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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 06/05/2026.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 24 recites every limitation of claim 1. The sole differences reside in the preamble, which additionally recites that the system is "for automatically predicting a cut-in situation by recognizing a state of a driver of the vehicle in a situation where the driver suddenly cuts in the adjacent lane without activating a turn signal," and in the omission of "on the first lane of" from the detecting step. Preamble language reciting a purpose or intended use does not limit the claim where the body of the claim sets out a structurally complete invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–10, 16–17, 19–20, and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 6, and 24 each recite: "in response to determining that the cut-in intention of the driver of the vehicle has terminated, deactivating the turn signal and terminating transmission of the message via the wireless communication channel to the neighboring vehicle."
The specification does not provide written description support for termination that is triggered by a determination that the intention of the driver has terminated. Applicant identifies FIG. 6 (steps S130 and S140) and paragraph [0093] as support. Paragraph [0093] states that the method includes "terminating the warning to the neighboring vehicles when the cut-in situation is terminated." The disclosed trigger is the termination of the cut-in situation — that is, the maneuver or the circumstance — and not the termination of the driver's intention. The two are not the same. A cut-in situation terminates when the maneuver is completed or the circumstance passes; that event is disclosed. A determination that the driver's internal intention has ceased is a different event, and no such determination is described anywhere in the specification.
The same defect appears in the corresponding disclosure of the first embodiment. Paragraph [0074] states that "when the exit to the road is terminated, the control unit 15 terminates the control of the turn signal 13 and terminates the control of the V2V communication device 17 or the V2X communication device 19." Again, the disclosed trigger is completion of the maneuver, not cessation of an intention.
The specification describes only two determinations concerning the driver's intention: the intention estimation unit 11 determining that the driver intends to change lanes or cut in, based on steering angle at or above a reference angle and gaze directed toward a side-view mirror or side window for at least a reference time ([0046]–[0056], [0079]–[0087]). The specification discloses no structure, unit, sensor, step, or criterion for determining that a previously estimated intention has terminated. The intention estimation unit 11 is never described as making a negative determination or as monitoring for the cessation of an intention.
Applicant's Remarks (pp. 10–11) further characterize the added limitation as addressing a scenario in which "the driver of the first vehicle decides not to cut-in after all (perhaps realizing it will create a dangerous situation)," with the consequence that a neighboring driver might otherwise "violently slam on the brakes or make a sudden emergency turn onto the shoulder of the road." No such scenario — a driver abandoning a contemplated cut-in, or a neighboring vehicle taking evasive action in response to a stale warning — is described anywhere in the specification.
A further and independent basis for this rejection applies to claims 1 and 6 and their dependents. Claims 1 and 6 are drawn to the first embodiment: they recite the exit preparation area, the determination that the vehicle is within a predetermined distance from a predetermined exit point, and the second road branching from the first road ([0041]–[0045], FIGS. 1–4). The support Applicant identifies for the termination limitation — FIG. 6, steps S130/S140, and paragraph [0093] — is drawn from the second embodiment ([0075]–[0093], FIGS. 5–6), which discloses no exit preparation area, no route prediction device 1, no need-for-change check unit 3, no lamp activation determination unit 5, and no second road branching from a first road. The first embodiment's own termination disclosure, [0074], is expressly keyed to termination of "the exit to the road." Combining a termination step disclosed only in the second embodiment with the exit-preparation architecture of the first embodiment, while simultaneously recharacterizing the trigger for that step, constitutes new matter. See MPEP 2163.05.
Claims 2–5, 7–10, 16–17, 19–20, and 22–23 are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim and incorporating the same subject matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–10, 16–17, 19–20, and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 6, and 24 recite, in the final limitation, "in response to determining that the cut-in intention of the driver of the vehicle has terminated." The phrase "a cut-in intention of a driver of the vehicle" appears only in the preamble of each claim. The body of each claim recites, throughout, "a lane change intention of the driver" and "the driver intends to perform the lane change." Nowhere does the body of any claim recite a cut-in intention, a step of determining a cut-in intention, or any relationship between a cut-in intention and the lane change intention.
