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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 of claim 1 recites “the top of the device body” while in lines 7 and 10 it is referred to as the “the top surface of the device body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3-4 and 16-17 additionally also recite “the top surface of the device body”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCutcheon, IV et al. (US 2022/0174867 A1), hereinafter McCutcheon.
Regarding claim 1, McCutcheon teaches an intelligent mowing device (100, fig. 1, [0025-0026]), comprising:
a device body (110, fig. 1, [0026]) including a front end (fig. 1, end with wheels 104) and a rear end (fig. 1, end with wheels 106), an actuator (actuator, fig. 4, [0027]) is arranged on the device body (fig. 1 and 4, [0026-0027]);
a first lens (132D cover and 132D interior components, fig. 1-3 and 7-8, [0030-0031, and 0035-0039]) arranged at the front end of the top of the device body (150, fig. 1-3 and 7-8, [0035]), the first lens includes a light-transmitting area ([0030 and 0036, wherein the cover is transparent to at least electromagnetic material and capable of allowing a camera to function, so it is a light-transmitting area]);
wherein, there is a first point on the first lens (see annotated fig. 8) and a second point of the top surface of the device body (see annotated fig. 8),
the first point corresponds to a contour point at a bottom edge of the light-transmitting area (see annotated fig. 8), which is oriented towards the front end (see annotated fig. 8),
the second point is the highest point of the top surface of the device body located in front of the first lens (see annotated fig. 8);
an angle between a line connecting the first point and the second point (see annotated fig. 8) and the horizontal plane (see annotated fig. 8) is greater than or equal to a first set acute angle (see annotated fig. 8).
McCutcheon teaches the above but fails to explicitly disclose the camera within a particular radome that collects environmental information through the light-transmitting area. However, McCutcheon does teach that radomes can contain a camera ([0045]). Placement of the camera within the radom (132D) provides for environmental information collected through the light-transmitting area (fig. 1-3 and 7-8, [0031]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCutcheon to incorporate the camera within a radome in order to acquire a better or different view ([0031, 0036, 0040, and 0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
936
1500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, McCutcheon further teaches wherein the first set acute angle ranges from 5 to 15 degrees (see annotated fig. 8, wherein the angle appears to be between 5 and 15; in the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the first point, the second point, and/ or the horizontal line at a different location to cover the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, McCutcheon further teaches wherein there is also a third point on the first lens (see annotated fig. 6), and there is also a fourth point of the top surface of the device body (see annotated fig. 6);
the third point corresponds to the contour point at the bottom edge of the light-transmitting area (see other option), which is oriented towards the left side of the device body (see other option), and
the fourth point is the highest point of the top surface of the device body located on the left side of the first lens (see other option); or
the third point corresponds to the contour point at the bottom edge of the light-transmitting area (see annotated fig. 6), which is oriented towards the right side of the device body (see annotated fig. 6), and
the fourth point is the highest point of the top surface of the device body located on the right side of the first lens (see annotated fig. 6);
an angle between the line connecting the third point and the fourth point and the horizontal plane is greater than or less than a second set acute angle (see annotated fig. 6);
wherein the second set acute angle ranges from 5 to 15 degrees (see annotated fig. 6, wherein the angle appears to be between 5 and 15; in the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the third point, the fourth point, and/ or the horizontal line at a different location to cover the claimed range).
PNG
media_image2.png
700
1346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4, 16, and 17, McCutcheon further teaches wherein a horizontal distance between the first point and the second point is less than or equal to a first preset distance (see annotated fig. 8.1), which ranges from 10 to 200 mm (see annotated fig. 8.1, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the horizontal distance between the first point and the second point is approximately 80% of the distance between 800A and 800B, which would be about 71.12 mm. In the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the first point and the second point at a different location to cover the claimed range); and wherein the distance from the first point to the top surface of the device body is less than or equal to a second preset distance (see annotated fig. 8.2), which ranges from 10 to 50 mm (see annotated fig. 8.2, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the distance between the first point and the top surface is approximately 20% of the distance between 800A and 800B, which would be about 17.78 mm. In the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the first point at a different location to cover the claimed range).
PNG
media_image3.png
936
1500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
936
1500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5, 18, and 19, McCutcheon further teaches
wherein the intelligent mowing device further comprises an environmental detection device (camera 126, fig. 3 and 8, [0030-0031 and 0040]);
a front side wall (136A, fig. 3, [0033]) of the device body (110, fig. 3, [0026]) is an inclined surface that inclines downward and backward from the top edge of the front end of the device body (fig. 3);
the environmental detection device is arranged on the front side wall (fig. 3 and 8);
an angle between the front side wall and the vertical plane is less than or equal to a second set acute angle, which ranges from 1 to 40 degrees (the angle α is 75° [0034], there for using a right triangle with the hypotenuse as the vertical line/plane the angle of the slant of 136A is 15°).
