamp (Page.2 L4-7: the front lamps) and rear lamps (Page.2 L8-11: the rear lamps) and side lamps (Page.2 L7-4: left front turn signal lamp, right front turn signal lamps)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii to utilize all the lamps disclosed by Fujii to follow the user around the vehicle as they move in addition to the projection on the ground as disclosed by Abrams.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows more lights to be lit for better visibility for the user.
Regarding claim 7, Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii discloses the system of claim 4, further comprising:
a display device communicatively connected to the main control device (Fujii Page.1 L37-42: the setting screen of the lighting form in a smartphone), wherein the user is further
configured to set the vehicle lighting to emit light to the first height below the UWB communication equipment carried by the user using the display device (Fujii Page.1 L35-36: lighting mode set by the suer is possible so that a desirable effect for the user can be realized)),
Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii does not explicitly disclose:
the first height is set to a range of 20 cm to 160 cm.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii to modify the height of the desired like using the swivel lamps (Fujii Page.2 L12-14: headlamps have a swivel operation for deflecting the light irrational direction in a vertical direction)
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognized the light pattern is merely a designed choice based on desirable effect for the user.
Regarding claims 11, the claims recites limitations similar in scope with claim 1 with the exception of being in a method form, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 16-18, the claims recites limitations similar in scope with claims 5-7 with the exception of being in a method form, therefore rejected in the same manner as claims 5-7 above.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii in view of US2024/0172946A1 hereinafter “Golombek”
Regarding claim 2, Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii discloses the system of claim 1
Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii does not explicitly disclose:
the conditions of the welcome operation mode or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting include whether a vehicle ignition is turned off, whether all doors are closed and locked, and whether the welcome operation mode or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting are turned on, and wherein the main control device is further configured to:
determine that the conditions of the welcome operation mode or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting are satisfied when the vehicle ignition is turned off, all the doors are closed and locked, and the welcome operation mode or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting are turned on; and
determine that the conditions of the welcome operation mode or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting are not satisfied when the vehicle ignition is not turned off, at least one door is not closed or locked, or the welcome operation mode or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting is not turned on.
Golombek discloses a vehicle monitoring system wherein the system activates when vehicle detect engine is off and doors are locked. (¶335L1-4: the vehicular monitoring device is configured to be activated when the engine is OFF and the doors are locked)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii by modifying the standby mode, activation requirement disclosed by Fujii to include the requirements of engine OFF and locked door as disclosed by Golombek.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the system to further provide security when a driver returns to the car, as the lighting system would not work when someone had unlocked the car door or turned the car on.
Regarding claim 13, the claims recites limitations similar in scope with claim 2 with the exception of being in a method form, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 2 above.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii in view of “Golombek” hereinafter “Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii/Golombek” in view of US2017/0197636A1 hereinafter “Beauvais”
Regarding claim 3, Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii/Golombek discloses the system of claim 2
Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii/Golombek does not explicitly disclose:
the welcome operation mode or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting are turned on when buttons related to the operation mode welcome or the escort operation mode of the vehicle lighting are pressed.
Beauvais discloses a system and method for activating a vehicle feature wherein a button on a key fob for the vehicle activates the feature. (¶22L1-10: a vehicle control system receives a signal to activate feature when a user actuates an input on the key fob, for e3xmaple a button)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii/Golombek by modifying the key fob to have a button to activate the corresponding mode as disclosed by Beauvais.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this provides the user an easy way of deciding whether to activate a feature while walking away from the vehicle remotely.
Regarding claim 14, the claims recites limitations similar in scope with claim 3 with the exception of being in a method form, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 3 above.
Claims 8, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii in view of US2022/0289141A1 hereinafter “Shah”
Regarding claim 8, Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii discloses the system of claim 1
Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii does not explicitly disclose:
the UWB communication equipment includes a vehicle key and/or a mobile device (Abrams ¶19: the remote device is a PATS key; O’Brien ¶15: key fob, Fujii Page.1 L45: a portable terminal carried by the user), and
Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii does not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of vehicle-mounted UWB communication modules includes five vehicle-mounted UWB communication modules being respectively installed at a left front corner, a right front corner, a left rear corner, a right rear corner, and a front roof of the vehicle.
Shah discloses a UWB system with a plurality of UWB modules located in the vehicle for measurement of distance with a portable device. (¶40L1-3: UWB module [1-7] positioned in ta vehicle as shown in Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii/ to replace the UWB antenna disclosed by O’Brien with the UWB modules disclosed by Shah.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this provides more sensors for the system, therefore provides more accurate readings as to where the user is located.
Regarding claim 10, Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii discloses the system of claim 1
Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii does not explicitly disclose:
a communicative connection includes a connection using a wired communication method, and wherein the wired communication method includes a controller area network (CAN), a universal serial bus (USB), a high definition multimedia interface (HDMI), or a digital visual interface (DVI).
Shah discloses a UWB system with a plurality of UWB modules located in the vehicle for measurement of distance with a portable device using CAN bus. (¶42: the UWB module communication with control module with suitable communication bus such as a controller area network.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii/ to replace the utilize the CAN bus disclosed by Shah.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because a CAN bus is a well-known communication protocol and common in the art.
Regarding claim 20, the claims recites limitations similar in scope with claim 8 with the exception of being in a method form, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 8 above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii in view of US2018/0313117A1 hereinafter “Whitham”
Regarding claim 9, Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii discloses the system of claim 1,
Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii does not explicitly disclose:
the UWB communication equipment of the user includes a vehicle lock button, and wherein the vehicle lighting is turned off when the user presses the vehicle lock button while the vehicle lighting is in operation.
Whitham discloses a vehicle wireless control with lock button (¶64L1-13: wireless control includes a lock button) and that when the vehicle is locked, the vehicle lighting is turned off. (¶162L1-19: disables or turn of lights when a signal or power is provided to lock thereby only allowing the lights to be on when the vehicle is unlocked)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle lighting system disclosed by Abrams/O’Brien/Fujii/ to use the wireless control with lock button disclosed by Whitham as the key fob disclosed by O’Brien and to disable light vehicle is locked.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this prevents the lights from staying on too long after door is locked and draining the vehicle battery.
Regarding claim 19, the claims recites limitations similar in scope with claim 9 with the exception of being in a method form, therefore rejected in the same manner as claim 9 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “adjusting the illumination height based on a real-time three-dimensional height of the UWB communication device”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, the claim merely requires the height to be at “a first height below the UWB equipment carried by the user” which since the projection of Abrams is toward and on the ground surface, it will be at a height that is lower than the equipment carried by the user, as the user is above the ground surface.
For the at least foregoing reasons, all rejection are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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 2845
Prosecution Insights