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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 15 January 2026.
This office action is Final.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
All art rejections as indicated in the previous office action has been withdrawn as neccessited by Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-15 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 15 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the specification involving the abstract and title, filed on 1/15/26, has not been accepted/entered.
The amendment has not been entered for the following reasons: The amendment to the specification titled “IN THE SPECIFICATION” also appears to include an amendment to the Abstract. However, 37 C.F.R. 1.121(h) states “Amendment sections. Each section of an amendment document (e.g., amendment to the claims, amendment to the specification, replacement drawings, and remarks) must begin on a separate sheet” MPEP 608.01(a) states that the Title of the invention and the Abstract are different sections of the specification. MPEP 608.01(b) states that a corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. Therefore, the amendment to the “Abstract” section of the specification needs to be on a separate sheet from the amendment to Title of the specification. Therefore, the amendments to the specification were not entered for these reasons.
Thus, the abstract of the disclosure filed and entered on 6/13/25 remains objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Note: the proposed amendment filed on 1/15/26 would still be objected for repeating similar wording used in the independent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Furthermore, the title of the invention remains not descriptive. A new title remains required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the amended claims are directed. The current title 1) is broad and 2) includes subject matter not being claimed within Applicant’s invention. The title does not involve the subject matter preventing/suppressing a lane change of a vehicle based on a detected obstacle outside the vehicle’s detection range. The Examiner suggests the following title “Provision of a Lane Change Assistance Function based on detected obstacles”
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 1, 4-7, 10-15 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 1 recites the term “the estimation unit” in the suppress provision… limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this limitation of claim 1 as "… suppress provision of a lane change assistance function during estimation processing by the estimating.”
Claim 1 recites the term “the first automatic lane change assistance function” in the wherein clause of the “continue…” limitation and also in the “wherein an input device…” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this element(s) of claim 1 as "… the first lane change assistance function.”
Claim 1 recites the term “the second automatic lane change assistance function” in the wherein clause of the “continue…” limitation and numerous other limitations following the “continue…” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this element(s) of claim 1 as "…the second lane change assistance function...”
Claim 1 recites the term “the second automated lane change” in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this element(s) of claim 1 as "…the second lane change assistance function...”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the provision without suppressing” in line 3. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “provision of a first lane change assistance function” and “provision of a second lane change assistance function”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “the provision without suppressing” of claim 7 should depend on “provision of a first lane change assistance function” and “provision of a second lane change assistance function” of Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “continue the provision of the first lane change assistance function or the provision of the second lane change assistance function without suppressing…”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the provision of the lane change assistance function” in line 4. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “provision of a first lane change assistance function” and “provision of a second lane change assistance function”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “the provision of the lane change assistance function” of claim 7 should depend on “provision of a first lane change assistance function” and “provision of a second lane change assistance function” of Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “without suppressing the provision of the first lane change assistance function or the provision of the second lane change assistance function in a direction…”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the provision of the lane change assistance function” in line 5. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “provision of a first lane change assistance function” and “provision of a second lane change assistance function”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “the provision of the lane change assistance function” of claim 10 should depend on “provision of a first lane change assistance function” and “provision of a second lane change assistance function” of Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “cancel suppression of the provision of the first lane change assistance function or the provision of the second lane change assistance function …”
Claim 11 recites the term “the lane change assistance function” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this element(s) of claim 1 as "…wherein a lane change assistance function includes...”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a first lane change assistance function based on an automatic lane change instruction by a user operation and a second lane change assistance function based on a request from the control device” in lines 2-4. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “first lane change assistance function”, “automatic lane change instruction”, “user operation”, “second lane change assistance function” “request from the control device”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) first lane change assistance function”, “automatic lane change instruction”, “user operation”, “second lane change assistance function” “request from the control device” of claim 10 should depend on first lane change assistance function”, “automatic lane change instruction”, “user operation”, “second lane change assistance function” “request from the control device” of Claim 1 or each viewed as their own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “…includes the first lane change assistance function based on the automatic lane change instruction by the user operation and the second lane change assistance function based on the request from the control device …”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…prohibit provision of the second lane change assistance function and continues provision of the first lane change assistance function” in lines 6-8. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “provision of a first lane change assistance function” and “provision of a second lane change assistance function”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “provision of the first lane change assistance function” and “provision of the first lane change assistance function” of claim 11 should depend on “provision of a first lane change assistance function” and “provision of a second lane change assistance function” of Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “…prohibit the provision of the second lane change assistance function and continues the provision of the first lane change assistance function …”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “provision of the lane change assistance function is suppressed” in lines 6-7. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “provision of a first lane change assistance function” and “provision of a second lane change assistance function”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “provision of the lane change assistance function” of claim 10 should depend on “provision of a first lane change assistance function”, “provision of a second lane change assistance function” of Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “when provision of the first lane change assistance function or second lane change assistance function is suppressed …”
Claim 14 recites the term “the first automatic lane change assistance function” in the wherein clause of the “continue…” limitation and also in the “wherein an input device…” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this element(s) of claim 14 as "… the first lane change assistance function.”
Claim 14 recites the term “the second automatic lane change assistance function” in the wherein clause of the “continue…” limitation and numerous other limitations following the “continue…” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this element(s) of claim 14 as "…the second lane change assistance function...”
Claim 14 recites the term “the second automated lane change” in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this element(s) of claim 14 as "…the second lane change assistance function...”
Claim 15 recites similar issues as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US20180354510, 2018) (disclosed in the IDS filed on 9/13/2023) in further view of Takama et al (US20190225265, 2019)
As per independent claim 1, Miyata discloses:
a first sensor that is attached to a first position of a vehicle and that detects a first range including a side region of the vehicle; (FIG 2, 0084,0088: front right sensor detects right front area of the own vehicle)
a second sensor that is attached to a second position of the vehicle and that detects a second range including the side region, (FIG 2, 0084, 0088: front rear sensor detects right rear area of the own vehicle)
wherein at least a part of detection ranges of the first sensor and the second sensor overlap each other (0151: one of the peripheral radar sensors 16a partially overlaps with a target object detection range of one of the peripheral radar sensors 16a other than the specific one) and a part of a region closer to the vehicle than an overlapping range is outside the detection range, and: (FIG 7; FIG 10; 0191: blind spot )
the vehicle comprises at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, cause the at least one processor circuit to at least: (0071: memory, processor (e.g. CPU, ECU)
estimate a position of an obstacle when the first sensor or the second sensor detects the obstacle in an adjacent lane adjacent to a travel lane of the vehicle and the obstacle enters a region outside the detection range; and (FIG 7; FIG 10; 0191, 0212)
continues provision of the first lane change assistance function that is based on an automatic lane change instruction by a user operation… during estimation processing. (Note: the term “automatic lane change instruction” is not defined by the claim language and the specification do not provide an explicit definition of what a “automatic lane change instruction”. Therefore, the term is broad. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation. Thus, 0135 states that the lane changing support/assist control is a control for applying the steering torque to the steering mechanism to change the steering angle of the own vehicle SV in such a manner that the own vehicle SV is moved from the own lane (that is, an original lane) to “a lane adjacent to the original lane desired by the driver (that is, a target adjacent lane)” … the lane changing support control is a control for setting “a target lateral position of the own vehicle SV” with reference to the center line of the original lane as a function of time t from a time point at which the lane changing support control starts in such a manner that the own vehicle SV is moved in the width direction of the road from the original lane to the target adjacent lane in a predetermined time (period), and for changing the steering angle of the own vehicle SV so as to have a lateral position of the own vehicle SV coincide with the target lateral position. This is a form an automatic lane change function since the lane changing support control is performing the changing of the lane. 0118, 0338 discloses the execution of the lane changing support control is selected/initiated through the operation switch 17 by the user. Since the lane changing support control is performing/governing the changing of the lane overall, this function is based on an automatic lane change instruction by a user operation.)
