DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-5 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 01/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 09/25/2025. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
To begin, the Applicant asserts that Niibo does not teach or suggest requesting a driver to perform a pre-lane-change action in response to a suggestion about a lane change. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It shall be noted, that Niibo is relied upon for the automated lane-change control framework (i.e., recognition of lanes, road boundaries, and other vehicles; use of map/context; and action-plan/trajectory generation for lane-change events) and not for the driver-request feature (see, e.g., Niibo ¶¶[0075]–[0085]). Additionally, the Applicant argues that Niibo in ¶[0086] “teaches away” by indicating a lane-change event may be activated regardless of the driving state. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited statement of Niibo in ¶[0086] does not criticize or discourage seeking driver input; it merely describes one method of activation context and therefore does not constitute teaching away. Regarding the driver-request/confirmation, the Examiner finds Hashimoto discloses, teaches, or suggests said limitation. Hashimoto describes a lane-change to the driver and proceeds upon driver approval (Hashimoto ¶¶[0038]–[0040], [0043]–[0047]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to implement Hashimoto’s driver-interaction within Niibo’s event/trajectory system.
Moreover, the Applicant further contends that Hashimoto does not discuss the timing of an acceleration change being associated with a driver taking a requested action. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hashimoto structures control around the notification/approval sequence and teaches two stages of longitudinal/steering control: before approval, the system performs “preliminary control” with acceleration/steering magnitudes deliberately kept below predetermined values (Hashimoto ¶¶[0051]–[0055], [0101]–[0104]); after the driver approves, the system executes the lane-change “main control,” and Hashimoto explains that late approval may necessitate more rapid acceleration or deceleration to reach the lane-change point (¶¶[0044], [0046]). Therefore, read in light of claim 1, the first acceleration “until the driver performs the pre-lane-change action” corresponds to Hashimoto’s lower-magnitude preliminary control, while the second acceleration “having a greater absolute value” after the driver performs the action corresponds to the main control that completes the maneuver once approval is obtained.
Furthermore, the Applicant also asserts that newly cited Fujii is used only for “plan a lane change … based on positional information of vehicles detected in the second lane” and does not cure the deficiencies of Niibo and Hashimoto. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fujii acquires surrounding-environment information, detects lane markings and objects/vehicles, determines whether an object is in the target lane or its vicinity, and performs/adjusts lane-change control in view of that determination (Fujii ¶¶[0009]–[0012], [0015]). This is planning/execution based on positional information of vehicles in the second (i.e., target) lane as required by claim 1. Using Fujii’s target-lane object determination as an input to Niibo’s recognizer/trajectory and lane-change event framework, and carrying out the maneuver with Hashimoto’s staged longitudinal control tied to driver approval (lower magnitude until approval; higher magnitude after approval) (Hashimoto ¶¶[0038]–[0047], [0051]–[0055], [0101]–[0104]), the combined teachings meet the claimed sequence, including controlling speed to reduce distance to the lane-change position that depends on the positional relationship with a moving object in the second lane.
Finally, the Applicant asserts a general traversal that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest a system that plans the lane change, requests a driver action, applies a first acceleration until the action, and then applies a second, higher-magnitude acceleration after the action to reduce distance to the lane-change position is unpersuasive. As explained, Niibo provides the overall automated lane-change recognition/event/trajectory control; Hashimoto supplies the driver-request/approval and staged longitudinal control timed to that driver action; and Fujii contributes planning and execution responsive to positional information of vehicles/objects in the target lane. As a result, the Examiner continues to find Niibo, in view of Hashimoto, and further in view of Fujii disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niibo et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2019/0382020 (hereinafter, Niibo), in view of Hashimoto et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2019/0248382 (hereinafter, Hashimoto), in further view of Fujii et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0151982 (hereinafter, Fujii).
Regarding Claim 1, Niibo describes a travel controller comprising a processor (vehicle processor for performing desired actions, like those seen below, Niibo, Paragraph 0072) configured to:
-plan a lane change from a first lane in which the vehicle is traveling to a second lane adjoining the first lane based on positional information of vehicles detected in the second lane (vehicle can detect positional information of other vehicles detected in a second lane and use said information in planning a lane change, Niibo, Paragraphs 0074-0083);
-request a driver of a vehicle to perform a pre-lane-change action required of the driver to make the lane change from the first lane to the second lane, in response to the request (require a driver of a vehicle to perform a pre-lane change task or action, such as holding the steering wheel, Niibo, Paragraph 0086); and
-change the speed of the vehicle with a first acceleration until the driver performs the pre-lane-change action after the request (vehicle capable of changing the speed of the vehicle with a first acceleration until a driver performs a desired function, Niibo, Paragraphs 0080-0089).
Niibo does not specifically disclose the controller to include a second acceleration having a greater absolute value than the first acceleration after the driver performs the pre-lane change action, in response to the request thereby controlling the speed of the vehicle to reduce a distance to a lane change position defined to make the lane change, the lane change position depending on the positional relationship between the vehicle and a moving object on the second lane.
Hashimoto discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Hashimoto describes a vehicle system which issues a notification and proposal to a driver requesting a lane change and/or performing a pre-lane action (e.g., driver accepting to the lane change proposal) (Hashimoto, Paragraph 0038-000039 and 0041-0047). Additionally, Hashimoto describes changing a speed (e.g., acceleration or deceleration) of the vehicle which currently has a first acceleration until the driver performs the pre-lane action (e.g., accepting to the lane change proposal) (Hashimoto, Paragraph 0038-000039 and 0041-0047). Moreover, Hashimoto describes in response to the request for the lane change, the vehicle capable of changing the speed of the vehicle (e.g., either acceleration or deacceleration), wherein the change in speed of the vehicle reduces the distance to a lane change position, wherein the lane change position is dependent on a positional relationship between the vehicle and a moving object in the second lane (Hashimoto, Paragraphs 0038-0039, 0041-0055, and 0100-0104 and Figures 1, 3 and, 4).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the travel controller of Niibo to include a second acceleration having a greater absolute value than the first acceleration after the driver performs the pre-lane change action, thereby controlling the speed of the vehicle to reduce a distance to a lane change position defined to make the lane change, the lane change position depending on the positional relationship between the vehicle and a moving object on the second lane, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Hashimoto.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having accelerations of the vehicle before an actual lane change helps allow for a gradual increase over potentially a longer period of time, thus helping a driver (Hashimoto, Background, Paragraph 0022).
However, Niibo and Hashimoto do not specifically disclose the controller configured to plan a lane change from a first lane in which the vehicle is traveling to a second lane adjoining the first lane based on positional information of vehicles detected in the second lane.
Fujii discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Fujii describes a vehicle system that includes taking into consideration objects in a second lane when planning a lane change from a first lane to the second lane (Fujii, Paragraph 0009).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the controller of Niibo to include the controller configured to plan a lane change from a first lane in which the vehicle is traveling to a second lane adjoining the first lane based on positional information of vehicles detected in the second lane, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Fujii.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining if objects are in the lane for which a vehicle is desired to change to can help avoid unnecessary events such as collisions, thus increasing the safety of vehicle operation (Fujii, Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding Claim 3, Niibo, as modified, describes the travel controller according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to steer the vehicle so that the vehicle moves from the first lane to the second lane, in the case that the driver has performed the pre-lane-change action and that the vehicle has reached the lane change position (steering the vehicle to move lanes when the driver has performed the required task, Niibo, Paragraphs 0080-0089).
Regarding Claim 4, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 5, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niibo et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2019/0382020 (hereinafter, Niibo), in view of Hashimoto et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2019/0248382 (hereinafter, Hashimoto), in further view of Fujii et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0151982 (hereinafter, Fujii), in further view of in view of Ishioka et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0247414 (hereinafter, Ishioka).
Regarding Claim 2, Niibo, as modified, describes the travel controller according to claim 1.
Niibo does not specifically disclose the controller to include that in the case that the driver has not performed the pre-lane-change action and that a predicted time required to move from the current position of the vehicle to the lane change position is longer than a time threshold, the processor changes the speed of the vehicle with a third acceleration whose absolute value is greater than the absolute value of the first acceleration and less than the absolute value of the second acceleration, thereby executing control to reduce the distance to the lane change position.
Ishioka discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ishioka describes if a driver has not performed a pre-lane action and that a desired time threshold is exceeded, moving to a new acceleration value (Ishioka, Paragraphs 0041-0058 and Figure 4).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the controller of Niibo to include that in the case that the driver has not performed the pre-lane-change action and that a predicted time required to move from the current position of the vehicle to the lane change position is longer than a time threshold, the processor changes the speed of the vehicle with a third acceleration whose absolute value is greater than the absolute value of the first acceleration and less than the absolute value of the second acceleration, thereby executing control to reduce the distance to the lane change position, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ishioka.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because monitoring and/or controlling the vehicle’s speed and/or acceleration allows for safer lane changing events (Ishioka, Paragraph 0076 and Figure 4).
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667