It is therefore unclear whether "the cut-in intention" refers to the same intention as "the lane change intention" recited in the body, or to a distinct intention. If the two are the same, the claims use two different terms for the same element, rendering the scope uncertain. If the two are different, the claims recite termination of an intention that is never determined, detected, or otherwise established by any positively recited step. Either reading leaves one of ordinary skill unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
The final limitation is triggered "in response to determining that the cut-in intention…has terminated," but the claims recite no step of determining that any intention has terminated, and no input, criterion, or condition on which such a determination would be based. The claims recite in detail the basis for determining that the driver intends to perform the lane change — the detected steering angle relative to neutral and the driver's repeated gaze toward a side-view mirror within a predetermined period of time — but recite nothing whatsoever as the basis for the converse determination. It is unclear what event or measurement causes the recited termination step to be performed.
Clarification is required. For purposes of applying prior art in this action, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as encompassing any determination that the previously estimated intention is no longer operative, including a determination that the lane change or cut-in will not be performed and a determination that the lane change or cut-in has been completed. See MPEP 2111.
Claims 2–5, 7–10, 16–17, 19–20, and 22–23 are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim and failing to cure the above deficiencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 recites that, in response to determining that (1) the turn signal is not activated and (2) the driver intends to perform the lane change, the system activates the turn signal in addition to transmitting the message to the neighboring vehicle. By the present amendment, claim 1 now recites, in the corresponding limitation, "activating the turn signal and transmitting, via the wireless communication channel to the neighboring vehicle on the first road, a message containing an intention of the driver to perform the lane change." Claim 16 therefore recites no limitation beyond what claim 1 already requires. Claim 17 bears the same relationship to claim 6, which was amended identically. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1–10, 16–17, 20, and 23–24 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2017058761 A – previously cited) in view of Harada (US 20160161267 A1– previously cited), Qiao (US 20220089163 A1 – previously cited), and Brandin et al. (US 20170349175 A1– previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a system for operating a vehicle traveling in a first lane of a first road to warn a neighboring vehicle in an adjacent lane of the first road of a cut-in intention of a driver of the vehicle that the vehicle is about to cut across the adjacent lane to exit from the first road to a second road branching from the first road (figs. 1-2), comprising:
a processor (fig. 1 control circuit 50 including processor 50a); and
a computer-readable medium ([0024] a RAM, and a flash memory) in communication with the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the system to perform:
detecting a steering angle of the vehicle ([0018] The steering sensor 22 detects the steering angle of the steering wheel operated by the driver.) and detecting a gaze direction of a driver of the vehicle while the vehicle is traveling on the first lane of the first road ([0019] The line-of-sight detection device 27 acquires an image photographed by the in-vehicle camera 26. The line-of-sight detection device 27 detects the line-of-sight direction of both eyes of the driver by analyzing the image of the face of the driver.);
determining that a vehicle is at an exit preparation area where a preparation is needed for the vehicle to exit from the first road to a second road branching from the first road ([0016] The radar sensor 11 and the surroundings monitoring camera 12 are used to detect traffic signals, guardrails, curbstones, road signs, road signs, lane/road markings, etc.; [0006]-[0009] surrounding scenes with a high probability of lane change can be identified; also see [0047]);
in response to determining that the vehicle is at the exit preparation area, determining whether a lane change is needed for the vehicle to cut across the adjacent lane of the first road, which is located between the first lane of the first road that the vehicle is currently traveling in and the second road, in order for the vehicle to exit from the first road to the second road ([0063] based on the fact that the vehicle A is determined to be in the specific scene, the determination on whether or not is necessary to change the lane is started; also see abstract and [0014]);
in response to determining that the lane change is needed for the vehicle to exit from the first road to the second road, determining whether a turn signal of the vehicle is activated for the lane change indicating a lane change intention of the driver (fig. 1; [0021] The direction indicator 35 is configured to indicate the moving direction of the vehicle A in the surroundings when turning right or left and changing lanes; [0039] the vehicle may be an automatically driven vehicle in which the system performs all or a part of the maneuvering; [0041]-[0043] teaches determining when a turn signal is activated responsive to situation when a lane change is necessary; [0041]-[0042], [0047] and [0062] teaches lighting device 100 can determine if the direction indicator 35 is activated; also see [0037].);
in response to determining that the turn signal is activated for the lane change in a state where the lane change across the adjacent lane is needed for the vehicle to exit to the second road, the lane change intention of the driver is communicated via a wireless communication channel to the neighboring vehicle in the adjacent lane ([0022], [0035] teaches that device control unit 67 notifies surrounding vehicles A1–A3 of the possibility/intention of lane change by wireless communication using communicator 36, coordinated with/along with operation of the direction indicator 35.);
in response to determining that the turn signal of the vehicle is not activated, determining whether the driver intends to perform the lane change based on the detected steering angle and driver's gaze direction ([0034] the system uses both gaze detection (via line-of-sight detecting device 27 and in-vehicle camera 26) and vehicle behavior (including acceleration/deceleration and steering behavior from sensors 21, 22, 24, 25) to assess driver intent); and
in response to determining that (1) the turn signal is not activated ([0037], the device control unit 67 notifies the surrounding vehicles A1 to A3 of the possibility/intention of lane change by wireless communication using the communication device 36 before the operation of the direction indicator 35) and (2) the driver intends to perform the lane change ([0034]-[0035] When it is determined that the driver intends to change the lane, the driver characteristic determination unit 64 outputs information indicating that there is an intention to perform lane change to the device control unit 67. The device control unit 67, via notification device 34, notifies the other vehicles A1 to A3 traveling in the surroundings that there is a possibility/intention of lane change; [0014] the communication device 36 function as a notification device 34 that notifies the surroundings of the intention of the lane change for the vehicle A), activating the turn signal and transmitting, via the wireless communication channel to the neighboring vehicle on the first road, a message containing an intention of the driver to perform the lane change ([0014] discloses that the direction indicator 35 and the communication device 36 together function as a notifying device 34 for notifying the surroundings of the lane change to be performed. The device control unit 67 notifies the surrounding vehicles A1–A3 of the possibility of lane change by wireless communication using the communication device 36, and thereafter turns on the direction indicator 35 ([0037]; S135 and S139 of FIG. 7; [0054], [0056]). Tanaka thus discloses both activating the turn signal and transmitting the message when the driver is determined to intend a lane change and the driver has not himself operated the direction indicator switch 23.); and
in response to determining that the cut-in intention of the driver of the vehicle has terminated, deactivating the turn signal and terminating transmission of the message via the wireless communication channel to the neighboring vehicle (Tanaka discloses this limitation at FIG. 7, S141–S144. After the direction indicator 35 is automatically turned on at S139 and a lighting duration time is set ([0056]), S141 and S142 determine whether the lane change has been completed before that time elapses ([0057]). Upon elapse without completion: "In S143, it is assumed that the lane change is not performed, and the device control section 67 controls the communication unit 36 to inform the other vehicles A1 to A3 traveling around...cancellation of lane change. Then, the process proceeds to S144. In S144, the direction indicator 35 turned on in S139 is extinguished, and the operation control process is temporarily ended" ([0058]). Tanaka thus determines that the previously estimated lane change intention is no longer operative and, in response, extinguishes the automatically activated turn signal and ceases the notification of possible lane change to the neighboring vehicles. Tanaka further discloses termination upon completion of the maneuver: at S137 the process terminates when the driver operates the direction indicator and changes lanes ([0055]), and at S141 completion routes directly to S144, extinguishing the direction indicator ([0057]). Under the claim interpretation set forth in the 112(b) rejection above — a cut-in intention necessarily terminating when the cut-in is performed — this disclosure reads on the limitation for the additional, independent reason.).
However, Tanaka does not expressly disclose steering wheel of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel; wherein the determination that the vehicle is at the exit preparation area is based on determining whether the vehicle is within a predetermined distance from a predetermined exit point to exit from the first road to the second road branching from the first road; determining whether the driver's gaze direction is repeatedly directed toward a side-view mirror of the vehicle within a predetermined period of time; and determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Harada teaches determining whether a vehicle is within a predetermined distance from a predetermined exit point to exit from a first road to a second road branching from the first road. See figures 2-3, [0049] and [0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether a vehicle is within a predetermined distance from a predetermined exit point to exit from a first road to a second road branching from the first road as taught by Harada in the system taught by Tanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to prepare the vehicle for an exit event (as suggested in fig. 3 steps 315-355, abstract, [0001], and [0003] of Harada).
However, Tanaka in view of Harada does not expressly disclose determining whether the driver's gaze direction is repeatedly directed toward a side-view mirror of the vehicle within a predetermined period of time; and steering wheel of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel and determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Qiao teaches determining whether the driver’s gaze direction is repeatedly directed toward a side-view mirror within a predetermined period of time by counting a number of eye switches from an on-road direction to a side mirror direction in a short time interval and updating/resetting an “eyes on mirror” counter based on timer thresholds. See [0006], [0045], and [0053]–[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Qiao’s gaze-behavior evaluation (e.g., counting the number of driver eye switches from an on-road direction to a side-view mirror direction within a short time interval) into Tanaka’s driver characteristic determination for lane-change intent (Tanaka [0034]) because both references are directed to predicting/inferring driver lane-change intent using driver gaze behavior. Incorporating Qiao’s mirror-glance counting would have improved the robustness and reliability of Tanaka’s intent determination in situations where a driver checks the side-view mirror in multiple short glances rather than maintaining a continuous gaze, thereby reducing missed detections and better reflecting natural driver behavior.
However, Tanaka in view of Harada and Qiao does not expressly disclose steering wheel of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel and determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Brandin disclosed in paragraph [0011], the system identifies a predetermined steering angle threshold α, and determines lane change intent when the driver turns the wheel at least α degrees from the neutral position. Further, paragraph [0034] illustrates an embodiment where the driver initiates a lane change by turning the steering wheel α degrees counter-clockwise and then β degrees clockwise, where both values represent meaningful deviations from neutral steering to indicate a maneuver. Paragraph [0032] describes the steering angle sensor (18), which detects these angular displacements and provides the data needed to compare the angle to a threshold value. This sensor data enables logic that determines when the steering angle exceeds the predefined reference range. Taken together, these disclosures clearly teach the limitation: “steering wheel angle of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel and…determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect a steering wheel angle of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel and determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state as taught by Brandin in the system taught by Tanaka in view of Harada and Qiao. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance detection of lane change intent (as suggested in abstract and [0011] of Brandin).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka in view of Harada, Qiao and Brandin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein, for determining that the vehicle is at the exit preparation area, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the system to perform determining that a distance between (1) a first position at which the vehicle is located on the first road and (2) a second position at which the second road starts branching from the first road is within a predetermined distance (Tanaka [0016] The radar sensor 11 and the surroundings monitoring camera 12 can acquire the positional relationship of road characteristics surrounding around the vehicle A; [0028] determining relative position of lane markings).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka in view of Harada, Qiao and Brandin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein, for determining whether the driver intends to perform the lane change, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the system to perform: determining whether the detected steering angle meets a predetermined angle condition (Tanaka [0018] steering sensor 22 detects the steering angle of the steering wheel operated by the driver; [0034] the driver characteristics determination unit 64 determines whether or not the driver intends to change lanes based on respective outputs of the line-of-sight detecting device 27 and the steering sensor 22.).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka in view of Harada, Qiao and Brandin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication channel includes a V2V communication channel (Tanaka [0035] By controlling the direction indicator 35 and the communicator 36, the device control unit 67 notifies the other vehicles A1 to A3 traveling in the surroundings that there is a possibility of lane change; [0022] The communication device 36 is installed in the vehicle A and is capable of wireless communication with communication devices mounted respectively in the other vehicles A1 to A3 around the vehicle.).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka in view of Harada, Qiao and Brandin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication channel includes a V2X communication channel (Tanaka [0035] By controlling the direction indicator 35 and the communicator 36, the device control unit 67 notifies the other vehicles A1 to A3 traveling in the surroundings that there is a possibility of lane change; [0022] The communication device 36 is installed in the vehicle A and is capable of wireless communication with communication devices mounted respectively in the other vehicles A1 to A3 around the vehicle.).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka in view of Harada, Qiao and Brandin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the system to perform, in response to determining that (1) the turn signal is not activated and (2) the driver intends to perform the lane change, activating the turn signal in addition to transmitting, to the neighboring vehicle on the first road, the message containing the intention of the driver to perform the lane change (Tanaka [0034]-[0035] When it is determined that the driver intends to change the lane, the driver characteristic determination unit 64 outputs information indicating that there is an intention to perform lane change to the device control unit 67. The device control unit 67, via notification device 34, notifies the other vehicles A1 to A3 traveling in the surroundings that there is a possibility/intention of lane change; [0014] The direction indicator 35 and the communication device 36 function as a notification device 34 that notifies the surroundings of the intention of the lane change for the vehicle A; [0037] The device control unit 67 notifies the surrounding vehicles A1 to A3 of the possibility/intention of lane change by wireless communication using the communication device 36 before the operation of the direction indicator 35. In addition (i.e., Then), the device control unit 67 provides notification of the intended lane change via the direction indicator 35.).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka in view of Harada, Qiao and Brandin discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined reference angle is equal to or greater than 30 degrees (Brandin [0011]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Claims 6-10, 17 and 23 are being rejected similarly to the rejection of claims 1-5, 16 and 20 above for being directed to a method having steps corresponding to the operations/functions of claims 1-5, 16 and 20 above whereby the scope and contents of the recited limitations are substantially the same.
Regarding claim 24, Tanaka discloses a system for operating a vehicle traveling in a first lane of a first road to warn a neighboring vehicle in an adjacent lane of the first road of a cut-in intention of a driver of the vehicle that the vehicle is about to cut across the adjacent lane to exit from the first road to a second road branching from the first road, and for automatically predicting a cut-in situation by recognizing a state of a driver of the vehicle in a situation where the driver suddenly cuts in the adjacent lane without activating a turn signal (figs. 1-2), comprising:
a processor (fig. 1 control circuit 50 including processor 50a); and
a computer-readable medium ([0024] a RAM, and a flash memory) in communication with the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the system to perform:
detecting a steering angle of the vehicle ([0018] The steering sensor 22 detects the steering angle of the steering wheel operated by the driver.) and detecting a gaze direction of the driver of the vehicle while the vehicle is traveling on first road ([0019] The line-of-sight detection device 27 acquires an image photographed by the in-vehicle camera 26. The line-of-sight detection device 27 detects the line-of-sight direction of both eyes of the driver by analyzing the image of the face of the driver.);
determining that the vehicle is at an exit preparation area where a preparation is needed for the vehicle to exit from the first road to the second road branching from the first road ([0016] The radar sensor 11 and the surroundings monitoring camera 12 are used to detect traffic signals, guardrails, curbstones, road signs, road signs, lane/road markings, etc.; [0006]-[0009] surrounding scenes with a high probability of lane change can be identified; also see [0047]);
in response to determining that the vehicle is at the exit preparation area, determining whether a lane change is needed for the vehicle to cut across the adjacent lane of the first road, which is located between the first lane of the first road that the vehicle is currently traveling in and the second road, in order for the vehicle to exit from the first road to the second road ([0063] based on the fact that the vehicle A is determined to be in the specific scene, the determination on whether or not is necessary to change the lane is started; also see abstract and [0014]);
