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 the aforementioned Response to Non-Final Rejection filed February 12, 2026. Claims 1, 5-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-18, are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. JP2021-215065, filed December 28,2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-18, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, and 16-18 are patentable over Aoki (US 20180154939), in view of Zhang (US 20180293894), and further in view Adwan (US 20220009492), in light of the amendments presented by applicant. Specifically, Applicant states that none of the previously relied upon references teach or suggest a standard value that may be changed to any value selected from multiple options based on the instruction from a user.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, stating that Paragraph [0116] of Adwan discloses a predetermined period of time for a lane change maneuver which may be a fixed value (i.e. the standard value) or may be determined by the driver of the vehicle (i.e. changed to some value by an instruction from the user). Therefore, the aforementioned claims are not patentable over Aoki, Zhang, and Adwan.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 20180154939; of record in IDS), in view of Zhang (US 20180293894, already of record), and further in view Adwan (US 20220009492, already of record).
Regarding Claim 1,
Aoki teaches
A vehicle control device that controls a vehicle, (Aoki: Paragraph [0049]; “hardware configuration of an autonomous driving vehicle 10 equipped with a control device for vehicle traveling”) the vehicle control device comprising:
an acquisition unit (Aoki: Paragraph [0050]; “LIDAR units 14”) configured to acquire surrounding information of the vehicle; (Aoki: Paragraph [0050])
a control unit (Aoki: Paragraph [0053]; “ECU (Electronic Control Unit) 18”) configured to conduct an automated lane change based on the surrounding information; (Aoki: Paragraph [0055]) and
...
the control unit changes a setting of...a travel distance needed for the automated lane change, (Aoki: Paragraph [0062]) based on an instruction from a user... (Aoki: Paragraph [0058])
...
wherein an operation for the automated lane change includes a first operation of maintaining the vehicle in a traveling lane... (Aoki: Paragraph [0071]-[0072])
...
Aoki does not teach
...
a position information acquisition unit configured to acquire position information of the vehicle, wherein
the control unit changes a setting of a duration needed for the automated lane change ... based on ... position information of the vehicle at a time of conducting the automated lane change, wherein
based on the position information, when a nation or state where the vehicle travels changes, the control unit changes a setting of either the duration or the travel distance to a setting in compliance with the nation or state,
wherein an operation for the automated lane change includes...a second operation of causing the vehicle to make a lateral movement until the vehicle reaches a division line between the traveling lane and an adjacent lane after the first operation,
wherein when the vehicle is located in a predetermined nation, the control unit:
changes a setting of either a duration needed for the first operation or a travel distance needed for the first operation to a fixed value, and
changes a setting of either a duration needed for the second operation or a travel distance needed for the second operation to a standard value in compliance with laws and regulations of a nation or a state where the vehicle is located,
wherein the control unit is capable of changing a setting of either a duration needed for the second operation or a travel distance needed for the second operation from the standard value to an option among a plurality of options based on an instruction from the user.
However in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches
...
the control unit changes a setting of a duration needed for the automated lane change (Zhang: Paragraph [0075]-[0078]; After the vehicle completes the lane boundary approach function, it changes a setting to be a duration of the amount of time to search for an opening in the adjacent lane before canceling the lane change maneuver.) ... based on ... position information of the vehicle at a time of conducting the automated lane change. (Zhang: Paragraph [0077]-[0078])
...
wherein an operation for the automated lane changes includes...a second operation of causing the vehicle to make a lateral movement until the vehicle reaches a division line between the traveling lane and an adjacent lane, after the first operation, (Zhang: Paragraph [0069], [0073]-[0075], FIG. 3 (A-D); The controller approaches the lane boundary and waits a certain amount of time.)
...
wherein when the vehicle is located in a predetermined nation, the control unit:
...
changes a setting of either a duration needed for the second operation or a travel distance needed for the second operation to a standard value in compliance with laws and regulations of a nation or state where the vehicle is located, (Zhang: Paragraph [0060]-[0061], [0078]-[0079]; When the vehicle reaches the lane boundary line, the controller of the vehicle instructs the vehicle to wait for a predetermined amount of time before continuing the lane change procedure. During this time the vehicle is analyzing the situation in the adjacent lane to see of there is enough distance to change lanes. If said condition is not reached within the predetermined amount of time, then the vehicle cancels the lane change procedure and returns to the center of the current travel lane.)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the autonomous vehicle control and lane changing system of Aoki with the duration consideration for the lane change based on position information of Zhang for the benefit of an increased likelihood of a lane change of a vehicle. (Zhang: Paragraph [0008])
Aoki, in view of Zhang, does not teach
...
a position information acquisition unit configured to acquire position information of the vehicle,
...
...wherein
based on the position information, when a nation or state where the vehicle travels changes, the control unit changes a setting of either the duration or the travel distance to a setting in compliance with the nation or state,
...
wherein when the vehicle is located in a predetermined nation, the control unit:
changes a setting of either a duration needed for the first operation or a travel distance needed for the first operation to a fixed value,
...
wherein the control unit is capable of changing a setting of either a duration needed for the second operation or a travel distance needed for the second operation from the standard value to an option among a plurality of options based on an instruction from the user.
However in the same field of endeavor, Adwan teaches
...
a position information acquisition unit configured to acquire position information of the vehicle, (Adwan: Paragraph [0072]-[0073], [0076]; Control System 200)
...
...wherein
based on the position information, when a regulation of a duration or a travel distance for a lane change changes due to a change of a nation or a geographical state where the vehicle travels, the control unit changes a setting of either the duration or the travel distance to a setting in compliance with the nation or geographical state, (Adwan: Paragraph [0076], [0113]-[0114])
...
wherein when the vehicle is located in a predetermined nation, the control unit:
changes a setting of either a duration needed for the first operation or a travel distance needed for the first operation to a fixed value, (Adwan: Paragraph [0076], [0113]-[0114])
...
wherein the control unit is capable of changing a setting of either a duration needed for the second operation or a travel distance needed for the second operation from the standard value to an option among a plurality of options based on an instruction from the user. (Adwan: Paragraph [0116]; “In the above embodiment, the predetermined period of time may be a fixed value. Instead, the predetermined period of time may be determined by the driver,...”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the autonomous vehicle control and lane changing system of Aoki with the duration consideration for the lane change based on position information of Adwan for the benefit of reducing the chance of a traffic conflict. (Adwan: Paragraph [0008])
Regarding Claim 5,
Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, teaches
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the second operation is an operation from the vehicle starting the lateral movement to a reference position of the vehicle reaching the division line. (Zhang: Paragraph [0069], [0075]-[0077]; The second operation is the operation where the “lane change controller” instructs the vehicle to approach the “lane change boundary” (division line) until the reference position of the vehicle (“...the side part being closest to the adjacent lane 20 in the subject vehicle X1.”) reaches the “lane change boundary.”)
The motivation to combine Aoki, Zhang, and Adwan, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6,
Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, teaches
The vehicle control device according to claim 5, wherein the reference position is a front wheel position of the vehicle in a direction of the lateral movement. (Zhang: Paragraph [0069])
The motivation to combine Aoki, Zhang, and Adwan, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8,
Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, teaches
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the operation for the automated lane change further includes a third operation of causing the vehicle to travel across the division line and converge in the adjacent lane, after the second operation. (Zhang: Paragraph [0080], [0082], [0087]-[0088])
The motivation to combine Aoki, Zhang, and Adwan, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9,
Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, teaches
The vehicle control device according to claim 8, wherein the control unit changes a setting of either a duration needed for the third operation or a travel distance needed for the third operation. (Zhang: Paragraph [0092]-[0093]; The system calculates a distance from the boundary line to the adjacent lane and begins the lane change maneuver until the system detects that the vehicle has moved an amount of distance that is equal to or less than said lane changing distance.)