Claims 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCutcheon, IV et al. (US 2022/0174867 A1), hereinafter McCutcheon in view of Einecke et al. (US 9,557,739 B2), hereinafter Einecke and in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0128730 A1), hereinafter Nakano.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, McCutcheon further teaches wherein the intelligent mowing device (100, fig. 1, [0025-0026]) further comprises an antenna (antennas, [0030, 0035, and 0037]);
the antenna (see 132A which may contain an antenna, [0030]) is arranged at a left side or a right side of the top of the device body (fig. 1-2 and 7);
an actuator (actuator, [0027]) includes a mowing motor (120, [0027]) and a mowing blade (400, [0027]), with the mowing motor driving the mowing blade to operate ([0027]);
the horizontal distance from the antenna to the mowing motor is greater than or equal to a third preset distance (fig. 3), which ranges from 100 to 200 mm (wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the horizontal distance between the antenna and the mowing motor is about 200mm);
a vertical distance from the top of the antenna to the mowing motor is greater than or equal to a fourth preset distance (fig. 3), which ranges from 100 to 200 mm (wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the vertical distance between the antenna and the mowing motor is over 200 mm).
McCutcheon teaches the above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the antenna is arranged at a rear end or rear end of the device body.
Einecke teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein the antenna (12, fig. 1, col. 10 lines 5-11) is arranged at a rear end or rear end of the device body (fig. 1 and 3, col. 8 lines 12-18, wherein 14 is the unlabeled dome at the opposite end of the mower in fig. 1, which means that the front of the mower is on the righthand side of the mower of fig. 1, and therefore 12 is at rear of the mower on the lefthand side).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCutcheon to rearrange the placement of the radome with an antenna inside to the placement at the rear of mower of the antenna of Einecke (approximately where the arrowhead of 134 in fig. 2 is located) which is a known arrangement that would yield the predictable result of allowing communication ([0037] of McCutcheon).
With this rearrangement the mowing motor (120A of McCutcheon) is positioned between the first lens (132D, fig. 2-3, wherein a part of 132D is forward a part of 120A of McCutcheon) and the antenna (132A is now at the rear at of the top of the mower).
McCutcheon teaches a mowing blade but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cutter is a mowing blade disc.
Nakano teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein the cutter is a mowing blade disc (31, fig. 3A-3D, [0057]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted wherein the mowing cutter is blade of McCutcheon with mowing blade disc of Nakano to yield the predictable result of cutting the mowing the lawn ([0057] of Nakano).
Regarding claim 7, McCutcheon in view of Einecke and Nakano teaches wherein the device body further comprises a drive device (drive mechanism, fig. 4, [0028]);
the drive device includes a drive motor (402A, fig. 4, [0028]) and rear wheels (106, fig. 1 [0027]), and the drive motor drives the rear wheels to travel ([0028]);
the drive motor is arranged between the mowing motor, and the antenna in the travel direction of the device body (fig. 3-4, [0028], the drive motor 402A is behind 120A and 402A is partially in front of 132A as modified);
a horizontal distance from the antenna to the drive motor is greater than or equal to a fifth preset distance, which ranges from 50 to 70 mm (fig. 2-4, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the horizontal distance between the antenna and the drive motor is over 88.9 mm);
in the working state, a vertical distance from the top of the antenna to the drive motor is greater than or equal to a sixth preset distance, which ranges from 100 to 200 mm (fig. 3, [0028], wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the vertical distance between the antenna and the drive motor within 118 motor is greater than 100 to 200mm).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCutcheon, IV et al. (US 2022/0174867 A1), hereinafter McCutcheon in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0128730 A1), hereinafter Nakano and in view of Einecke et al. (US 9,557,739 B2), hereinafter Einecke
Regarding claim 10, McCutcheon teaches an intelligent mowing device (100, fig. 1, [0025-0026]),
comprising:
a device body (110, fig. 1, [0026]) including a front end (fig. 1, end with wheels 104) and a rear end (fig. 1, end with wheels 106);
a first lens (132D cover and 132D interior components, fig. 1-3 and 7-8, [0030-0031, and 0035-0039]) arranged at the front end of the top of the device body (150, fig. 1-3 and 7-8, [0035]);
an actuator (actuator, [0027]) including a mowing motor (120, [0027]) and a mowing blade (400, [0027]), wherein the mowing motor drives the mowing blade to operate ([0027]);
a drive device (drive mechanism, fig. 4, [0028]) including a drive motor (402A, fig. 4, [0028]) and rear wheels (106, fig. 1 [0027]), and the drive motor drives the rear wheels to move ([0028]);
a battery ([0026]) for storing energy and providing electrical power ([0026, 0029, and 0061-0063]);
a communication module (132a, [0022 and 0037-0038]) arranged above the battery (see fig. 2 and fig. 3 for distance between 118 that contains 132A as shown in the figures), the communication module is used to provide the function of enabling the device body to communicate with external devices ([0037]);
an antenna (see 132A which may contain an antenna, [0030]) arranged at the top of the device body (fig. 1-2).
McCutcheon teaches a mowing blade but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cutter is a mowing blade disc. Nakano teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein the cutter is a mowing blade disc (31, fig. 3A-3D, [0057] of Nakano). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted wherein the mowing cutter is blade of McCutcheon with mowing blade disc of Nakano to yield the predictable result of cutting the mowing the lawn ([0057] of Nakano).
McCutcheon teaches the above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the antenna is arranged at a rear end or rear end of the device body. Einecke teaches a similar device in the same field of lawnmowers wherein the antenna (12, fig. 1, col. 10 lines 5-11 of Eincke) is arranged at a rear end or rear end of the device body (fig. 1 and 3, col. 8 lines 12-18, wherein 14 is the unlabeled dome at the opposite end of the mower in fig. 1, which means that the front of the mower is on the righthand side of the mower of fig. 1, and therefore 12 is at rear of the mower on the lefthand side of Eincke). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McCutcheon to rearrange the placement of the radome with an antenna inside to the placement at the rear of mower of the antenna of Einecke (approximately where the arrowhead of 134 in fig. 2 is located) which is a known arrangement that would yield the predictable result of allowing communication ([0037] of McCutcheon).
With this also comes, wherein the first lens, the mowing motor, the drive motor, the battery, and the antenna are arranged in sequence from the front end to the rear end of the device body (fig. 1-4 of McCutcheon, wherein these elements only need to be in some sequence not this specific order).
Regarding claim 11, McCutcheon in view of Nakano and Einecke teaches wherein in the working state of the antenna:
a horizontal distance from the antenna to the mowing motor is greater than or equal to a third preset distance, which ranges from 100 to 200 mm (wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the horizontal distance between the antenna and the mowing motor is about 200mm);
a vertical distance from the top of the antenna to the mowing motor is greater than or equal to a fourth preset distance, which ranges from 100 to 200 mm (wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the vertical distance between the antenna and the mowing motor is over 200 mm);
a horizontal distance from the antenna to the drive motor is greater than or equal to a fifth preset distance, which ranges from 50 to 70 mm (fig. 2-4, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the horizontal distance between the antenna and the drive motor is over 88.9 mm);
a vertical distance from the top of the antenna to the drive motor is greater than or equal to a sixth preset distance, which ranges from 150 to 250 mm fig. 3, [0028], wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the vertical distance between the antenna and the drive motor within 118 motor is greater than 150 to 250 mm);
a vertical distance from the top of the antenna to the battery is greater than or equal to a seventh preset distance, which ranges from 150 to 250 mm (fig. 3, [0028], wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the vertical distance between the antenna and the drive motor within 118 motor is about 3 times the 88.9 mm. Therefore, the distance is greater than or equal to 150 to 250 mm).
Regarding claim 12, McCutcheon in view of Nakano and Einecke teaches
wherein the communication module (132a, [0022 and 0037-0038], wherein 132A here is in its original position, so there are two 132A) is positioned above the battery, and there is a gap between the communication module and the battery, the gap ranges from 5 to 30 mm (see fig. 2 and fig. 3 for distance between 118 that contains 132A as shown in the figures);
a vertical distance from the communication module to the drive motor is greater than or equal to an eighth preset distance, which ranges from 20 to 60 mm (fig. 2-3, [0028], wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the vertical distance between the communication module inside the shown 132A and the drive motor 402A is greater than 20 to 60 mm.);
a horizontal distance from the communication module to the drive motor is greater than or equal to a ninth preset distance, which ranges from 20 to 60 mm (fig. 2-3, [0028], wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the horizontal distance between the communication module inside the shown 132A and the drive motor 402A may be greater than or equal to 20 to 60 mm depending on where you place the start and stop of the line measuring distance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would select the claimed distance as one of a finite number of options that were available to try between the placement of the points and or the placement of the elements);
a horizontal distance from the communication module to the mowing motor is greater than or equal to a tenth preset distance, which ranges from 100 to 200 mm (fig. 2-3, [0028], wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the horizontal distance between the communication module inside the shown 132A and the drive motor 402A may be greater than or equal to 20 to 60 mm depending on where you place the start and stop of the line measuring distance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would select the claimed distance as one of a finite number of options that were available to try between the placement of the points and or the placement of the elements).
Regarding claim 13, McCutcheon in view of Nakano and Einecke teaches wherein in the working state of the antenna:
when the antenna is arranged at the left rear end of the device body (fig. 1-2, wherein the antenna is within 132A that has been modified to be at the back rear of the top plate 150 about where the arrowhead of 134 is placed in fig. 2 of McCutcheon), the distance from the antenna to the left edge of the device body ranges from 50 to 150 mm (see annotated fig. 2, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the distance from the antenna inside 132A to the left edge of the device body 402A is approximately equal to 50 mm; in the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the 132A at the left rear end of the device body at a different location to cover the claimed range);
when the antenna is arranged at the right rear end of the device body, the distance from the antenna to the right edge of the device body ranges from 50 to 150 mm (see annotated fig. 2, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the distance from the antenna inside 132A to the right edge of the device body 402A is approximately equal to 50 mm; in the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the 132A at the left rear end of the device body at a different location to cover the claimed range);
the distance from the antenna to the rear edge of the device body ranges from 50 to 100 mm (see annotated fig. 2, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the distance from the antenna inside 132A to the rear edge of the device body 402A is approximately equal to 50 mm; in the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the 132A at the left rear end of the device body at a different location to cover the claimed range).
PNG
media_image5.png
982
1256
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, McCutcheon in view of Nakano and Einecke teaches
wherein the communication module (132a, [0022 and 0037-0038], wherein 132A here is in its original position, so there are two 132A) is positioned above the battery, and there is a gap between the communication module and the battery, the gap ranges from 5 to 30 mm (see fig. 2 and fig. 3 for distance between 118 that contains 132A as shown in the figures);
a vertical distance from the communication module to the drive motor is greater than or equal to an eighth preset distance, which ranges from 20 to 60 mm (fig. 2-3, [0028], wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the vertical distance between the communication module inside the shown 132A and the drive motor 402A is greater than 20 to 60 mm);
a horizontal distance from the communication module to the drive motor is greater than or equal to a ninth preset distance, which ranges from 20 to 60 mm (fig. 2-3, [0028], wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the horizontal distance between the communication module inside the shown 132A and the drive motor 402A may be greater than or equal to 20 to 60 mm depending on where you place the start and stop of the line measuring distance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would select the claimed distance as one of a finite number of options that were available to try between the placement of the points and or the placement of the elements);
a horizontal distance from the communication module to the mowing motor is greater than or equal to a tenth preset distance, which ranges from 100 to 200 mm (fig. 2-3, [0028], wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the horizontal distance between the communication module inside the shown 132A and the drive motor 402A may be greater than or equal to 20 to 60 mm depending on where you place the start and stop of the line measuring distance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would select the claimed distance as one of a finite number of options that were available to try between the placement of the points and or the placement of the elements).
Regarding claim 15, McCutcheon in view of Nakano and Einecke teaches wherein in the working state of the antenna:
when the antenna is arranged at the left rear end of the device body (fig. 1-2, wherein the antenna is within 132A that has been modified to be at the back rear of the top plate 150 about where the arrowhead of 134 is placed in fig. 2 of McCutcheon), the distance from the antenna to the left edge of the device body ranges from 50 to 150 mm (see annotated fig. 2, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the distance from the antenna inside 132A to the left edge of the device body 402A is approximately equal to 50 mm; in the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the 132A at the left rear end of the device body at a different location to cover the claimed range);
when the antenna is arranged at the right rear end of the device body, the distance from the antenna to the right edge of the device body ranges from 50 to 150 mm (see annotated fig. 2, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the distance from the antenna inside 132A to the right edge of the device body 402A is approximately equal to 50 mm; in the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the 132A at the left rear end of the device body at a different location to cover the claimed range);
the distance from the antenna to the rear edge of the device body ranges from 50 to 100 mm (see annotated fig. 2, wherein McCutcheon teaches that the distance between 800A and 800B is 88.9 mm [0040]. As such the distance from the antenna inside 132A to the rear edge of the device body 402A is approximately equal to 50 mm; in the alternative it would be obvious to try placing the 132A at the left rear end of the device body at a different location to cover the claimed range).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: McCutcheon is considered the closest prior art, but fails to explicitly teach the battery arranged between the drive motor and the antenna in the travel distance when taken in conjunction with the other limitations of the claims and the claims on which it depends. It would not be obvious to modify the placement of the battery due to the arrangement of the other parts of the lawnmower and lack of space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights