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 .
Claim Status
Claims 6, 13 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21-23 are currently pending. Claims 21-23 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06-26-2026 have been fully considered.
As an initial matter, the rejection has been modified from a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Jeong to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Jeong in view of Persson. The new ground of rejection therefore does not rely on the same references or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
As to Applicant’s argument that Jeong is not focused on providing an indication to surrounding vehicles – this argument is not persuasive. The Examiner notes that the claim does not require that the signal system be specifically designed for notifying surrounding vehicles. More importantly, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The Applicant submits that Jeong generally focuses on full lane changes and therefore illuminates the entire adjacent lane during the lane change maneuver – this argument is not persuasive. The Examiner notes that the claim does not exclude a full lane-change maneuver and only requires that a portion of the autonomous vehicle will be outside the lane of operation during the maneuver. During a lane change, at least a portion of the vehicle necessarily moves outside of the original lane of operation before fully entering the new lane of operation. The claim fails to restrict to only partial-lane maneuvers e.g., it does not require that only 10% (or some other percentage) of the vehicle be outside the lane. Nor does the claim require that the processor for the illuminated lights track the precise amount of the vehicle overlapping with the adjacent lane so as to facilitate the argued correlation between determined light illumination and outside-the-lane presence.
Applicant argues that Jeong fails to teach illuminating only a portion of the plurality of signal lights corresponding to the portion of the vehicle that will be outside the lane of operation because Jeong allegedly does not disclose a correlation between the amount or percentage of lights illuminated and the amount or percentage of the vehicle outside the lane. However, the claim does not recite that the amount of signal lights illuminated must be proportional to the amount of the vehicle outside the lane of operation. Rather, the claim recites that “only a portion of the plurality of signal lights” is illuminated and that the illuminated portion corresponds to “the portion of the autonomous vehicle that will be outside of the lane of operation…”. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the left-side signal lights correspond to the left-side portion of the vehicle involved in a left turn or left lane-change maneuver, and similarly, right-side signal lights correspond to the right-side portion of the vehicle involved in a right turn or right lane-change maneuver.
The Examiner notes Applicant’s reliance on the terms “correlation” and “proportional” in the arguments. However, the Examiner draws a distinction between the actual claim term “corresponding” and the stronger, narrower “correlation/proportionality” argument made by the Applicant. The claim recites “corresponding” which more broadly encompasses a directional or positional relationship such as left-side lights corresponding to a left-side vehicle portion. It is important to note that the claim does not require a mathematical percentage-based or proportional correlation between the amount of vehicle outside the lane and the amount of lights illuminated. Applicant is further reminded that any future amendments must be supported by the Applicant’s specification without the introduction of new matter.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and a new rejection of the amended claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is provided.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG (U.S. Pub. 2025/0332988) in view of PERSSON (U.S. PUB. 2024/0140302).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15,
JEONG teaches a system of an autonomous vehicle and including a plurality of signal lights, the system comprising:
a signal system located on an exterior of the autonomous vehicle ([0041] teaches an autonomous vehicle 1000; [0068] teaches a lamp control system 3000 comprising a lamp 3100, at least the lamp 3100 corresponding to an exterior signal system);
one or more processors (600 in fig. 1; [0041] teaches an autonomous driving integrated controller 600, which transmits and receives data necessary for autonomous driving control); and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors storing machine executable instructions ([0128] teaches executable instructions for performing the methods/operations of the apparatus according to the embodiments may be stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium) that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the system to:
determine, by the one or more processors, a maneuver of the autonomous vehicle, wherein a portion of the autonomous vehicle will be outside of a lane of operation during the maneuver ([0075] teaches that processor 3300 may determine the driver's lane change tendency information based on the information stored in the memory about whether the driver normally changes driving lanes, the changing of lanes requiring a portion of the vehicle to be outside of a present lane of operation);
generate, based on the maneuver, signal data corresponding to the maneuver ([0094]-[0100] teaches that the processor 3300 may control brightness distribution of the light area formed in the destination lane based on the driver's lane change tendency information (see Fig. 3) wherein the driver's lane change tendency information is the tendency (maneuver completion time within 3 seconds, within 3-6 seconds or longer than 6 seconds etc.,) of the driver who desires to change lanes); and
transmit, to the signal system, the signal data, wherein the signal system emits an
output signal based on the signal data (claim 5 teaches "...the driver's lane change tendency information is determined based on a lighting-on signal of a turn signal light or a time taken for lane change."; [0074] teaches that the processor 3300 may control the lamp 3100 based on the driver's driving tendency information.)
Jeong fails to expressly teach that the output signal results in the signal system illuminating only a portion of the plurality of signal lights corresponding to the portion of the autonomous vehicle that will be outside of the lane of operation during the maneuver.
PERSSON teaches a conventional vehicle signal-light arrangement with left/right direction indicator (DI) lamps. [0066] teaches DI lamps, or turn indicator lamps, are mounted near the left and right front and rear corners of a vehicle, and sometimes on the sides or on the side mirrors of a vehicle – thereby constituting “the plurality of signal lights” as recited in the claim. Persson further teaches in [0004] teaches direction indicator, DI lamp having functions distributed on different parts of the rear lamp where each part may comprise a number of lit elements and be controlled separately. For example, a DI lamp may be used for DI signaling usually activated by a driver of the vehicle when a turn is being made or when changing lanes. [0005] further teaches sequential DI lamp activation mode, where multiple lit elements of a DI lamp are activated sequentially is becoming increasingly popular. Such sequential activation forms a “flowing” or “running” illumination from an inner side of the DI lamp to the outer side in a chosen direction clearly showing the direction of an intended turn of the vehicle. [0066] teaches that DI lamps are used to indicate DI signals and are usually activated on one side of the vehicle at a time to advertise an intent to turn or change lanes towards that side, corresponding to “…to a portion of the …vehicle that will be outside of the lane of operation during the maneuver”.
Accordingly, when the system of Jeong is modified by the teachings of Persson, when a vehicle determines a left-turn or left-lane-change maneuver, the left side DI lamps taught by Persson would be activated, while the right-side DI lamps would not be activated. The left-side DI lamps therefore constitute only a portion of the plurality of signal lights as they correspond to the left-side portion of the vehicle that will be outside of the lane of operation as the maneuver is executed.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the vehicle lamp control system of Jeong to include the left-side, right-side direction indicator lamp arrangement taught by Persson wherein only a portion (e.g., only the left-front and left-rear) of the plurality of direction indicator lamps ae activated to advertise an intent to turn or change lanes i.e., be out side of the lane of operation, for the purpose of providing a clear and recognizable visual indication to surrounding drivers or pedestrians of an intended maneuver.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above, as the relied upon prior art teaches the same limitations recited in claims 8 and 15.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16,
Jeong/Persson teaches that the signal system causes the plurality of signal light to emit the output signal ([0069] teaches headlamps or headlights which may include a low beam, a high beam, a turn signal light, a daytime running light, a side light, etc., as well as lamp 3100 controlled by the processor 3300 of the lamp control system 3000 which correspond to a high beam or a low beam; [0102] of Persson teaches activation of hazard warning signal or activation of a burglar alarm signal, which is understood in the art as causing all plurality of signal lights to emit an output signal).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG (U.S. Pub. 2025/0332988) in view of PERSSON (U.S. PUB. 2024/0140302) and further in view of ZHOU (U.S. Pub. 2025/0115271).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17,
Jeong/Persson teaches the system of claim 2, but fails to expressly teach that the signal data includes a blink pattern, wherein the blink pattern is emitted by the signal light of the signal system.
ZHOU teaches an autonomous vehicle (Fig. 8) which generates signal data, wherein the signal data includes a blink pattern, and wherein the blink pattern is emitted by the signal light of the signal system ([0034] teaches that Low-level controls 170 may determine whether left/right blinker lights or hazard lights are to be turned on, and produce commands to turn on the left/right blinker lights or hazard lights.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the system of the Jeong/Persson prior art per the teaching of the Zhou prior art so as to generate a blinking pattern, because a blinking pattern is easily recognized as an intent to maneuver indicator and would be useful in informing surrounding drivers/pedestrians of the autonomous vehicle's intent to maneuver in a new manner.
Claims 4, 11 and 18,
Zhou teaches that the signal system includes at least one audible indicator ([0034] teaches that the mechanical and/or electrical vehicle systems of a vehicle controllable by vehicle controls 120 may include vehicle horn control.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the Jeong system so as to generate an audible indicator, because an audible indicator is especially effective in low visibility conditions and would illicit faster human reaction time.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG (U.S. Pub. 2025/0332988) in view of PERSSON (U.S. Pub. 2024/0140302) and further in view of CABADA (U.S. Patent 11,407,356).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19,
Jeong/Persson teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to further teach that the signal system includes a horizontal light bar including a plurality of lights. While Persson teaches that the signal system comprises a plurality of signal lights ([0005] teaches that multiple lit elements of a DI lamp are activated sequentially is becoming increasingly popular. Such sequential activation forms a “flowing” or “running” illumination from an inner side of the DI lamp to the outer side in a chosen direction clearly showing the direction of an intended turn of the vehicle; [0066] teaches DI lamps, or turn indicator lamps, are mounted near the left and right front and rear corners of a vehicle, and sometimes on the sides or on the side mirrors of a vehicle – thereby constituting “the plurality of signal lights”)
CABADA teaches a light assembly for use in a vehicle and further teaches that the signal system includes a horizontal light bar (col. 4:60-65 teaches "As shown in FIG. 3, the combination of first light-emitting device 102 and second light-emitting device 104, each preferably formed as a one-piece construction, are attached to side view mirror assembly 100 at generally opposite locations." At least the upper and lower portions of the light emitting devices 102 and 104 comprising light bars in a horizontal direction, thus corresponding to said "horizontal light bar" of the claim).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the Jeong/Persson system per the teachings of Cabada so as to construct the signal system to comprise a horizontal light bar because a horizontal thus widened light assembly functions to separate the illumination area for easier recognition by others.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG (U.S. Pub. 2025/0332988) in view of PERSSON (U.S. PUB. 2024/0140302) and further in view of in view of MALLA (U.S. Pub. 2026/0054637).
Regarding claims 7 and 14,
Jeong (modified) teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach that the memory is further configured to store machine executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the system to: determine when the maneuver is complete; and transmit a stop command to the signal system.
MALLA teaches a system for deactivation of a turn signal in a vehicle comprising a memory and further wherein the system is configured to: determine when the maneuver is complete; and transmit a stop command to the signal system ([0059] teaches a system memory 145 may be configured to store programming instructions that, when executed by the processor 140, may be configured to cause the processor 140 to perform one or more tasks such as, e.g., determining whether the vehicle 100 will cross a road line (corresponding to a turn signal activation), comparing the vehicle's 100 traversal velocity with a threshold velocity to detect a completion of a turn, calculating the vehicle's 100 traversal acceleration, integrating the traversal acceleration to calculate the vehicle's 100 traversal velocity, calculating a delay, starting a delay timer and deactivating a turn signal when a turn completion is detected).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the system of Jeong/Persson per the teachings of Malla so as to transmit a stop command as recited, for the purpose of maintaining predictable behaviors in the autonomous vehicle which are consistent with human driving norms. The recited executable instructions would have also been obvious for the purpose of ensuring that surrounding drivers receive accurate, real-time intent information, thus reducing confusion in surrounding drivers which could contribute to unsafe conditions.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG (U.S. Pub. 2025/0332988) in view of PERSSON (U.S. PUB. 2024/0140302) and further in view of in view of KUME (U.S. Pub. 2025/0249929).
Regarding claims 21-23,
Jeong (modified) teaches the system of claims 1 and 15, but fails to expressly teach the further features recited in claims 21-23.
KUME teaches a signal system increasing a speed or a cadence of flashes of the portion of the plurality of signal lights as the vehicle travels from the lane of operation to a position in which the portion of the autonomous vehicle is outside of the lane of operation during the maneuver, such that the speed or the cadence of the flashes is faster when the portion of the vehicle is outside of the lane of operation during the maneuver ([0148] teaches a processor 31 may also perform the external notification control during the attempt of lateral movement while traveling in the pre-gate lane-free section. The intensity (degree of emphasis) of the notification increases as the flashing speed becomes faster or the light intensity becomes greater. Additionally, the intensity of the notification increases with the number of devices used for the external notification control. These controls correspond to performing at least one of the following when moving laterally in the lane-free section: activating the turn signal, illuminating the hazard lights, sounding the horn, and displaying an image indicating the movement direction on the external display device 18.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to further modify the system of Jeong/Persson per the teachings of Kume and increase the speed or cadence of the flashes of the signal lights during a lateral movement maneuver for the purpose of more clearly notifying the surrounding vehicles of the movement direction and increasing the intensity of the external notification as the vehicle progresses through the maneuver – as Kume teaches that the intensity of notification increases when the flashing speed becomes faster -thereby resulting in a reduced likelihood that surrounding drivers will come within close proximity during said maneuver.
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 DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