in response to determining that the lane change is needed for the vehicle to exit from the first road to the second road, determining whether a turn signal of the vehicle is activated for the lane change indicating a lane change intention of the driver (fig. 1; [0021] The direction indicator 35 is configured to indicate the moving direction of the vehicle A in the surroundings when turning right or left and changing lanes; [0039] the vehicle may be an automatically driven vehicle in which the system performs all or a part of the maneuvering; [0041]-[0043] teaches determining when a turn signal is activated responsive to situation when a lane change is necessary; [0041]-[0042], [0047] and [0062] teaches lighting device 100 can determine if the direction indicator 35 is activated; also see [0037].);
in response to determining that the turn signal is activated for the lane change in a state where the lane change across the adjacent lane is needed for the vehicle to exit to the second road, the lane change intention of the driver is communicated via a wireless communication channel to the neighboring vehicle in the adjacent lane ([0022], [0035], [0037] teaches that device control unit 67 notifies surrounding vehicles A1–A3 of the possibility/intention of lane change by wireless communication using communicator 36, coordinated with/along with operation of the direction indicator 35.);
in response to determining that the turn signal of the vehicle is not activated, determining whether the driver intends to perform the lane change based on the detected steering angle and driver's gaze direction ([0034] the system uses both gaze detection (via line-of-sight detecting device 27 and in-vehicle camera 26) and vehicle behavior (including acceleration/deceleration and steering behavior from sensors 21, 22, 24, 25) to assess driver intent); and
in response to determining that (1) the turn signal is not activated ([0037], the device control unit 67 notifies the surrounding vehicles A1 to A3 of the possibility/intention of lane change by wireless communication using the communication device 36 before the operation of the direction indicator 35) and (2) the driver intends to perform the lane change ([0034]-[0035] When it is determined that the driver intends to change the lane, the driver characteristic determination unit 64 outputs information indicating that there is an intention to perform lane change to the device control unit 67. The device control unit 67, via notification device 34, notifies the other vehicles A1 to A3 traveling in the surroundings that there is a possibility/intention of lane change; [0014] the communication device 36 function as a notification device 34 that notifies the surroundings of the intention of the lane change for the vehicle A), activating the turn signal and transmitting, via the wireless communication channel to the neighboring vehicle on the first road, a message containing an intention of the driver to perform the lane change ([0014] discloses that the direction indicator 35 and the communication device 36 together function as a notifying device 34 for notifying the surroundings of the lane change to be performed. The device control unit 67 notifies the surrounding vehicles A1–A3 of the possibility of lane change by wireless communication using the communication device 36, and thereafter turns on the direction indicator 35 ([0037]; S135 and S139 of FIG. 7; [0054], [0056]). Tanaka thus discloses both activating the turn signal and transmitting the message when the driver is determined to intend a lane change and the driver has not himself operated the direction indicator switch 23.); and
in response to determining that the cut-in intention of the driver of the vehicle has terminated, deactivating the turn signal and terminating transmission of the message via the wireless communication channel to the neighboring vehicle (Tanaka discloses this limitation at FIG. 7, S141–S144. After the direction indicator 35 is automatically turned on at S139 and a lighting duration time is set ([0056]), S141 and S142 determine whether the lane change has been completed before that time elapses ([0057]). Upon elapse without completion: "In S143, it is assumed that the lane change is not performed, and the device control section 67 controls the communication unit 36 to inform the other vehicles A1 to A3 traveling around...cancellation of lane change. Then, the process proceeds to S144. In S144, the direction indicator 35 turned on in S139 is extinguished, and the operation control process is temporarily ended" ([0058]). Tanaka thus determines that the previously estimated lane change intention is no longer operative and, in response, extinguishes the automatically activated turn signal and ceases the notification of possible lane change to the neighboring vehicles. Tanaka further discloses termination upon completion of the maneuver: at S137 the process terminates when the driver operates the direction indicator and changes lanes ([0055]), and at S141 completion routes directly to S144, extinguishing the direction indicator ([0057]). Under the claim interpretation set forth in the 112(b) rejection above — a cut-in intention necessarily terminating when the cut-in is performed — this disclosure reads on the limitation for the additional, independent reason.).
However, Tanaka does not expressly disclose steering wheel of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel; wherein the determination that the vehicle is at the exit preparation area is based on determining whether the vehicle is within a predetermined distance from a predetermined exit point to exit from the first road to the second road branching from the first road; determining whether the detected driver's gaze direction that the driver repeatedly gazes toward a side-view mirror of the vehicle within a predetermined period of time; and determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Harada teaches determining whether a vehicle is within a predetermined distance from a predetermined exit point to exit from a first road to a second road branching from the first road. See figures 2-3, [0049] and [0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether a vehicle is within a predetermined distance from a predetermined exit point to exit from a first road to a second road branching from the first road as taught by Harada in the system taught by Tanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to prepare the vehicle for an exit event (as suggested in fig. 3 steps 315-355, abstract, [0001], and [0003] of Harada).
However, Tanaka in view of Harada does not expressly disclose determining whether the detected driver's gaze direction that the driver repeatedly gazes toward a side-view mirror of the vehicle within a predetermined period of time; and steering wheel of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel and determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Qiao teaches determining whether the driver’s gaze direction is repeatedly directed toward a side-view mirror within a predetermined period of time by counting a number of eye switches from an on-road direction to a side mirror direction in a short time interval and updating/resetting an “eyes on mirror” counter based on timer thresholds. See [0006], [0045], and [0053]–[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Qiao’s gaze-behavior evaluation (e.g., counting the number of driver eye switches from an on-road direction to a side-view mirror direction within a short time interval) into Tanaka’s driver characteristic determination for lane-change intent (Tanaka [0034]) because both references are directed to predicting/inferring driver lane-change intent using driver gaze behavior. Incorporating Qiao’s mirror-glance counting would have improved the robustness and reliability of Tanaka’s intent determination in situations where a driver checks the side-view mirror in multiple short glances rather than maintaining a continuous gaze, thereby reducing missed detections and better reflecting natural driver behavior.
However, Tanaka in view of Harada and Qiao does not expressly disclose steering wheel of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel and determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Brandin discloses in paragraph [0011], the system identifies a predetermined steering angle threshold α, and determines lane change intent when the driver turns the wheel at least α degrees from the neutral position. Further, paragraph [0034] illustrates an embodiment where the driver initiates a lane change by turning the steering wheel α degrees counter-clockwise and then β degrees clockwise, where both values represent meaningful deviations from neutral steering to indicate a maneuver. Paragraph [0032] describes the steering angle sensor (18), which detects these angular displacements and provides the data needed to compare the angle to a threshold value. This sensor data enables logic that determines when the steering angle exceeds the predefined reference range. Taken together, these disclosures clearly teach the limitation: “…detecting steering wheel angle of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel and…determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect steering wheel angle of a vehicle relative to a neutral state of the steering wheel and determining whether the detected steering angle is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference angle from the neutral state as taught by Brandin in the system taught by Tanaka in view of Harada and Qiao. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance detection of lane change intent (as suggested in abstract and [0011] of Brandin).
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2017058761 A) in view of Harada (US 20160161267 A1), Qiao (US 20220089163 A1 – newly cited), and Brandin et al. (US 20170349175 A1) as applied to claim 1 or 6 above, further in view of Alasry (US 9616809 B1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka in view of Harada, Qiao and Brandin discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the predetermined period of time is equal to or greater than 2 seconds; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Alasry teaches using a gaze-related time period such as two seconds in determining lane-change intent (col 7 ln 33-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a predetermined period of time that is equal to or greater than 2 seconds as taught by Alasry for the repeated mirror-directed gaze determination in the modified system taught by Tanaka in view of Harada, Qiao and Brandin. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reliability of intent determination and reduce inadvertent intent detections.
Claim 22 is being rejected similarly to the rejection of claim 19 above for being directed to a method having steps corresponding to the operations/functions of claim 19 above whereby the scope and contents of the recited limitations are substantially the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument A: Applicant argues (Remarks, pp. 10–11) that Tanaka fails to teach or suggest deactivating the turn signal and terminating transmission of the message in response to determining that the cut-in intention of the driver has terminated. Specifically, Applicant states (Remarks, p. 11): "in a situation where the driver of the first vehicle decides not to cut-in after all (perhaps realizing it will create a dangerous situation), Tanaka would continue the activation of the turn signal and the cut-in warning by the V2V communication device."
Examiner's Response. This argument is not persuasive because it is contrary to the express disclosure of the reference. Tanaka does the opposite of what Applicant describes: at S143, Tanaka determines that the lane change is not going to be performed and controls the communication device 36 to inform the surrounding vehicles A1–A3 of cancellation of the lane change; at S144, Tanaka extinguishes the direction indicator 35 that had been automatically turned on at S139 ([0057]–[0058]). Tanaka's disclosure is directed to the same concern Applicant identifies — ensuring that neighboring vehicles are not left acting on a notification of a lane change that will not occur.
To the extent Applicant's position rests on the premise that Tanaka's determination is made by the elapse of a lighting duration timer rather than by re-evaluation of the driver's state, that distinction is not reflected in the claims as presently drafted. The claims recite only "determining that the cut-in intention of the driver of the vehicle has terminated," without reciting any basis for that determination. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon to establish patentability.
Argument B: Applicant argues (Remarks, pp. 10–11) that the amended features provide the advantage of "letting the driver in the neighboring vehicle know that the cut-in intention of the first driver has now been ended, so no sudden emergency maneuvers on the part of the neighboring driver are necessary."
Examiner's Response. This argument is not persuasive for two independent reasons. First, the asserted advantage is not described in the specification. The specification discloses termination of the warning "when the cut-in situation is terminated" ([0093]) and termination of control "when the exit to the road is terminated" ([0074]), both of which describe completion of the maneuver rather than its abandonment. No abandoned-cut-in scenario, and no consequence to a neighboring driver of a stale warning, is described. Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 2145(I). Second, even accepting the asserted advantage, Tanaka's S143 cancellation notification and S144 extinguishing of the direction indicator serve precisely that function.
Argument C: Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 12) that "nothing in the secondary references to Harada, Qiao and Brandin teaches or suggests anything to overcome the shortcomings in Tanaka."
Examiner's Response. This argument is not persuasive. one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Argument D: Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 12) that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependence from allowable independent claims.
Examiner's Response. Because the independent claims are not allowable for the reasons set forth above, the premise of this argument fails. No separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims have been presented, and those claims therefore stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. MPEP 2143.03.
Argument E: Applicant states (Remarks, p. 11) that it "respectfully disagrees" that Tanaka suggests communicating the lane change intention to a neighboring vehicle when the turn signal is activated, but proceeds on the basis that "even if one accepts this reasoning."
Examiner's Response. Applicant does not maintain this argument, proceeding instead on the assumption that the Examiner's reasoning is accepted. The Examiner's position set forth in the prior Office action is therefore maintained. See additionally Tanaka [0035]: "By controlling the direction indicator 35 and the communicator 36, the device control unit 67 notifies the other vehicles A1 to A3 traveling in the surroundings that there is a possibility of lane change."
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights