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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on November 26, 2025. Claims 11, 13-20, and 22-30 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
All of applicants arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ferror does not disclose distinguishing turning-off request from lane change request (Applicant’s Response, pg. 10), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ferror does not disclose determining that the turn signal activation corresponds to the turning-off request instead of the traffic lane change request based on which lane the vehicle is currently in (Applicant’s Response, pg. 11). The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Resch does not disclose that the system determines that the turn signal lever corresponds to the turning-off request when activated form more than the threshold period (Applicant’s Response, pg. 12), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that North Park Lexus at Dominion does not disclose that he car determines that the lever actuation corresponds to the turning off request if the lever has been actuated for longer than a predefined period of time (Applicant’s Response, pgs. 12-13), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15-16 and 24-25 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.
In claim 15, lines 1-2, claim 16, lines 1-2, claim 24, lines 1-2, and claim 25, lines 1-2, the limitation “wherein the directional roadway driven on by the motor vehicle comprises more than one traffic lane” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how there could be more than one traffic lane as claim 13 can only be performed when there is only one traffic lane. Paragraph 0075 of the specification details that the physical actuation of the turn signal corresponds to a turn-off request when there is only one traffic lane and there is no further detail on how this could be determined on a road with more than one traffic lane.
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 11, 20, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North Park Lexus at Dominion (One Touch Turn Signals) in view of Miller (US 2016/0159360).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, North Park Lexus at Dominion discloses a driver assistance system and method, wherein the driver assistance system and method is configured to:
detect a physical actuation of a turn signal lever of the motor vehicle in a direction that corresponds to one of a left turn signal activation or a right turn signal activation (North Park Lexus at Dominion, 7s-12s regarding the one touch turn signal lever);
determine whether the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to a turning-off request of a driver of the motor vehicle during operation of the motor vehicle with automated longitudinal guidance;
determine whether the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to a traffic lane change request of the driver of the motor vehicle during the operation of the motor vehicle with the automated longitudinal guidance; and
determine that the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to the turning-off request as distinguished from the traffic lane change request of the driver (North Park Lexus at Dominion, 10s-20s regarding pushing the turn signal part way up/down to indicate a lane change & 30s-35s regarding pushing the turn signal all the way up/down to indicate a turn. It would be determined that the physical actuation is a turning-off request when the turn signal is pushed all the way up/down instead of part way up/down.).
North Park Lexus at Dominion does not disclose a driver assistance system for automated longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle, wherein the driver assistance system is configured to:
reduce a speed of the motor vehicle in accordance with the determined turning-off request.
Miller teaches a driver assistance system for automated longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle (Miller [0009] regarding an autonomous vehicle), wherein the driver assistance system is configured to:
reduce a speed of the motor vehicle in accordance with the determined turning-off request (Miller Fig. 3 regarding slowing down before making a turn).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and Miller are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion to incorporate slowing down before making a turn, as disclosed by Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing control of the vehicle during a turn.
Regarding claim 29, North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller teaches the driver assistance system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
detect the physical actuation of the turn signal lever as either a tap stage actuation or a latch stage actuation; and
distinguish the turning-off request from the traffic lane change request of the driver based at least in part on the detecting of the physical actuation of the turn signal lever as the tap stage actuation or the latch stage actuation (North Park Lexus at Dominion, 30s-35s regarding pushing the turn signal all the way up/down to indicate a turn (i.e., latch) & 10s-20s regarding pushing the turn signal part way up/down to indicate a lane change (i.e., tap)).
Regarding claim 20, North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller teaches the deriver assistance system as claimed in claim 29, wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
detect the turning-off request in response, at least in part, to detecting the physical actuation of the turn signal lever as the latch stage actuation (North Park Lexus at Dominion, 30s-35s regarding pushing the turn signal all the way up/down to indicate a turn); and
detect the traffic lane change request of the driver in response, at least in part, to detecting the physical actuation of the turn signal lever as the tap stage actuation (North Park Lexus at Dominion, 10s-20s regarding pushing the turn signal part way up/down to indicate a lane change).
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller, and further in view of Ota (JP 2014231236).
Regarding claims 13 and 22, North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller teaches the driver assistance system and method as claimed in claim 11 and 20, respectively, but does not disclose wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine a number of traffic lanes on a directional roadway driven on by the motor vehicle; and
determine that the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to the turning-off request of the driver as opposed to the traffic lane change request in accordance with the number of determined traffic lanes.
Ota teaches wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine a number of traffic lanes on a directional roadway driven on by the motor vehicle (Ota, [0015] regarding detecting the number of lanes on the road on which the vehicle is traveling); and
determine that the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to the turning-off request of the driver as opposed to the traffic lane change request in accordance with the number of determined traffic lanes (Ota, [0015] regarding determining that the one-touch signal function does not need to be activated when the road on which the vehicle is traveling has one lane (i.e., the vehicle must be turning if there is only one lane).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and Ota are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of turn signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate deactivating the one-touch signal function if there is only one lane, as disclosed by Ota, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of only allowing the driver to signal they are turning where then isn’t a lane to change into.
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller and Ota, and further in view of Haug (US 2009/0321229).
Regarding claims 14 and 23, North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller and Ota teaches the driver assistance system and method as claimed in claims 13 and 22, respectively. North Park Lexus at Dominion further teaches wherein the directional roadway driven on by the motor vehicle comprises one traffic lane, and wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine the turning-off request of the driver in response to the physical actuation of the turn signal lever (North Park Lexus at Dominion, 7s-12s regarding the one touch turn signal lever & 34s-38s regarding the turn signal stopping flashing after making a turn).
North Park Lexus at Dominion does not explicitly teach wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine the turning-off request of the driver in response to the physical actuation of the turn signal lever in the direction that corresponds to the one of the left turn signal activation or the right turn signal activation.
Haug teaches a turn signal switch for right and left turn signals ([0019]).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and Haug are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of turn signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate using the turn signal to signal right and left turns, as disclosed by Haug, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of identifying which direction the driver is turning.
North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, teaches wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine the turning-off request of the driver in response to the physical actuation of the turn signal lever in the direction that corresponds to the one of the left turn signal activation or the right turn signal activation.
Claims 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller and Ota, and further in view of Yamanda (US 2017/0210394) and VandenBerg (US 2019/0168724). For examination purposes claims 15 and 24 are interpreted as not requiring the turning-off request to be determined in accordance with the number of traffic lanes.
Regarding claims 15 and 24, North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller and Ota teaches the driver assistance system and method as claimed in claim 13 and 22, respectively, but does not explicitly teach wherein the directional roadway driven on by the motor vehicle comprises more than one traffic lane, and wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine a traffic lane driven on by the motor vehicle of the more than one traffic lane; and
determine that the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to the turning-off request of the driver as opposed to the traffic lane change request in accordance with the traffic lane driven on by the motor vehicle.
Yamada teaches wherein the directional roadway driven on by the motor vehicle comprises more than one traffic lane (Yamada Fig. 15c regarding the road having three lanes).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and Yamada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of turn signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate the vehicle travelling on a road with three lanes, as disclosed by Yamada, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of know when the vehicle is driving on a lane with more than one lane.
VandenBerg teaches wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine a traffic lane driven on by the motor vehicle of the more than one traffic lane (VandenBerg, [0063] regarding determining that the vehicle is in a left-turn lane); and
determine that the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to the turning-off request of the driver as opposed to the traffic lane change request in accordance with the traffic lane driven on by the motor vehicle (VandenBerg, [0063] regarding determining that a vehicle in a left-turn lane intends to turn left).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and VandenBerg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate determining a vehicle intends to turn left when in a left turn lane, as disclosed by VandenBerg, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of predicting what the vehicle intends to do when in a turn lane.
Claims 16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller and Ota, and further in view of Yamanda and Sim (US 10,249,195). For examination purposes claims 16 and 25 are interpreted as not requiring the turning-off request to be determined in accordance with the number of traffic lanes.
Regarding claims 16 and 25, North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller and Ota teaches the driver assistance system and method as claimed in claim 13 and 22, respectively, wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine that the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to the turning-off request of the driver as opposed to the traffic lane change request in response to left turn signal or the right turn signal having been activated by the physical actuation of the turn signal lever and having being activated for longer than a predefined period of time (North Park Lexus at Dominion, 30s-35s regarding pushing the turn signal all the way up/down to indicate a turn. By pushing the turn signal all the way up/down it would have been activated for longer than a period of 0 seconds), but does not explicitly teach wherein the directional roadway driven on by the motor vehicle comprises more than one traffic lane, and wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine that the driver assistance system is not capable of determining a traffic lane driven on by the motor vehicle of the more than one traffic lane.
Yamada teaches wherein the directional roadway driven on by the motor vehicle comprises more than one traffic lane (Yamada Fig. 15c regarding the road having three lanes).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and Yamada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of turn signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate the vehicle travelling on a road with three lanes, as disclosed by Yamada, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of know when the vehicle is driving on a lane with more than one lane.
Sim teaches wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine that the driver assistance system is not capable of determining a traffic lane driven on by the motor vehicle of the more than one traffic lane (Sim (Col. 5, lines 39-44) regarding determining a failure with lane detection camera).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and Sim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate determining a lane detection failure, as disclosed by Sim, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety by knowing the lane line could not be located.
Claims 17, 19, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller, and further in view of Yamada.
Regarding claims 17 and 26, North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller teaches the driver assistance system and method as claimed in claims 11 and 20, respectively, but fails to teach wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
detect a traffic lane change of the motor vehicle following the physical actuation of the turn signal lever; and
after the traffic lane change, determine the turning-off request of the driver in accordance with the physical actuation of the turn signal lever.
Yamada teaches wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
detect a traffic lane change of the motor vehicle (Yamada [0102] and Fig. 21 regarding displaying which lane the vehicle is travelling in. A traffic lane change would be shown on the display; therefore, it is detected.); and
after the traffic lane change, determine the turning-off request of the driver (Yamada Fig. 17 regarding changing lanes before making a turn. Therefore, it is known to make a turn after a lane change.).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and Yamada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate displaying which lane the vehicle is travelling in, as disclosed by Yamada, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing driver safety by allowing the driver to see where the vehicle is on the road.
North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, teaches wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
detect a traffic lane change of the motor vehicle following the physical actuation of the turn signal lever (North Park Lexus at Dominion, 10s-20s regarding pushing the turn signal part way up/down to indicate a lane change. After the lever is pushed par way up/down and a lane change is performed, the lane change would be displayed.); and
after the traffic lane change, determine the turning-off request of the driver in accordance with the physical actuation of the turn signal lever (North Park Lexus at Dominion, 30s-35s regarding pushing the turn signal all the way up/down to indicate a turn. When the lever is pushed all the way up/down after a lane change a turn would be determined.).
Regarding claims 19 and 28, North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller and Yamada teaches the driver assistance system and method as claimed in claims 17 and 26, respectively. Yamada further teaches it is known to indicate a lane change and then make a second indication of a turn (Yamada [0096] and Fig. 17 regarding the driver indicating a lane change from the first lane (L1) to the second lane (L2) and then indicating a right turn).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and Yamada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate deactivating a turn signal between a lane change and a turn, as disclosed by Yamada, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing driver safety by allowing the driver to determining when it is safe to make a turn.
North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, teaches wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine the turning-off request of the driver in response to the left turn signal or the right turn signal being deactivated after the traffic lane change and then being activated again via a second physical actuation of the turn signal lever (The lever would be pushed part way up/down for a lane change and then deactivated and then pushed all the way up/down for a right or left turn).
Claims 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller and Yamada, and further in view of Resch (US 2019/0152525) and VandenBerg.
Regarding claims 18 and 27, North Park Lexus at Dominion in view of Miller and Yamada teaches the driver assistance system and method as claimed in claims 17 and 26, respectively, but does not teach wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine that the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to the turning-off request of the driver as opposed to the traffic lane change request in response to left turn signal or the right turn signal having been activated by the physical actuation of the turn signal lever and, after the traffic lane change, remaining activated for longer than a predefined period of time.
Resch teaches to hold the turn signal lever in the one-touch signal position for longer than a time duration threshold to perform multiple lane changes ([0027]).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and Resch are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of turn signals. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate holding the turn signal for longer than a time duration to make multiple lane changes, as disclosed by Resch, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of only having to press the turn signal once to indicate multiple maneuvers.
VandenBerg teaches determining that a vehicle in a left-turn lane intends to turn left ([0063]).
North Park Lexus at Dominion and VandenBerg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, to incorporate determining a vehicle intends to turn left when in a left turn lane, as disclosed by VandenBerg, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of predicting what the vehicle intends to do when in a turn lane.
North Park Lexus at Dominion, as modified, teaches wherein the driver assistance system is further configured to:
determine that the physical actuation of the turn signal lever corresponds to the turning-off request of the driver as opposed to the traffic lane change request in response to left turn signal or the right turn signal having been activated by the physical actuation of the turn signal lever and, after the traffic lane change, remaining activated for longer than a predefined period of time (By holding down the turn signal to perform multiple lane changes and end up in the left-turn lane would result in a determination that the driver intends to turn).
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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665