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 .
Detail Action
2. This office action is response to the application filed on . Claims 135-142, 196-207 are pending in this communication.
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.
3. Claims 135-141,196-203,205-207 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holub et al (US 20190073739 A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US 20190332840 A1)
Regarding Claim 135:
Holub discloses:
a. A method for creating a tamper-evident feature for product authentication, (Abstract, Para.0232, Para.0171, Para.0255; “method comprising: obtaining data representing a digital image….. embedding …. altered data….. for each of a plurality of regions within the transformed, altered data, generating detectability measures….”, “A …. verifier …. where an image…... is analyzed”, “to estimate robustness …. evaluate the attack by …. determined on “attacked” watermarked digital images”, “watermark detection and object authentication”) the method comprising:
generating a payload comprising encoded product information; (Para.0016, Para.0108, Abstract, Para.0004; “obtaining an image comprising ….. encoded signals”, “signal has been encoded within the original image”, “embedding an information signal …. representing a digital image”, “signal encoding (or “embedding”) include…. “digital watermarking” an information signal representing a digital image is construed as a payload)
b. applying robustness encoding to the payload to produce a set of encoded message components; (Para.0058, Para.0015, Abstract, Para.0127, Para.0092; “the signal is … encoded for robustness,…. employ different robustness encoding techniques”, “masking the digital watermarked ….image with a robustness map, the robustness map indicating detectability of the digital watermarking per …. groups of image pixels”, “detectability measure …. strength within region of the transformed, altered data”, “an encoded signal, e.g., digital watermarking, … include multiple components. For example…. a synchronization component (e.g., a reference pattern) and a message (or payload) component. These components ….. combined …. to form a watermark signal”, “the encoded payload and synchronization signals may be combined and then added….” robustness map indicates detectability of the encoded signal/digital watermarking per groups of image pixels. Encoded signal, e.g., digital watermarking, include multiple components; [a synchronization component (e.g., a reference pattern) and a message (or payload) component], a synchronization component and a message component within encoded signal of Holub is construed as the claimed ‘a set of encoded message components’. Examiner’s note: message (or payload) component of Holub is equivalent to one of the claimed ‘sets of encoded message components’ as synchronization component of Holub is the other claimed ‘encoded message components’ within the claimed ‘set of encoded message components’)
c. mapping the encoded message components to locations on different product parts, (Para.0031, Para.0126 “a heat map showing …watermark detection per area for an …. digital image”, “a heat map or robustness map representing encoded signal detectability…. indicate ….watermark readability across the image surface”) comprising at least mapping a first subset of encoded message components to a first product component (Para.0085;“maps a synchronization signal to embedding locations within the … signal” maps a synchronization signal to embedding locations within the signal of Holub is construed as the claimed ‘mapping a first subset of encoded message components to a first product component’) and mapping a second subset of encoded message components to a second product component different from said first product component; (Para.0096, Para.0127; “map the encoded payload to embedding locations”, “an encoded signal…. include multiple components. For example…. include a synchronization component (e.g., a reference pattern) and a message (or payload) component” a message component/encoded payload is mapped to the embedding locations within encoded signal of Holub which is construed as the claimed ‘mapping a second subset of encoded message components to a second product component different from said first product component’)
d. adapting robustness of the encoded message components differently across the different product parts by selectively modifying robustness characteristics of the encoded message components based on respective locations, (Para.0064, Para.0067, Para.0069; “a data signal … mapped to embedding locations in an image tile…. in the form of a two dimensional array (e.g., 128×128, 256×256, 512×512) of embedding locations”, “computing of ….robustness … include computing a detection metric for an embedding location or region of locations”, “The robustness model …also model distortion ….and repeat the …. detection metrics and adjusting the amount of alterations so that the …. signal will withstand the distortion”) wherein adapting robustness comprises varying levels of robustness encoding applied to each subset of encoded message components; (Para.0063, Para.0084, Para.0066 ; “adjust the…..signal ….at an embedding location, which is limited or controlled according to the …. robustness ….for that embedding location”, “the locations correspond to embedding locations within the ….signal”, “an adjustment is noticeable ….for an embedding location …. change or limit the amount of adjustment”)
e. assessing robustness tolerances of the encoded message components (Para.0067, Para.0064; “…. computes a robustness model…. include computing a detection metric for an embedding location ….. include applying ….. measurements of the ….. signal to determine how strong or reliable the ….signal. Reliability and strength … measured by comparing the ….. signal with the known ….signal”, “The embedding locations correspond to ….signal ….at which an encoded signal element is embedded”) ….. and
f. iteratively adjusting the robustness of the encoded message components (Para.0065, Para.0064; “one or more iterations of adjustments to optimize the …host for ... robustness constraints…. so that it satisfies a … quality metric ….for embedding locations across the signal”, “embedding location … referring to a unit of data …encoded within a host signal”) …..
however, Holub does not explicitly disclose:
e. assessing robustness tolerances of the …. components by determining message detection scores; and
f. ….. adjusting the robustness of the ….. components until optimal tolerances are achieved.
In an analogous reference Sharma discloses:
e. assessing robustness tolerances of the …. components by determining message detection scores; (Para.0013, Para.0157; “measuring robustness for the … images, and finding a …. parameters that achieve optimal robustness across the ….. images”, “selection of optimal parameters …. based on robustness metrics measured from the …. images…. the optimization …selects the location ….as this location has a robustness measure …. value of reliability…. this location provides a …. robustness scores for the parameter …..used …..” robustness score is construed as message detection score) and
f. ….. adjusting the robustness of the ….. components until optimal tolerances are achieved. (Para.0109, Para.0158; “determines the optimal parameters from the robustness measurements….analyzes the ….robustness measurements in the …. region …. where the robustness measurements exceed a desired robustness constraint”, “provides optimal robustness….. by computing the location in parameter …..provides a maximum robustness for each image ….. values of the parameters being varied for the image….. Then, the optimization method finds …..maximum robustness for each of the …. images”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Holub’s method of authenticating a user into a first environment associated with a first core processing system by enhancing Holub’s method to include Sharma’s method for generating an optical code that optimizes parameters for visual quality and robustness constraints.
The motivation: It’s important for optical code to be optimized to achieve improved signal robustness, reliability, capacity and/or visual quality, where optical code is merged into a host image, such as imagery, text and graphics of a package or label. The reliability can be efficiently measured by robustness score, where robustness score measures how reliably a machine learning model can make correct predictions even when the image is altered in ways that are imperceptible to humans.
With respect to independent claim 207, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 135; therefore, claim 207 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 135.
Regarding Claim 136:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
The method of claim 135 wherein successful reading of the encoded product information requires contemporaneous scanning of all encoded message components in their original applied positions, (Holub, Para.0144, Para.0071, Abstract, Claim.1; “analyzed each digital image captured from the scans”, “subsequent scanning ….to a digital image”, “the region of the transformed, altered data…. determining a likelihood that the altered data…. will be detectable from ….. scan”, “for each of a plurality of regions within the transformed, altered data, generating detectability measures, in which a first detectability measure …. corresponding to synchronization component strength within region of the transformed, altered data, and …. a second measure …..corresponding to message component strength within the region of the transformed, altered data….determining a likelihood that the altered data…. will be detectable from …scan ….”) such that any tampering involving ……. of any product component bearing encoded message components renders the encoded product information unreadable. (Para.0171, Para.0163, Para.0164, Para.0071; “…. using a …..scanner… evaluate the attack by comparing the LRPS and MS determined on “attacked” watermarked digital images ….”, “Linear Reference Pattern Strength (LRPS) and the Message Strength (MS) are selected …..as detectability measures…. LRPS is correlated with passing stage 1 …..includes a synchronization stage, where a reference pattern can be detected or correlated relative to a known reference pattern”, “the blue lines represent those images with a certain Message Strength resulting in successful message reads, and the red lines represent those images with a certain Message Strength resulting in unsuccessful message reads”, “The output …. signal … incurs various forms of distortion ….. this distortion occurs through rendering an image with the encoded signal …. and subsequent scanning back to a digital image”)
……. separation, removal, or repositioning of any product component …. (Sharma, Para.0175, “The transformation of a …optical code into …. image results in loss of data signal of the optical code…. because the transformations remove or distort portions of a … signal ….. signal elements are removed or altered, which reduces robustness”)
Regarding Claim 137:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
The method of claim 135 wherein the robustness encoding comprises at least one of error correction encoding, spread spectrum modulation, and repetition coding. (Holub, Para.0058, Para.0015, Para.0134; “the signal is … encoded for robustness,…. employ different robustness encoding techniques”, “masking the digital watermarked ….image with a robustness map, the robustness map indicating detectability of the digital watermarking per …. groups of image pixels”, “watermark signal and embeds the watermark signal in a host signal ….e.g., … images …. including CRC bits… can be error corrected”)
With respect to dependent claim 197, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 137; therefore, claim 197 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 137.
Regarding Claim 138:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
The method of claim 135, wherein the encoded message components comprise a digital watermark imperceptibly embedded within visual elements of the different product parts (Holub, Para.0031, Para.0126, Para.0085, Para.0096, Para.0127; “a heat map showing …watermark detection per area for an …. digital image”, “a heat map or robustness map representing encoded signal detectability…. indicate ….watermark readability across the image surface”, “maps a synchronization signal to embedding locations within the … signal”, “map the encoded payload to embedding locations”, “an encoded signal…. include multiple components. For example…. include a synchronization component (e.g., a reference pattern) and a message (or payload) component”) while remaining machine-readable when scanned. (Para.0143; “embedded….images …. in the most readable position on the scanner”)
With respect to dependent claim 198 and 205, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 138; therefore, claim 198 rand 205 ejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 138.
Regarding Claim 139:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
The method of claim 135, wherein adapting robustness of the encoded message components comprises:
sub-dividing error correction encoded bits into portions; (Holub, Para.0232, Para.0113, Para.0119; “The image is … analyzed by a Decoder … to …. decode encoded signals”, “…decoding process sub-divides the image into blocks”, “The … decoder estimates a value of each error correction encoded bit … from the embedding locations of the …. signal ….. error correction encoded bits are modulated over a corresponding …..signal”)
identifying locations of spread spectrum modulated bits corresponding to each portion residing in different product parts; (Holub, Para.0064, Para.0016; “a data signal …. mapped to embedding locations in an image …. are modulated onto the host image at the embedding locations…. refer to an embedding location as a bit …e.g., an encoded bit”, “image comprises …. plural encoded signals encoded … comprising a first plural-bit code and the plural encoded signals comprising a second plural-bit code”) and
selectively modifying modulated bits to yield modified bits to decrease robustness by introducing ….. the modified bits …. to a signal decoder. (Holub, Para.0015, Para.0040; “converting the digital watermarked color image to greyscale… yields a greyscale image; modifying the greyscale image's opacity to a percentage …. masking the digital watermarked color image with a robustness map, … to yield a final robustness image….the final robustness image …. of the digital watermarked color image for those image areas having a higher probability …. and comprises grey information for those image areas having a relatively lower probability of the digital watermark being detected”, “a ….signal decoder for extracting the digital …. signal from an image signal”)
…… modifying …. robustness by introducing entropy in a manner that makes the ….. as noise… (Sharma, Para.0348, Para.0476; “Robustness can be assessed by adding …. white noise to an encoded image”, “signal becomes more resilient to interference (i.e., more robust)”)
With respect to dependent claim 199, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 139; therefore, claim 199 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 139.
Regarding Claim 140:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
The method of claim 135, wherein adapting robustness of the encoded message components comprises:
creating two versions of an error correction encoded signature, a first version with no modification to payload bits and a second version with randomly modified selected bits of the payload; (Claim.5, Para.0014, Para.0015; “a plural-bit signature comprising an error corrected plural-bit ….comprises ….data representing bits in an original version of the plural-bit signature to data representing bits decoded from the transformed, altered data”, “watermark signal and embeds the watermark signal in a host signal (e.g…. images and video…. including CRC bits)….can be error corrected”, “data representing a color image…. transforming the data by embedding digital watermarking …..and generating a signal detection robustness map …. comprising original color information corresponding to image areas having detectability capability and greyscale information corresponding to image areas having …. less detectability capability”, “obtaining a digital watermarked color image; converting the digital watermarked color image to greyscale… yields a greyscale image”)
comparing the two versions to identify bits within the error correction encoded signature that change because of the modification, thereby identifying relevant bits; (Claim.6; “a comparison of data representing bits in an original version of the plural-bit signature to data representing bits decoded from the transformed, altered data”)
identifying locations of message components corresponding to the relevant bits on the different product parts; (Claim.5, Par.0157; “plural-bit signature comprising an error corrected plural-bit …..”, “Each bit of the signature can be placed ….in a digital image…. where watermark tiles (e.g., a 128×128 ……tile) are tiled across an image or image area”) and
adapting robustness of the message components of the relevant bits differently across the different product parts. (Para.0064, Para.0067; “a data signal … mapped to embedding locations in an image tile…. in the form of a two dimensional array (e.g., 128×128, 256×256, 512×512) of embedding locations”, “computing of ….robustness … include computing a detection metric for an embedding location or region of locations”)
With respect to dependent claim 200, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 140; therefore, claim 200 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 140.
