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 the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-22 are currently pending for examination. Claims 4, 11, and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 16 and 17 are currently amended and claims 21-22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is necessitated by applicants’ amendments.
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.
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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashchenko [US 10589664 B2] in view of Groeller et al [US 8094004 B2].
As for claim 12, Kashchenko discloses a method for automatically activating at least one turn signal indicator(see Abstract) comprising:
predicting that a host vehicle is to make a turn or change lanes (110; column 1, line 57 – column 2, line 5 and column 4, lines 24-34);
automatically activating the at least one turn signal indicator based on the determination of whether the host vehicle is to make a left turn, make a right turn, change to a left lane, or change to a right lane (column 11, line 27 – column 12, line 2); and
determining speed of the host vehicle (column 4, line 60 – column 5, line 13).
Kashchenko does not specifically disclose in response to the speed of the host vehicle, inhibiting or permitting activation of the at least one turn signal indicator. In an analogous art, Groeller discloses determining a speed of the host vehicle; in response to the speed of the host vehicle being less than or equal to a predetermined speed, inhibiting activation of the at least one turn signal indicator; and permitting activation of the at least one turn signal indicator in response to the speed of the host vehicle being greater than the predetermined speed (column 3). Since Groeller discloses that it was known in the art to control operation of the turn signal based on the determined speed of the vehicle, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Kashchenko to include these limitations. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue known options for controlling the automatic turn signal control system.
As for claim 13, Kashchenko does not specifically disclose determining probability values of left and right turn and predict movement of the vehicle based on the probability values. However, Kashchenko discloses the use of known AI learning based on historical and statistical data and sensory data to predict whether a vehicle is likely to perform a lane change or turning event (column 7, line 42 – column 8, line 42). Having these teachings on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the AI based learning would take into account a probability that the vehicle would make a specific lane change event or turning event. If the probability was high, the skilled artisan would recognize that a turn signal should be automatically activated.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashchenko in view of Groeller et al as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Smith [US 7889065 B2].
As for claim 14, Kashchenko does not specifically disclose inhibiting automatic turn signal activation based on a driver override flag. In an analogous art, Smith discloses a turn signal module configured to determine whether to inhibit automatic turn signal activation based on whether a driver override flag has been set (column 10, lines 30 – 65). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Kashchenko in view of Groeller to include the manual override teachings of Smith in order to give the driver greater control of the indicator system. The modification would allow the driver to cancel unwanted or erroneous turn signal activation and also to train the AI learning model by manually inhibiting the automatic turn signal activation in specific situations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 21-22 are allowed.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685