DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GAUTHIER (US 10,124,716).
Regarding claim 1, GAUTHIER discloses a light distribution control system that performs vehicle-external recognition and performs light distribution control over headlights (120, Fig.1) mounted on a vehicle, based on the vehicle-external recognition, the light distribution control system comprising:
an external sensor (164, Fig.1) that acquires information about an object around the vehicle, wherein the object being different from the vehicle (as seen in col.5, line 66 – col.6, line 39, the external sensor 164 includes image sensors, motion sensors, and object detection sensors; an example scenario describes the external sensor 164, in conjunction with other modules, is used to detect a moving object as a vehicle or a pedestrian; as a result, there is a scenario where the external sensor 164 is used to acquire information about the moving object where the moving object is a pedestrian which is different from the vehicle); and
a ground speed acquisition unit (140, Fig.1) that acquires a ground speed of the object based on an output from the external sensor (as seen in col.4, lines 24-64 and col.6, lines 1-16, “ground speed acquisition unit” was considered to be the electronic control unit 140 receiving data [e.g. speed] from the external sensor 164),
wherein based on the ground speed acquired by the ground speed acquisition unit, an emission range of the headlights is variably set (as seen in col.6, lines 1-16, the headlights 120 are set based on the data acquired by the ground speed acquisition unit 140).
Regarding claim 2, GAUTHIER further discloses wherein in a case where the ground speed of the object is less than a first threshold in the ground speed acquisition unit, an emission direction of headlights of a self-vehicle is set to a high beam (as seen in col.6, lines 1-16, since the high beam is turned off based on the external sensor 164 [e.g. motion sensor] detecting a speed of an oncoming vehicle, the high beam was considered to be also turned on or set based on the external sensor 164 not detecting a speed of an oncoming vehicle; as a result, when the speed of the object is less than a first threshold, the headlights 120 is set to a high beam).
Regarding claim 8, GAUTHIER as discussed above for claim 1 was considered to disclose the method of performing vehicle-external recognition and performs light distribution control over headlights mounted on a vehicle, based on the vehicle-external recognition.
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAUTHIER (US 10,124,716).
Regarding claim 3, GAUTHIER further discloses an image acquisition unit (162, Fig.1) that acquires an image of a periphery of the vehicle; and
a light spot detection unit (140a, Fig.1) that detects a light spot included in the image (as seen in (19) col., line, the “light spot detection unit” was considered to be the CPU 140a detecting a light spot as pixels in the image).
GAUTHIER fails to explicitly disclose wherein the emission direction of the headlights of the self-vehicle is set to a low beam or a high beam for shielding the object from light in a case where the light spot detection unit detects no light spot and the ground speed acquisition unit acquires the ground speed of the object greater than or equal to a first threshold.
As seen in col.5, lines 9-25 of GAUTHIER, the image acquisition unit 162 [e.g. a camera] detects a light spot of an oncoming vehicle. As seen in col.6, lines 1-16 of GAUTHIER, the external sensor 164 [e.g. motion sensor] detects a speed of an oncoming vehicle. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there can be a parameter set for the headlights to adjust when a light spot is not detected and the speed of the object is greater than or equal to a first threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the parameter in order to control the headlights.
Regarding claim 4, GAUTHIER further discloses a vehicle detection unit that detects a vehicle included in the image (as seen in col.5, lines 4-8, vehicles are detected in the image from the image acquisition unit 162).
GAUTHIER fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ground speed of the object is determined to be greater than or equal to the first threshold in the ground speed acquisition unit in a case where the vehicle detection unit detects no vehicle.
As seen in col.6, lines 1-16 of GAUTHIER, the external sensor 164 [e.g. motion sensor] detects a speed of an oncoming vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there can be a parameter set for the speed of the object is greater than or equal to the first threshold when no vehicle is detected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the parameter in order to control the headlights.
Regarding claim 5, GAUTHIER fails to explicitly disclose wherein the emission direction of the headlights of the self-vehicle is set to the low beam or the high beam for shielding the object from light in a case where the vehicle detection unit detects the vehicle and the ground speed acquisition unit acquires the ground speed of the object greater than or equal to a second threshold of a speed greater than the first threshold.
As seen in col.5, lines 9-25 of GAUTHIER, the image acquisition unit 162 [e.g. a camera] detects a light spot of an oncoming vehicle. As seen in col.6, lines 1-16, the external sensor 164 [e.g. motion sensor] detects a speed of an oncoming vehicle. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there can be a parameter set for the headlights to adjust when a vehicle is detected and the speed of the object is greater than or equal to a second threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the parameter in order to control the headlights.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAUTHIER (US 10,124,716), and in view of KIM (US 2020/0184654).
Regarding claim 6, GAUTHIER fails to disclose wherein the vehicle detection unit detects a vehicle using machine learning based on parallax information and feature on the image.
However, KIM discloses machine learning based on information on the image (para[0072] and para[0088]).
Therefore, in view of KIM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate machine learning as taught by KIM to the light distribution control system of GAUTHIER in order to provide training and data to the control systems of the vehicle.
Regarding “parallax information”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a machine learning model can be trained with desired data and information such as parallax information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate machine learning based on parallax information to the light distribution control system of GAUTHIER modified by KIM in order to provide the model to the light distribution control system to control the headlights.
Regarding claim 7, GAUTHIER fails to discloses wherein the ground speed acquisition unit also uses information about the ground speed of the object as object information for performing autonomous driving or advanced driver-assistance of the vehicle.
However, KIM discloses information about a ground speed of an object as object information for performing autonomous driving (para[0271]).
Therefore, in view of KIM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate objection information as taught by KIM to the light distribution control system of GAUTHIER in order to provide data to the control systems of the vehicle for autonomous driving.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued “Gauthier does not consider the speed of the object (e.g., pedestrian), merely the speed of the ego vehicle and the distance between the ego vehicle and the object as a proxy for likelihood of encountering the object. The rest of the references of the speed of the vehicle in Gauthier likewise also refers to the speed of the ego vehicle and not any object other than the ego vehicle”.
In response to applicant’s argument, as seen in col.5, line 66 – col.6, line 39 of GAUTHIER, the external sensor 164 includes image sensors, motion sensors, and object detection sensors. An example scenario describes the external sensor 164, in conjunction with other modules, is used to detect a moving object as a vehicle or a pedestrian. As a result, there is a scenario where the external sensor 164 is used to acquire information about the moving object where the moving object is a pedestrian which is different from the vehicle. Therefore, the references disclose the limitations as currently claimed.
Applicant has further argued “With regard to claim 2, … It is further unclear what is meant by the sensor 164 "not detecting a speed of an oncoming vehicle." Does this mean that the sensor is not detecting an oncoming vehicle at all, the sensor has failed, or the vehicle is not moving?”
In response to applicant’s argument, to clarify, in the absence of the object (e.g. a vehicle), the high beam would be on and in detection of the object, the high beam would be off. As a result, in the absence of the object, the ground speed of the object would be 0 (which would be less than the first threshold) and the headlights would be set to a high beam. Therefore, the references disclose the limitations as currently claimed.
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 extension fee 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 JAMES ENDO whose telephone number is (571)272-2782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9AM-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, JONG-SUK LEE can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/J.M.E/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights