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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on January 8, 2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 3, 14, and 20 have been canceled by the applicant.
This action is made FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is being handled by examiner Christine Huynh.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 8, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the claim objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 9, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding the amended limitation “at least one sensor disposed on the autonomous truck and configured to collect sensor data descriptive of a condition nearby the autonomous truck, the condition including a road condition of a road along which the autonomous truck is traveling, the road condition causing changes in navigation of vehicles traveling on the road” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, upon further search and consideration, the amended claims 1 and similar independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 20240157871 A1) in view of Obayuwana et al. (US 20190318609 A1) and Ross et al. (US 20170240096 A1). See detailed rejection below.
With respect to the art rejections, the applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 and similar claims 8 and 15 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection. However, upon further search and consideration, the amended claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. On page 7 of the applicant’s response, the applicant argues that no combination of the cited prior arts, Weston and Obayuwana, teach determining the condition satisfies deployment conditions to deploy a signaling display and initiate actuation of an armature to deploy the signaling display to display the message, as recited in claim 1. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, because as cited in the previous action, Weston teaches determine deployment conditions are satisfied to deploy the signaling display (“the CHMSL 105 may operate in different display modes based on different trigger events (i.e., trigger events information that may include information associated with the trigger events such as event type, event timing, etc.).” see Weston [0027], “The processor 244 (or the processor 216) may be configured to obtain a trigger event information associated with the display unit 248 or the vehicle 202, select a display mode from the plurality of display modes for the CHMSL 105 based on the trigger event information, and activate the CHMSL 105 based on the selection.” see Weston [0045]), in which a trigger event is used to determine the deployment of a display. A trigger event would be comparable to a condition that satisfies deployment conditions as it would cause a display to be shown when specific conditions are detected. Weston does not teach that the display is attached to an armature, but Obayuwana teaches the initiating an actuation of the armature to deploy the signaling display (“The retractable device could flatten (retract) against the roof of the vehicle and return to an upright position, upon actuation of preprogrammed emergency button(s) or it could retract into a column on the inside of the vehicle.” see Obayuwana [0134]), in which the arm of the mounted display is actuated. Therefore, in combination, Weston and Obayuwana, teach determining the condition satisfies deployment conditions to deploy a signaling display, as Weston teaches the detection of a trigger event that would cause a display to be displayed, and initiate actuation of an armature to deploy the signaling display to display the message, as Obayuwana teaches a signaling display attached to an armature that can be actuated for deployment of the signaling display. Therefore, upon further search and consideration, the amended claims 1 and similar independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 20240157871 A1) in view of Obayuwana et al. (US 20190318609 A1) and Ross et al. (US 20170240096 A1). See detailed rejection below.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as stated above due to dependency. See detailed rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 20240157871 A1) in view of Obayuwana et al. (US 20190318609 A1) and Ross et al. (US 20170240096 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, and 15-19:
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Weston teaches:
at least one sensor disposed on the autonomous truck and configured to collect sensor data descriptive of a condition nearby the autonomous truck, the condition including a road condition of a road along which the autonomous truck is traveling, the road condition causing changes in navigation of vehicles traveling on the road; (“The vehicle sensory system 234 may include one or more vehicle sensors including, but not limited to, an on-board weight scale, vehicle power usage (e.g., pro power) sensors, Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR or “radar”) sensor configured for detection and localization of objects outside the vehicle 202 using radio waves, vehicle brake sensors, environment sensors (such as fog, dust, rain sensors), etc.” [0035]), which show sensors disposed on a vehicle to collect sensor data of conditions nearby the vehicle. Paragraphs [0019], [0056], and [0060] show the vehicle could be an autonomous truck.
However, while Weston teaches collecting sensor data such as weather information, Weston does not teach the condition including a road condition of a road along which the autonomous truck is traveling, the road condition causing changes in navigation of vehicles traveling on the road, but Ross teaches, (“According to examples described herein, the control system 100 can further execute intent logic 121 to provide intention decisions 133 to the vehicle control 128 indicating whether the AV 10 will, for example, yield or proceed with right-of-way. In certain aspects, the intention decisions 133 can relate to whether or not the AV 10 has right-of-way in a given situation with regard to an external entity. The external entity can be a pedestrian or group of pedestrians, a human-driven vehicle, a bicyclist, and the like. The vehicle control 128 generate commands 85 to initiate output systems 95 of the vehicle interface systems 90 based on the intention decisions 133.” [0033], “In certain implementations, the event logic 124 can trigger a response to a detected event. A detected event can correspond to a roadway condition or obstacle which, when detected, poses a potential hazard or threat of collision to the vehicle 10. By way of example, a detected event can include an object in the road segment, heavy traffic ahead, and/or wetness or other environmental conditions on the road segment. The event logic 124 can use sensor data 111 from cameras, LIDAR, radar, sonar, or various other image or sensor component sets in order to detect the presence of such events as described. For example, the event logic 124 can detect potholes, debris, objects projected to be on a collision trajectory, and the like. Thus, the event logic 124 can detect events which enable the control system 100 to make evasive actions or plan for any potential threats.” [0036], where the vehicle sensor can be used to collect environmental data including a road condition of a road along which the autonomous truck is traveling, such as objects or traffic on the road, and the road condition causing changes in navigation of vehicles traveling on the road, where objects or an accident on the road would change the flow of traffic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Weston’s signaling system with Ross’ sensing a road condition because (“Accordingly, the intention signaling system 235 can improve upon human interactions that express intent, such as hand waving, head-nods, acknowledgments, or other human signals that provide other humans with intention signals. Furthermore, the intention signaling system 235 can improve upon current signaling systems of road vehicles to provide added clarity to the intent of the AV 200.” See Ross [0055]).
Weston further teaches:
a processing system communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor, the processing system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, (“the processor may obtain trigger event information from one or more vehicle sensors and user inputs” [0014], “The processor(s) 216 may be disposed in communication with one or more memory devices disposed in communication with the respective computing systems (e.g., the memory 218 and/or one or more external databases not shown in FIG. 2). The processor(s) 216 may utilize the memory 218 to store programs in code and/or to store data for performing aspects in accordance with the disclosure.” [0033]), which shows the processing system commutatively coupled to the sensor system and to a memory.
process the sensor data to generate a message relating to the condition; (“a vehicle processor may select a display mode for the display unit based on receipt of a trigger event associated with the vehicle. Specifically, the processor may obtain trigger event information from one or more vehicle sensors and user inputs” [0014]), which show the sensor data is processed to generate a display related to conditions sensed nearby the vehicle.
determine deployment conditions are satisfied to deploy the signaling display; (“the CHMSL 105 may operate in different display modes based on different trigger events (i.e., trigger events information that may include information associated with the trigger events such as event type, event timing, etc.).” [0027], “The processor 244 (or the processor 216) may be configured to obtain a trigger event information associated with the display unit 248 or the vehicle 202, select a display mode from the plurality of display modes for the CHMSL 105 based on the trigger event information, and activate the CHMSL 105 based on the selection.” [0045]), in which a trigger event is used to determine the deployment of a display.
Weston does not teach, but Obayuwana teaches:
initiate actuation of the armature to deploy the signaling display; (“The retractable device could flatten (retract) against the roof of the vehicle and return to an upright position, upon actuation of preprogrammed emergency button(s) or it could retract into a column on the inside of the vehicle.” [0134]), in which the arm of the mounted display is actuated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Weston’s signaling system with Obayuwana’s mount system because (“The devices could be mounted on top of vehicles in locations where they can be easily visible and displayed texts readable by drivers/passersby.” See Obayuwana [0113]), therefore improving visibility of a vehicle display.
With respect to claim 2, Weston in combination with Obayuwana and Ross, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Weston, Obayuwana, and Ross teaches signaling intent of an autonomous truck of claim 1. Weston does not teach, but Obayuwana teaches:
further comprising the armature configured to be coupled to the autonomous truck and on which the signaling display is mounted; (“The devices could be mounted on top of vehicles in locations where they can be easily visible and displayed texts readable by drivers/passersby. The retractable Flex PVC panel embodiment will have the capability to lay flat (retract) against the roof of the vehicle and return to an upright position, upon receiving signal to display the selected preprogrammed emergency/alert type or it could retract into a column within the vehicle, and/or lay flat against the inside roof of the vehicle.” [0113]), and FIG. 5, which shows the display sign on an armature system that can be mounted to an autonomous vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Weston’s signaling system with Obayuwana’s mount system because (“The devices could be mounted on top of vehicles in locations where they can be easily visible and displayed texts readable by drivers/passersby.” See Obayuwana [0113]), therefore improving visibility of a vehicle display.
With respect to claim 4, Weston in combination with Obayuwana and Ross, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Weston, Obayuwana, and Ross teaches signaling intent of an autonomous truck of claim 1. Weston further teaches:
wherein actuation of the armature includes rotational actuation of the armature; (“the CHMSL 105 may be configured to rotate (not shown) at a predefined angle based on user requirements. For example, the CHMSL 105 may rotate 180 degrees to perform different functions,” [0023]), where the display of Weston can be rotated.
In addition, Obayuwana teaches (“A second embodiment utilizes display devices, like LED Banner Display System (LBDS), FIG. 8, which displays LED messages. It comprises swivel component, 8-1, for rotation and positioning of the BDP.” [0114]), where the mounted display can be rotated. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the armature can be actuated to rotate in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the product as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, as the display mount of Obayuwana can be actuated and the display of Weston and Obayuwana can be rotated, it would have been obvious to make the system or product where the actuation of the armature includes rotational actuation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Weston’s signaling system with Obayuwana’s mount system because (“The devices could be mounted on top of vehicles in locations where they can be easily visible and displayed texts readable by drivers/passersby.” See Obayuwana [0113]), therefore improving visibility of a vehicle display.
With respect to claim 5, Weston in combination with Obayuwana and Ross, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Weston, Obayuwana, and Ross teaches signaling intent of an autonomous truck of claim 1. Weston does not teach, but Obayuwana teaches:
wherein actuation of the armature includes linear actuation of the armature; (“The devices could be mounted on top of vehicles in locations where they can be easily visible and displayed texts readable by drivers/passersby. The retractable Flex PVC panel embodiment will have the capability to lay flat (retract) against the roof of the vehicle and return to an upright position, upon receiving signal to display the selected preprogrammed emergency/alert type or it could retract into a column within the vehicle, and/or lay flat against the inside roof of the vehicle.” [0113]), where the display mount can be retracted straight into a column in the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Weston’s signaling system with Obayuwana’s mount system because (“The devices could be mounted on top of vehicles in locations where they can be easily visible and displayed texts readable by drivers/passersby.” See Obayuwana [0113]), therefore improving visibility of a vehicle display.
With respect to claims 7, 12, and 19, Weston in combination with Obayuwana and Ross, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. The combination of Weston, Obayuwana, and Ross teaches signaling intent of an autonomous truck of claims 1, 8, and 15. Weston further teaches:
wherein processing the sensor data comprises employing the sensor data to index into a map of messages to generate at least one element of the message to be displayed; (“the CHMSL 105 may be configured to operate in different display modes to perform the different functions mentioned above. In particular, the CHMSL 105 may operate in different display modes based on different trigger events (i.e., trigger events information that may include information associated with the trigger events such as event type, event timing, etc.). For example, when the vehicle processor detects another vehicle in a vehicle 100 rear proximity, the vehicle processor may activate a first CHMSL 105 display mode. In the first display mode, the vehicle processor may activate the chase light in the CHMSL 105… Responsive to receiving the request, the vehicle processor may display the message on the CHMSL 105. In some aspects, the CHMSL 105 may display customized (or default) messages when the user having a vehicle 100 key fob approaches near to the vehicle 100, or leaves the vehicle 100. In this case, in an exemplary aspect, the default messages may be associated with “Welcome” or “Farewell” messages.” [0027]), which shows that a specific trigger event will result in a specific message being generated to be displayed, for example, a trigger related to a following vehicle that generates a display to warn the following vehicle, or a default message being displayed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art where processing the sensor data comprises employing the sensor data to index into a map of messages to generate at least one element of the message to be displayed in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the product as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, where specific messages are displayed based on a trigger event that is sensed by the sensor, it would have been obvious to make the system or product where the sensor data is used to index into a map of messages to generate the message to be displayed.
With respect to claims 9 and 16, Weston in combination with Obayuwana and Ross, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 8 and 15. The combination of Weston, Obayuwana, and Ross teaches signaling intent of an autonomous truck of claims 8 and 15. Weston further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to receive the data from a remote data source via a wireless connection; (“The system 200 may further include a mobile device 212 that may connect with the automotive computer 204 and/or the vehicle lighting system 208 by using wired and/or wireless communication protocols and transceivers.” [0030], “The BCM 222 may also operate as a gateway for bus and network interfaces to interact with remote ECUs (not shown in FIG. 2)” [0039]), where the processor can receive data from a mobile device or remote ECUs.
With respect to claims 10 and 17, Weston in combination with Obayuwana and Ross, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 8 and 15. The combination of Weston, Obayuwana, and Ross teaches signaling intent of an autonomous truck of claims 8 and 15. Weston further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to receive the data from a sensor onboard the autonomous truck; (“a vehicle processor may select a display mode for the display unit based on receipt of a trigger event associated with the vehicle. Specifically, the processor may obtain trigger event information from one or more vehicle sensors and user inputs” [0014]), where data is received from a sensor of the vehicle.
With respect to claims 11 and 18, Weston in combination with Obayuwana and Ross, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 8 and 15. The combination of Weston, Obayuwana, and Ross teaches signaling intent of an autonomous truck of claims 8 and 15. Weston further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to receive the data from an autonomy computing system; (“In one aspect, the ECUs 210 may control aspects of vehicle operation and communication using inputs from human drivers, inputs from an autonomous vehicle controller, the vehicle lighting system 208, and/or via wireless signal inputs received via the wireless connection(s) from other connected devices, such as the mobile device 212, the server(s) 220, among others.” [0038]), where the processor can receive data from autonomous vehicle controller computing system.
With respect to claim 13, Weston in combination with Obayuwana and Ross, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. The combination of Weston, Obayuwana, and Ross teaches signaling intent of an autonomous truck of claim 8. Weston further teaches:
further comprising a peripheral interface controller, and wherein transmitting the message comprises transmitting a display signal via the peripheral interface controller to the signaling display; (“the automotive computer 204 may connect with an infotainment system 240 that may include a touchscreen interface portion, and may include voice recognition features, biometric identification capabilities that can identify users based on facial recognition, voice recognition, fingerprint identification, or other biological identification means. In other aspects, the infotainment system 240 may be further configured to receive user instructions via the touchscreen interface portion, and/or display notifications, navigation maps, etc. on the touchscreen interface portion.” [0041]), where the message can be transmitted from the peripheral interface to the display.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 20240157871 A1) in view of Obayuwana et al. (US 20190318609 A1), Ross et al. (US 20170240096 A1), and DeLorean (US 20140070963 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, Weston in combination with Obayuwana and Ross, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Weston, Obayuwana, and Ross teaches signaling intent of an autonomous truck of claim 1. Weston further teaches:
wherein the deployment conditions include a speed of the autonomous truck being below a threshold speed; (“CHMSL 105 activation may provide an indication to a trailing vehicle (not shown) that the vehicle 100 may have applied brakes and hence a vehicle 100 speed may slow down, so that the trailing vehicle may take appropriate actions.” [0020]), where the deployment condition includes the speed of the current vehicle slowing down, in order to warn a trailing vehicle to also slow down.
However, while Weston teaches a slower speed, it does not teach a threshold speed, which DeLorean teaches (“Sign 100 is in the elevated position when the vehicle moves at a speed below a predetermined threshold, and in the lowered position above the predetermined threshold speed. Sign 100 is moved up and down by a simple mechanism such as a hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder, a motor, or the like (not shown)” [0077]), where the display is actuated when the vehicle speed is below a threshold speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Weston’s signaling system with DeLorean’s threshold speed because (“When nearby traffic is stopped or moving below a predetermined speed, my sign displays changing information such as videos or a series of changing images. By operating in this way, my sign maximizes the impact of advertisements while minimizing distraction of nearby drivers.” See DeLorean [0089]), where the sign is more legible to other vehicles.
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 Christine N Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTINE NGUYEN HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662