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 Office Action is in response to application number 18/849,952 filed on 09/23/2024 in which claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2204186.7, filed on 03/24/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim this application to be a 371 of PCT/EP2023/057387, filed on 03/22/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 09/23/2024 & 02/27/2025 have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 USC §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed to a computer-readable medium, i.e. “Computer Readable storage Medium”. The claim does not recite, and the specification does not define (see PG pub. ¶67), that the computer readable medium is limited to non-transitory embodiments. A claim encompassing both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, such as applicant’s claimed computer-readable medium, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”). The claim may be amended to avoid a rejection under 35 USC §101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter because the specification supports a claim drawn to at least one non-transitory embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 & 8-16 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by PG Pub. No. US-2016/0039336-A1 by Nordstrom et al. (hereinafter “Nordstrom”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 09/23/2024
As per claim 1, Nordstrom discloses a control system for a vehicle lighting arrangement comprising a plurality of vehicle lighting elements disposed about an exterior of a vehicle (Nordstrom, Fig(s). 1, 2, 5 & 7, and ¶¶13-26, discloses a vehicle 100 includes a plurality of lamps 110, e.g., four lamps 111-114, and a hazard lamp controller 102); the control system comprising one or more controllers, the one or more controllers configured to:
receive a hazard signal indicative that the vehicle is under a hazard condition (Nordstrom, Fig(s). 1 [reproduced here for convenience], 2 & 5, and ¶¶13-15, discloses a hazard light activation component 105, e.g., a switch or knob, configured to select-ably activate hazard lamp controller 102, wherein the hazard lamp controller 102 is configured to illuminate lamps 110 in accordance with a lighting pattern responsive to the state of the user-actuatable hazard light control component [i.e., a hazard signal indicative that the vehicle is under a hazard condition]);
PNG
media_image1.png
524
1022
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nordstrom’s Fig. 1 (emphasis added)
control the plurality of vehicle lighting elements to provide strobing illumination in dependence on the hazard signal (Nordstrom, Fig(s). 1, 2 & 5, and ¶¶13-15, discloses the hazard lamp controller 102 is configured to illuminate lamps 110 in accordance with a lighting pattern responsive to the state of the user-actuatable hazard light control component, wherein the default lighting pattern includes the conventional, simultaneously illumination of lamps in a flashing pattern); and
PNG
media_image2.png
702
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nordstrom’s Fig. 5
in dependence on a determination that the vehicle is to perform an intended lane change while under the hazard condition, output a control signal to:
spatially animate illumination provided by a first subset of the plurality of vehicle lighting elements such that a location of the illumination of the first subset moves to indicate a direction of the intended lane change,
and control a second subset of the plurality of vehicle lighting elements to continue to provide strobing illumination such that the lighting arrangement concurrently indicates the direction of the intended lane change and the hazard condition (Nordstrom, Fig(s). 1, 2, 5 [reproduced here for convenience] & 7, and ¶¶13-15, 19 & 24-26, discloses the user-actuatable hazard light control component 107 is a turn-signal stalk extending from or otherwise provided on a steering column of vehicle 100, wherein component 107 have any number of states, e.g., a first state, e.g., a 'left' state resulting from the user rotating component 107 counter-clockwise, associated with a first lighting pattern, a second state, e.g., a 'right' state resulting from the user rotating component 107 clockwise associated with a second lighting pattern, and an inactivated state (or ‘centered’ state) associated with a default lighting pattern. Nordstrom further discloses the system determines whether control component 107 is in the "L" (left) or "R" (right) state. If in the "L" state (712), a leftward illumination sequence is implemented as described above. Otherwise, in step 714, a rightward illumination sequence is implemented as described above, e.g., FIG. 5, depicts a leftward illumination sequence (501-505) in accordance with another embodiment in which the leftward illumination sequence further includes partially illuminating substantially all of the plurality of lamps in a flashing pattern while sequentially illuminating the plurality of lamps 210. That is, referring to FIG. 5, initially, at 501, none of the lamps 210 are illuminated. However, subsequently, at steps 502-505, lamps 214, 213, 212, and 211 are each fully illuminated while the remaining lamps (e.g., lamps 211,212, and 213 at step 502) are only partially illuminating. The visual effect of this pattern is desirable in that it effectively superimposes the traditional flashing lamps (partially illumination) and the leftward lighting sequence. Nordstrom also discloses if not all lamps 110 are functional, the system continues to step 706 and illuminates the plurality of lamps 110 in accordance with the default lighting pattern, e.g., a traditional simultaneous flashing pattern).
As per claim 2, Nordstrom discloses the control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Nordstrom further discloses wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine the first subset and the second subset of the plurality of vehicle lighting elements in dependence on the direction of the intended lane change (Nordstrom, Fig(s). 3 & 5, and ¶¶13-15, 19 & 24-26, discloses Nordstrom discloses the system determines whether control component 107 is in the "L" (left) or "R" (right) state. If in the "L" state (712), a leftward illumination sequence is implemented as described above. Otherwise, in step 714, a rightward illumination sequence is implemented as described above, e.g., FIG. 5, depicts a leftward illumination sequence (501-505) in accordance with another embodiment in which the leftward illumination sequence further includes partially illuminating substantially all of the plurality of lamps in a flashing pattern while sequentially illuminating the plurality of lamps 210. That is, referring to FIG. 5, initially, at 501, none of the lamps 210 are illuminated. However, subsequently, at steps 502-505, lamps 214, 213, 212, and 211 are each fully illuminated while the remaining lamps (e.g., lamps 211,212, and 213 at step 502) are only partially illuminating. The visual effect of this pattern is desirable in that it effectively superimposes the traditional flashing lamps (partially illumination) and the leftward lighting sequence).
As per claim 3, Nordstrom discloses the control system of claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated. Nordstrom further discloses wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine the first subset to be a plurality of lighting elements disposed on a first side of the vehicle in dependence on the direction of the intended lane change being a first direction and determine the first subset to be a plurality of lighting elements disposed on a second side of the vehicle in dependence on the direction of the intended lane change being a second direction (Nordstrom, Fig(s). 3 & 5, and ¶¶13-15, 19 & 24-26, discloses Nordstrom discloses the system determines whether control component 107 is in the "L" (left) or "R" (right) state. If in the "L" state (712), a leftward illumination sequence is implemented as described above. Otherwise, in step 714, a rightward illumination sequence is implemented as described above, e.g., FIG. 5, depicts a leftward illumination sequence (501-505) in accordance with another embodiment in which the leftward illumination sequence further includes partially illuminating substantially all of the plurality of lamps in a flashing pattern while sequentially illuminating the plurality of lamps 210. That is, referring to FIG. 5, initially, at 501, none of the lamps 210 are illuminated. However, subsequently, at steps 502-505, lamps 214, 213, 212, and 211 are each fully illuminated while the remaining lamps (e.g., lamps 211,212, and 213 at step 502) are only partially illuminating. The visual effect of this pattern is desirable in that it effectively superimposes the traditional flashing lamps (partially illumination) and the leftward lighting sequence).
As per claim 4, Nordstrom discloses the control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Nordstrom further discloses wherein the first subset of lighting elements comprises an array of lighting elements, and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to output the control signal to spatially animate the array such that a location of the illumination of the first subset moves across the array in the direction of the intended lane change (Nordstrom, Fig(s). 3 & 5, and ¶¶13-15, 19 & 24-26, discloses Nordstrom discloses the system determines whether control component 107 is in the "L" (left) or "R" (right) state. If in the "L" state (712), a leftward illumination sequence is implemented as described above. Otherwise, in step 714, a rightward illumination sequence is implemented as described above, e.g., FIG. 5, depicts a leftward illumination sequence (501-505) in accordance with another embodiment in which the leftward illumination sequence further includes partially illuminating substantially all of the plurality of lamps in a flashing pattern while sequentially illuminating the plurality of lamps 210 [i.e., array of lighting elements]. That is, referring to FIG. 5, initially, at 501, none of the lamps 210 are illuminated. However, subsequently, at steps 502-505, lamps 214, 213, 212, and 211 are each fully illuminated while the remaining lamps (e.g., lamps 211,212, and 213 at step 502) are only partially illuminating. The visual effect of this pattern is desirable in that it effectively superimposes the traditional flashing lamps (partially illumination) and the leftward lighting sequence).
As per claim 8, Examiner notes the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1. The cited portions of Nordstrom used in the rejection of claim 1 discloses the same vehicle controller, an electrical input, and an electrical output of claim 8. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claims 9-12, the claims are directed towards lighting system(s) for a vehicle that is comprising the control system according to claim 1. The cited portions of Nordstrom used in the rejection of claim 1 discloses the same vehicle’s light system(s) of claims 9-12. Therefore, claims 9-12 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 13, the claim is directed towards a vehicle that is comprising the control system according to claim 1. The cited portions of Nordstrom used in the rejection of claim 1 discloses the same vehicle system of claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 14, the claim is directed towards a computer-implemented method for controlling a vehicle lighting arrangement that recites similar limitations performed by the control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Nordstrom used in the rejection of claim 1 discloses the same steps to perform the method of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 15, the claim is directed towards a computer-readable medium comprising computer software that performs similar limitations performed by the computer-implemented method of claim 14. The cited portions of Nordstrom used in the rejection of claim 14 discloses the same steps performed by the software of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 14 as outlined above.
As per claim 16, the claim is directed towards a vehicle that is comprising the lighting system according to claim 9. The cited portions of Nordstrom used in the rejection of claim 9 discloses the same vehicle system of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 9 as outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC §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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US-2016/0039336-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2021/0331619-A1 to Cobb et al. (hereinafter “Cobb”), which are both found in the IDS submitted on 09/23/2024
As per claim 5, Nordstrom discloses the control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Nordstrom is silent on claim 5 limitations.
Cobb teaches , in at least Fig. 31, and ¶¶152-154 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle’s lights control systems, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to receive the hazard signal from a driver condition monitoring system, wherein the hazard signal is indicative of a determination by the driver condition monitoring system that a driver is incapacitated (Cobb, in at least Fig. 31 [reproduced here for convenience], and ¶¶152-154, teaches signals is provided to the microcontroller 1510 that are indicative of situations where flashing hazard lights would be appropriate or necessary for activation whether the driver is aware of such need or not. Cobb further teaches an inattentive or disabled driver indication is received at step 3102, wherein this indication is received by microprocessor 1510 from an autonomous vehicle driving system or another safety system capable of providing this indication. Cobb also teaches to enhance safety and emergency signaling, wherein an enhanced or strobing mode of operation of various vehicle lights is automatically deployed by the microcontroller 1510).
PNG
media_image3.png
522
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cobb’s Fig. 31
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Nordstrom in view of Cobb with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle’s lights control systems - and the combination would provide avoid a serious accident, wherein the vehicle lighting system is made to strobe so as to indicate to traffic which way to move to avoid the distressed vehicle (see at least Cobb’s ¶¶50 & 146).
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US-2016/0039336-A1, which is found in the IDS submitted on 09/23/2024) in view of patent publication. No. DE-102012013602-A1 to Grunert et al. (hereinafter “Grunert”)
As per claim 6, Nordstrom discloses the control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Nordstrom is silent on claim 6 limitations.
Grunert teaches, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶35, 42-43 & 50-51 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle’s lights control systems, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to identify a target location of a minimum risk maneuver in dependence on a current location of the vehicle and determine the direction of the intended lane change in dependence on the target location (Grunert, in at least Fig. 3 [reproduced here for convenience], and ¶¶35, 42-43 & 50-51, teaches a motor vehicle 10 that is equipped with a driver monitoring system and an environment monitoring system, wherein the environmental monitoring system includes environmental monitoring sensors 34. Grunert further teaches to continuously evaluate the data from the driver monitoring system and detects if the driver is unfit to drive, wherein the data from the environmental monitoring system is available to the assistance system to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop in an autonomous driving mode, which, depending on the location and traffic situation, includes an autonomous lane change to an adjacent lane, a hard shoulder, or the edge of the road, wherein, in order to indicate an autonomous lane change, additional signals are generated and/or that a flashing pattern distinguishable from conventional flashing is generated, i.e., lane change signal 60. Grunert also teaches a flashing mode that differs from conventional flashing, the lighting elements 42, for example of the right rear light 14, are switched on individually or in several groups one after the other when changing lanes to the right, so that a special effect is created that points outwards 44 in the direction of the desired lane).
PNG
media_image4.png
444
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Grunert’s Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Nordstrom in view of Grunert with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle’s lights control systems - and the combination would provide a safe lane change upon assess the traffic situation (see at least Grunert’s ¶2).
As per claim 7, Nordstrom discloses the control system of claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Nordstrom is silent on claim 7 limitations.
Grunert teaches, in at least Fig. 3, and ¶¶35, 42-43 & 50-51 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle’s lights control systems, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to control the vehicle to perform the minimum risk maneuver comprising the intended lane change towards the target location while the lighting arrangement concurrently indicates the direction of the intended lane change and the hazard condition (Grunert, in at least Fig. 3 [reproduced here for convenience], and ¶¶35, 42-43 & 50-51, teaches the data from the environmental monitoring system is available to the assistance system to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop in an autonomous driving mode, which, depending on the location and traffic situation, includes an autonomous lane change to an adjacent lane, a hard shoulder, or the edge of the road, wherein, in order to indicate an autonomous lane change, additional signals are generated and/or that a flashing pattern distinguishable from conventional flashing is generated, i.e., lane change signal 60. Grunert further teaches a flashing mode that differs from conventional flashing, the lighting elements 42, for example of the right rear light 14, are switched on individually or in several groups one after the other when changing lanes to the right, so that a special effect is created that points outwards 44 in the direction of the desired lane).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Nordstrom in view of Grunert with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle’s lights control systems - and the combination would provide a safe lane change upon assess the traffic situation (see at least Grunert’s ¶2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661