The motivation to combine Aoki, Zhang, and Adwan, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 16,
Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, teaches
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where a traveling speed of the vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined speed, the control unit conducts the automated lane change, based on the setting of the travel distance needed for the automated lane change, instead of the setting of the duration needed for the automated lane change. (Zhang: Paragraph [0074]-[0077], [0111])
The motivation to combine Aoki, Zhang, and Adwan, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, as applied to claims 1-9 and 15-19 above, and further in view of Taniguchi et al. (US 20220204054; hereinafter Taniguchi, already of record).
Regarding Claim 10,
Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, teaches
The vehicle control device according to claim 1,...
Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, does not teach
...further comprising a reception unit configured to receive the instruction from the user, wherein
the control unit changes the setting of either the duration or the travel distance, based on the instruction received by the reception unit.
However in the same field of endeavor, Taniguchi teaches
...further comprising a reception unit configured to receive the instruction from the user, (Taniguchi: Paragraph [0025]; “The lane change assist switch 176 is a switch for instructing (accepting) the start of a lane change when the control device 19 confirms the start of the lane change with the driver. By operating the lane change assist switch 176 for a longer time than a predetermined time after accepting the start of the lane change, the acceptance of the lane change proposed by the control device 19 can be revoked.”) wherein
the control unit changes the setting of either the duration or the travel distance, based on the instruction received by the reception unit. (Taniguchi: Paragraph [0104])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle control device of Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, with the reception unit and user instruction consideration of Taniguchi for the benefit of not giving uncomfortable feeling to the driver. (Taniguchi: Paragraph [0004])
Regarding Claim 11,
Aoki, in view of Zhang, further in view of Adwan, and further in view of Taniguchi, teaches
The vehicle control device according to claim 10, wherein
a plurality of candidates are registered beforehand for the duration or the travel distance, (Taniguchi: Paragraph [0025]; “The inter-vehicle distance adjustment switch 175 is a switch for setting the inter-vehicle distance from a preceding vehicle and is, for example, a switch for selecting one from a plurality of stages of settings such as short distance/medium distance/long distance.”) and
the user selects any of the plurality of candidates, and the control unit changes the setting of either the duration or the travel distance. (Taniguchi: Paragraph [0240]; The driver selects between accepting or rejecting execution of the automated lane change. If the user rejects the lane change operation, the distance and/or duration values go to zero and the vehicle continues with its previous operation.)
The motivation to combine Aoki, Zhang, Adwan, and Taniguchi, is the same as stated for Claim 10 above.
Regarding Claim 12,
Aoki, in view of Zhang, further in view of Adwan, and further in view of Taniguchi, teaches
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, further comprising a confirmation unit configured to prompt confirmation of a change in the setting, when the instruction from the user is received. (Taniguchi: Paragraph [0025]; “The lane change assist switch 176 is a switch for instructing (accepting) the start of a lane change when the control device 19 confirms the start of the lane change with the driver.”)
The motivation to combine Aoki, Zhang, Adwan, and Taniguchi, is the same as stated for Claim 10 above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, as applied to claims 1-9 and 15-19 above, and further in view of Xiang et al. (US 20230115708; hereinafter Xiang, already of record).
Regarding Claim 14,
Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, teaches
The vehicle control device according to claim 1,...
Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan does not teach
...further comprising:
a notification unit configured to notify a warning, in a case where the setting of either the duration or the travel distance is not appropriate for the nation, the geographical state, or a province where the vehicle is traveling, based on the position information of the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Xiang teaches
...
a notification unit configured to notify a warning, in a case where the setting of either the duration or the travel distance is not appropriate for a nation, a state, or a province where the vehicle is traveling, based on the position information of the vehicle. (Xiang: Paragraph [0178]-[0181]; The map data contains data on the local regulations and laws. When the vehicle detects inconsistencies between the map data and the real world, it notifies the driver and attempts to rectify said inconsistencies.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle control device of Aoki, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Adwan, with the notification of non-compliance with on local laws of Xiang for the benefit of generating a control plan for autonomously driving a vehicle using map data. (Xiang: Abstract)
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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663