Regarding Claim 141:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
The method of claim 140, further comprising:
dilating ink modifications that encode the relevant bits to increase likelihood of accurate message recovery from different viewing angles; (Sharma, Para.0008, Para.0178, Para.0320, Para.0112; “select ink colors, or a combination of inks…. of the optical code ….while retaining reliability …..”, “for adapting host images to …. the optical code signal, the process for inserting the optical code signal in a host image is executed …..yields several variants …. carrying the data signal…… each variant are ….generated by distorting the …. image shifts, rotation angles”, “synchronization process ….. is executed …. to recover the rotation….. and translation of the encoded signal”, “The reference signal component is a signal used to detect the optical code within the …. image and perform …. synchronization”) and
minimizing collisions where dilation of nearby relevant bit encodings would conflict with each other. (Sharma, Para.0158, Para.0109; “for a location in parameter space that provides optimal robustness…. by computing the location in parameter space that provides a maximum robustness for each image ….. the optimization …. finds the location in parameter space that minimizes the distance to the location of maximum robustness for each of the …. images”, “robustness measurements in the parameter space to find the region in the parameter space where the robustness measurements exceed a desired robustness constraint ….finds the location in the parameter space that minimizes the distance to a maxima in robustness”)
With respect to dependent claim 201, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 141; therefore, claim 201 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 141.
Regarding Claim 196:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
A tamper-evident product comprising:
a first product component and a second product component different from said first product component;
a payload comprising encoded product information; and
encoded message components produced by applying robustness encoding to the payload,
wherein the encoded message components are mapped to locations on the first product component and the second product component, comprising at least a first subset of encoded message components mapped to the first product component and a second subset of encoded message components mapped to the second product component; wherein robustness of the encoded message components is adapted differently across the first product component and the second product component by selectively modifying robustness characteristics of the encoded message components based on respective locations, (disclosed in claim 135) and
wherein successful reading of the encoded product information requires contemporaneous scanning of all encoded message components in their original applied positions, (Holub, Para.0144, Para.0071, Abstract, Claim.1; “analyzed each digital image captured from the scans”, “subsequent scanning ….to a digital image”, “the region of the transformed, altered data…. determining a likelihood that the altered data…. will be detectable from ….. scan”, “for each of a plurality of regions within the transformed, altered data, generating detectability measures, in which a first detectability measure …. corresponding to synchronization component strength within region of the transformed, altered data, and …. a second measure …..corresponding to message component strength within the region of the transformed, altered data….determining a likelihood that the altered data…. will be detectable from …scan ….”) such that any tampering involving ……. of any product component bearing encoded message components renders the encoded product information unreadable. (Para.0171, Para.0163, Para.0164, Para.0071; “…. using a …..scanner… evaluate the attack by comparing the LRPS and MS determined on “attacked” watermarked digital images ….”, “Linear Reference Pattern Strength (LRPS) and the Message Strength (MS) are selected …..as detectability measures…. LRPS is correlated with passing stage 1 …..includes a synchronization stage, where a reference pattern can be detected or correlated relative to a known reference pattern”, “the blue lines represent those images with a certain Message Strength resulting in successful message reads, and the red lines represent those images with a certain Message Strength resulting in unsuccessful message reads”, “The output …. signal … incurs various forms of distortion ….. this distortion occurs through rendering an image with the encoded signal …. and subsequent scanning back to a digital image”)
……. separation, removal, or repositioning of any product component …. (Sharma, Para.0175, “The transformation of a …optical code into …. image results in loss of data signal of the optical code…. because the transformations remove or distort portions of a … signal ….. signal elements are removed or altered, which reduces robustness”)
Regarding Claim 203:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
A method for authenticating a product having tamper-evident features, the product comprising a first product component and a second product component different from the first product component, (disclosed in claim 135) the method comprising:
scanning encoded message components from the first product component and the second product component, (Holub, Para.0109, Para.0127; “The …. image ….. of encoded signal … captured ….is being scanned”, “an encoded signal, e.g., digital watermarking….include multiple components. For example…. a synchronization component (e.g., a reference pattern) and a message (or payload) component”) wherein a first subset of encoded message components is mapped to the first product component and a second subset of encoded message components is mapped to the second product component; (disclosed in claim 135)
contemporaneously reading the encoded message components in their original applied positions; (disclosed in claim 196)
applying error correction decoding to the encoded message components to reconstruct encoded product information from robustness encoding that was applied to a payload comprising the encoded product information; (Holub, Para.0120, Para.0080, Para.0058; “an error correction decoder to produce the payload signal …including the checksum or CRC… decoder is applied to reconstruct the payload”, “Error correction encoding …. transforms the …. the digital …. signal into …. encoded …. elements ….Examples include block codes, BCH, Reed Solomon,..”, “the signal is … encoded for robustness……employ different robustness encoding techniques”)
determining message detection scores to assess robustness tolerances of the encoded message components; (disclosed in claim 135) and
generating an authentication result based on successful reading of the encoded product information, (Holub, Para.0164, Para.0163, Para.0171, Para.0255; “the blue lines represent those images with a certain Message Strength resulting in successful message reads…. A strength threshold … determined to represent when a watermark message is read”, “passing stage … (or “first stage”) of a detection process…..where a reference pattern can be detected or correlated relative to a known reference pattern…. LRPS values based on whether a watermark …passed the first stage. The blue lines indicate scanned images having an LRPS that passed the first stage”, “to estimate robustness … evaluate the attack by comparing the LRPS and MS determined on “attacked” watermarked digital images …. taking image captures from the scanner …… for watermark detection”, “watermark detection and object authentication”) wherein any tampering involving separation, removal, or repositioning of any product component bearing encoded message components renders the encoded product information unreadable. (disclosed in claim 196)
Regarding Claim 206:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
The method for authenticating the product of claim 203, wherein the robustness encoding comprises at least one of error correction encoding, spread spectrum modulation, and repetition coding, (disclosed in claim 137) and wherein said scanning comprises identifying locations of spread spectrum modulated bits corresponding to each subset of encoded message components residing in different product parts and detecting modified bits that yield decreased robustness by introducing entropy in a manner that makes the modified bits appear as noise to a signal decoder. (disclosed in claim 139)
Claims 142 and 204 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holub et al (US 20190073739 A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US 20190332840 A1) and further in view of Blake et al. (US 20170121910 A1)
Regarding Claim 142:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
The method of claim 135, wherein the encoded message components comprise: ……. error correction data such that each subset comprises error correction information for at least one other subset….. where modification of any single subset …… of the encoded product information. (Holub, Para.0119, Para.0127, Para.0196; “estimates a value of each error correction encoded bit by accumulating the bit …. from the embedding locations of the ….signal ….”, “an encoded signal…. include multiple components. For example…. include a synchronization component (e.g., a reference pattern) and a message (or payload) component”, “…..where the digital watermark is strong (by showing the original design color) and where it is weak (shown in grey or other color); and …. allows inspection of modification ….e.g., signal embedding artifacts…. to be assessed”)
…… where …. corrupts …. of the encoded product information…. (Sharma, Para.0232, Abstract, Para.0006; “a …. adhesive label including …..a payload that represents …. Information….. If part of the label is damaged, the full information can nonetheless be recovered”, “The optical code is merged into a host image, such as …. label”, “types of optical codes, such as robust digital watermarks, …. may be ……encoded over the object surface”)
however, Holub in view of Sharma does not explicitly disclose:
……complementary ….. data such that each subset comprises ….. for at least one other subset, creating an interdependent security system ……
In an analogous reference Blake discloses:
complementary ….. data such that each subset comprises ….. for at least one other subset, creating an interdependent security system …… (Para.0061, Para.0010; “security elements may employ one or more of the following: ….. thermochromic materials, coatings of luminescent ….. holographic and/or diffractive security features, and micro-optic security features”, “one or more ….security elements contained on or within …. the one or more first regions and the one or more second regions of the one or more watermarks”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Holub in view of Sharma’s method of authenticating a user into a first environment associated with a first core processing system by enhancing Holub in view of Sharma’s method to include Blake’s method for manufacturing a paper security document.
The motivation: Incorporating a wide variety of security features into security papers offers multiple advantages that enhance document integrity, deter fraud, and protect sensitive information.
Regarding Claim 204:
Holub in view of Sharma discloses:
The method for authenticating the product of claim 203, wherein the encoded message components comprise complementary error correction data such that each subset comprises error correction information for at least one other subset (disclosed in claim 142), and wherein the method further comprises reconstructing the encoded product information, (disclosed in claim 203) wherein modification of any single subset corrupts error correction functionality of the encoded product information. (disclosed in claim 142)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached on (571) 270-3351. 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.
/SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights