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 and 21-22 are currently pending for examination. Claims 12-17 and 19-20 are cancelled.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the claims have been considered. Upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection has been applied to the pending claims.
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 1, 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashchenko [US 10589664 B2] in view of Landschaft et al [US 20080082259 A1].
As for claim 1, Kashchenko discloses a turn signal indication system (see Abstract) comprising:
at least one turn signal indicator (102, Fig. 1B);
an adaptive maneuver prediction module configured to predict 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);
an activation decision module configured to, based on the prediction, determine 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 3, lines 10-19 and column 8, line 43 – column 9, line 42); and
a signal indication module configured to automatically activate 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).
Kashchenko does not specifically disclose a turn signal module configured to adjust timing of an automatic turn signal activation based on user input. In an analogous art, Landschaft discloses a turn signal indication system comprising: a turn signal module configured to adjust timing of automatic turn signal activation based on a received user input, wherein the received user input is at least one of indicative and directly related to an amount of time prior to a turn to activate the at least one turn signal indicator (see Abstract and paragraphs 0034-0035). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Kashchenko to include the teachings of Landschaft so that the turn signal indication system could activate and/or deactivate turn signals at appropriate timing. The appropriate timing would be based on user input and the traveling state of the vehicle including but not limited to its location and speed.
As for claim 2, Kashchenko nor Landschaft 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 vehicle driving history and/or patterns in order to determine 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.
As for claims 5 and 6, examiner takes official notice that it was known in the art for vehicle lights to include multiple colors and for vehicle to provide various types of audio feedback to provide alerts/information to the driver. As such, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Kashchenko to include different color turn signal indicator lights and audible notifications when the turn signal was activated automatically. The selection of particular colors and/or audible patterns is viewed as a matter of engineering preference that would be left to the artisan.
Claim 7 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning a claim 1 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashchenko in view of Landschaft, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Smith [US 7889065 B2].
As for claim 3, 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 and Landschaft 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 8-10 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.
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights