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 .
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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11-13 have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 4-8 and 15-19 are withdrawn. Claims 10 and 20 have been cancelled since the last Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below 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 from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 18, “the another vehicle” is assumed to refer back to “another target vehicle” previously recited. Therefore, using “the another target vehicle” in line 18 would add clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is unclear and indefinite as a whole such that the scope of the claim is indefinite. Some examples of the indefiniteness include:
The claim recites “a lane” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is “the first lane” of “the second lane” from claim 1 or a new lane.
The claim recites “the target vehicle is traveling on a lane expected to make a lane change while driving”, which appears to say that the lane is expected to make a lane change. It is unclear what a lane making a lane change is intended to mean or how a lane can make a lane change.
The claim recites “make a lane change of the host vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new lane change or intended to refer back to the lane change in claim 1.
The claim recites “the additional lane change”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the additional lane change is.
The claim recites “a time point” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 11 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. Claim 12 also contains deficiencies similar to those above in claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the preceding vehicle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the vehicle suitable for” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the other vehicles” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0281793 to Terayama et al.
As per claim 1, Terayama discloses an autonomous driving control apparatus (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 2), comprising:
a sensor device provided in a host vehicle and configured to detect pieces of information related to one or more surrounding other vehicles around the host vehicle (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 18);
a memory storing program instructions (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 19); and
a processor configured to execute the program instructions (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 19), the program instructions when executed configured to:
analyze lateral behaviors of the one or more surrounding other vehicles (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 33);
quantize similarity between a lateral behavior of the host vehicle and the lateral behaviors of one or more surrounding vehicles (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 39);
based on determination that the quantized similarity value is greater than a predetermined threshold, determine a surrounding vehicle as a target vehicle (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 40; the prior art determines that the lateral behavior difference between the two vehicles is less than a threshold, which is the same as the similarity being greater than a threshold); and
control the host vehicle to perform a lateral following autonomous driving control by following the target vehicle (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 40; the vehicle follows the target vehicle via ACC),
wherein the host vehicle is traveling in a first lane and the target vehicle is traveling in a second lane adjacent to the first lane (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 43 and figure 4B), and
wherein the processor is configured to make a lane change of the host vehicle to the second lane to follow the target vehicle (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 43 and figure 4B; a scenario is shown where the target vehicle is in an adjacent lane and the host vehicle is controlled to change lanes to follow the target vehicle).
As per claim 2, Terayama discloses wherein the sensor device includes at least one of a camera, a radio detecting and ranging (radar), or a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 18).
As per claim 9, Terayama discloses wherein the processor is configured to control the host vehicle to follow the target vehicle based on determination that the target vehicle is traveling in a lane in which the host vehicle is traveling (Terayama; At least paragraph(s) 40 and figure 3).
As per claim 13, Terayama discloses the method of the autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that Terayama does not disclose “a lateral following autonomous driving control by following the target vehicle”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Terayama discloses an autonomous control of the vehicle to follow the target vehicle, thus meeting the claim language. There are no specific requirements in the claims, or the specification, for this limitation other than to follow the target vehicle. With respect to Applicant's arguments that Terayama does not disclose the vehicle traveling in a first lane and the target vehicle traveling in a second lane and the processor is configured to make a lane change to the second lane to follow the target vehicle, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in figure 4B, the host vehicle (M) is in the first lane, the target vehicle (P) is in the second lane, and the host vehicle is making a lane change in order to follow the target vehicle into the second lane. Thus, the claim language as written is met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights