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 1-21 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 15-17, and 21 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection 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 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashchenko [US 20190077308 A1] in view of Biemer et al [US 10380439 B2].
As for claim 1, Kashchenko discloses a system for managing a vehicle signaling device based on processed vehicle inputs, the system comprising one or more external computing devices (49) associated with a processor (21) and a memory (56) for executing computer-executable instructions to implement a signal control component (paragraphs 0072-0075, 0080, and 0084), wherein the signal control component is configured to:
obtain a set of inputs related to an operation of the vehicle (paragraphs 0032-0035);
identify, from the set of inputs, turning signal indicator thresholds and turning events (paragraphs 0042-0045);
conduct, based on the set of inputs and turning signal indicator thresholds and turning events, a test to determine whether the vehicle is within the identified thresholds for the identified events (paragraphs 0036, 0072; considering activation rules); and
in response to determining that the vehicle is within the identified thresholds for the identified events, cause the vehicle signaling device to activate a turn signal indicator corresponding to test results (paragraphs 0073-0080 and claim 1),
wherein the signal control component is further configured to: characterize a surrounding environment of the vehicle, including position information of objects surrounding the vehicles (paragraph 0033; …external sensors configured to detect and generate sensor data about the environment external to the chare including information related to the road itself (e.g., lane detection), weather conditions, presence of other objects (e.g., distance to other cars, presence of road signs), and other information.) and after identifying at least one of the turning events to automatically activate the turning signal indicator (paragraphs 0032-0035).
Kashchenko does not specifically disclose that detected objects include other vehicles with a turning signal indicator or lack of turning signal indicator, and use the characterized information in determining whether to automatically activate the turning signal indicator.
In an analogous art, Biemer discloses that it was known to use a vision sensor to detect objects including other vehicles with a turning signal indicator or lack of a turning signal indicator to determine actions of other vehicles (column 8, line 60 – column 9, line 16). Since Kashchenko discloses using a plurality of sensors, including vision sensors for detecting other objects and vehicles around the own vehicle, it would have been obvious to modify Kashchenko to include the detection of turn signal information of other vehicles (other information) as taught by Biemer. The modification would have been obvious because it would have allowed Kashchenko to more accurately determine the surroundings of the vehicle and as a result make better decision on control of the turn signal indicator.
As for claim 2, Kashchenko discloses that the set of inputs are obtained from vision sensors and vision systems implemented in the vehicle, wherein the vision sensors and vision systems are configured to collect information regarding environmental inputs related to the operation of the vehicle (paragraph 0033).
As for claim 3, Kashchenko discloses that the turning signal indicator thresholds include distance or timing thresholds that define a time window in which the turning signal indicator should be activated, and wherein the turning signal indicator thresholds are varied based on a classification of the turning events (paragraphs 0042-0045).
As for claim 4, Kashchenko discloses the turning events are identified based on a combination of location and navigation information of the vehicle (paragraph 0034).
As for claim 5, Kashchenko discloses the turning events are identified based on a driver's historical information related to driver's driving behavior associated with the turning events (paragraphs 0035, 0071, 0079).
As for claim 7, Kashchenko discloses the activation of the turning signal indicator triggers a vehicle hardware to switch to a position to turn on a vehicle turn signal (paragraph 0062).
As for claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also paragraphs 0067-0068.
Claim 10 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 2 above.
Claim 11 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 3 above.
Claim 12 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 4 above.
Claim 13 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 5 above.
Claim 15 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 7 above.
As for claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also paragraph 0033.
Claim 18 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 2 above.
Claim 19 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 3 above.
Claims 6, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashchenko in view of Biemer et al as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Seymour et al [US 20120271510 A1].
As for claim 6, Kashchenko does not specifically disclose that the signal control component, in response to determining that the vehicle is not within the identified thresholds for the identified events, identifies an upcoming fork or an upcoming merge based on the set of inputs obtained from a vehicle navigation system. In an analogous art for managing a vehicle signaling device, Seymour discloses that it was known in the art for a signal control component, in response to determining that the vehicle is not within the identified thresholds for identified events, to identify an upcoming fork or an upcoming merge based on the set of inputs obtained from a vehicle navigation system (paragraphs 0040-0042). Since, Kashchenko discloses that use of GPS data as an input, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Kashchenko and Biemer to include the teachings of Seymour in order to yield the predictable results of a system wherein appropriate automatic signaling could be determined and activated in confusing scenarios such as a fork in the road or merging onto a highway.
Claims 14 and 20 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 6 above.
Claims 8, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashchenko in view of Biemer et al as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Au et al [US 20050200467 A1].
As for claim 8, Kashchenko does not specifically disclose that the signal controlling component is further configured to automatically cancel the turning signal indicator comprising: processing the set of inputs related to the operation of the vehicle; determining a vehicle position within a lane and vehicle's proximity and rate of change to a marked lane border; determining whether the vehicle completed a crossing lane based on the determined vehicle position; and in response to determining that the vehicle completed the crossing lane, canceling the turn signal indicator. In an analogous art for managing a vehicle signaling device, Au discloses that it was known for a signal controlling component to be further configured to automatically cancel the turning signal indicator comprising: processing the set of inputs related to the operation of the vehicle; determining a vehicle position within a lane and vehicle's proximity and rate of change to a marked lane border; determining whether the vehicle completed a crossing lane based on the determined vehicle position; and in response to determining that the vehicle completed the crossing lane, canceling the turn signal indicator (paragraphs 0060-0061 and 0065). Since Kashchenko discloses in paragraphs 0004 that turn signals should be deactivated immediately after a maneuver is completed, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Kashchenko and Biemer with the teachings of Au for carrying out the deactivation process. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for canceling a turn signal device that were within his/her technical grasps at the time of filing the instant application.
Claims 16 and 21 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 8 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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