suppress provision of a second lane change assistance function…during estimation processing (0221: prohibited from changing lanes) second lane change assistance function that is transitioned to a providable state in response to an operation of a driving assistance operation switch included in the vehicle and is based on a request from the control device (00342-0344; step 1820 of FIG 18: In response to the blinker level that indicates a left or right lane change, the CPU makes a “Yes” determination for permitting the lane change to the right or left lane by based on the blinker indication. This is a form of putting the lane change into a providable state. )
wherein the position of the obstacle is estimated in the region outside the detection range by performing extrapolation processing for predetermined period on the basis of a detection result of the first sensor or the second sensor (0175, 0219-0220, 0363, 0366-0367: determining if the vehicle is entering, in the blind spot area and/or if the vehicle has left the blind spot area; 0175, 0193,: discloses calculating a time period for a maximum extrapolation duration tg wherein during the period of max. extrapolation, the position of the object/vehicle is extrapolated/estimated at various time points)
wherein the suppression of the provision of the second automatic lane change assistance function is continued when the obstacle is not detected by the first sensor or the second sensor in the adjacent lane after an end of the estimation of the position of the obstacle. (0358: Even when the target object is considered lost (not detected) after the determined period for a maximum extrapolation duration, the lane change is still prohibited.)
wherein when the provision of the second automatic lane change assistance function continues to be suppressed after the end of the estimation of the position of the obstacle, the second automatic lane change assistance function is transitioned from a providable state to a non-providable state, and the second automatic lane change assistance function is maintained in the non-providable state until the driving assistance operation switch is operated again; wherein the providable state indicates a state where it is approved that the second automated lane change can be performed, and the non-providable state indicates a state where it is not approved that the second automated lane change can be performed. (0358 of Miyata discloses: Even when the target object is considered lost, the lane change functionality is still prohibited. 0358 discloses “the first apparatus can prohibit the lane changing support control to the lane on the side where that blind spot area is present”. Furthermore, Para 0358 is an extension of Paragraph 0357 and FIG 18. FIG 18 discloses the driver initiating a lane changing support control using operation switch 17. (Para 0338, 0340, step 1800 of FIG 18) In other words, the use the operation switch 17 initiates the running of the lane changing support control. Next, the user uses the vehicle blinker lever to initiate a lane changing support request to the right or left lane. After its confirmed that the user has initiated a lane change to either the right or left lane using a blinker lever (by meeting the perquisite condition for a lane change as in 0340), the CPU makes a “Yes” determination for permitting the lane change (0344; step 1820 of FIG 18). This is a form of putting the lane change into a providable state. Next, it is determined if a target object is in the blind spot of the lane the vehicle requested to change into. If it’s determined that an object is in the blind spot of the requested lane, the CPU then makes a “no” determination indicating that the requested lane change support request is prohibited. (Para 00357; steps 1830, 1835 of FIG 18) This is a form of denying/suppressing the requested lane change. Since the lane change support request is prohibited, then the lane changing support control will maintain that the setting of not performing any lane changes. Furthermore, as explained in 0358, 0358 discloses that when the “object has been lost (has disappeared) at the time point at which the extrapolation continues to be performed for the maximum extrapolation duration” and the condition of step 1820 of FIG 18 was also satisfied, then Miyata performs the same functionality as explained in Para 0357 and makes a “No” determination for the requested lane change (lane change support request); thus, changing the state from a “providable/permittable” state to a “non providable/prohibited” state after the position estimation/extrapolation processing has ended. As stated above, 0358 discloses “prohibit the lane changing support control to the lane on the side where that blind spot area is present”. Thus, 0358 clearly indicates that the lane changing support control remains in a non-providable state. In addition, FIG 18 discloses a form of loop operation method that can be perform multiple times. Furthermore, one of a skilled artisan would realize that if the cited art is able to perform this functionality once, then it will perform the functionality again. Therefore, the functionality of FIG 18 can be performed again. Thus, the lane changing support control remains in a non-providable state until user performs step 1815 and 1820 again by making lane changing request generated through the use of the blinker lever. Step 1820 would result in CPU makes a “Yes” determination for permitting the lane change; therefore, putting the lane change into a providable state. )
wherein an input device for performing the automatic lane change instruction in the first automatic lane change assistance function and the driving assistance operation switch for making the second automatic lane change assistance function the providable state are different operators, (operation switch 17 and blinker lever)
wherein the estimation processing is processing to be performed in the providable state. (Note: estimation processing is not defined within the claims; therefore, the BRI is applied. FIG 7; FIG 10; 0191, 0212; 0344, 0350-0358: After it is determined that the lane change support request is satisfied, then it determines if an object is detected by the first or second sensors)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the first automatic lane change assistance function is an active lane change assist (ALCA) function and the second automatic lane change assistance function is an auto lane changing (ALC) function. According to Applicant’s specification, 0036 discloses the ALC is lane change assistance base on a system request (request from the control device), and the ALCA is lane change assistance based on an occupant request. Thus, 0036 discloses the first ALCA function is a lane change request initiated by the driver/occupant while the ALC (second) function is a lane change request initiated by the control device of the vehicle. However, Takama et al discloses a vehicle performing an assisted lane change request in response a lane change request. Takama et al different forms/methods of initiating of the vehicle’s lane change request based on the vehicle being in fully autonomous mode or semi- autonomous mode such that fully autonomous (i.e., automatic) lane changes are both initiated and performed by the subject vehicle and semi-autonomous lane changes are manually initiated by the occupant of the vehicle (0026) Takama et al discloses in the case of fully-autonomous mode lane changes, the lane change request is automatically created by an autonomous navigation system of the subject vehicle or by an external controller ( a form of an auto lane changing (ALC) function) (0026, 0034). Furthermore, Takama et al discloses in the case semi-autonomous lane mode changes, the lane change request is created by the occupant of the vehicle ( a form of an auto lane changing (ALCA) function). (0026, 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Takama et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of providing flexibility, allowing users to select the appropriate level of assistance based on driving confidence, traffic density, and legal requirements.
As per dependent claim 4, Miyata discloses wherein the estimating further comprises determining the predetermined period on the basis of a predetermined length in a direction along a lane in the region outside the detection range and a relative speed between the vehicle and the obstacle. (FIG 0014, 0087, 0193, 0292-0295: the maximum extrapolation duration time period is calculated based on position, direction of vehicle in lane, and relative speed between the vehicle and obstacle)
As per dependent claim 5, Miyata discloses wherein the estimating further comprises determining the predetermined period on the basis of the length and a minimum value of the relative speed between the vehicle and the obstacle. (0193, 0212, 0292-0295: time period based on position, direction of vehicle in lane, and the low relative speed between the vehicle and obstacle. The low relative speed of the vehicle and/or obstacle/target is a form of a minimum value)
As per dependent claim 6, Miyata discloses the estimating further comprises ending the extrapolation processing when the obstacle is detected by the first sensor or the second sensor during the extrapolation processing. (0193-0194: detects object and ends extrapolation)
As per dependent claim 7, Miyata discloses instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least continue the provision without suppressing the provision of the lane change assistance function in a direction opposite to a direction in which the extrapolation processing is being performed (0221; claim 1: Discloses prohibiting the vehicle from changing lanes into a lane where an extrapolation process has begun since a sensor target is believed to be within the blind spot of that lane. In other words, the lane changing is prohibited if an extrapolation process for that lane is in process. Therefore, if no extrapolation for that lane is occurring, then the lane change is permitted. In addition, Miyata does not mention it prevent the user from changing into the opposite lane when the current lane is in an extrapolation. Therefore, Miyata allows the user to change into ANY lane that is not in an extrapolation process. Thus, the vehicle can change into the opposite lane if it’s clear, free of any targets in its blind spots and no detection of an object within the corresponding sensors. Miyata invention is preventing a lane change if changing the lanes is deem unsafe.)
As per dependent claim 10, Miyata discloses wherein when the obstacle is detected by the first sensor or the second sensor in the adjacent lane after the end of the extrapolation processing, instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least to cancel suppression of the provision of the lane change assistance function. (0193-0194, 0224-0229: sensor detects object after ending of extrapolation and the changing of the lane is allowed now)
As per dependent claim 13, Miyata et al discloses wherein the first position is a front corner of the vehicle, and the second position is a rear corner of the vehicle. (FIG 2, 0084,0088)
As per independent claims 14 and 15, Claims 14 and 15 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Miyata discloses a medium. (0071)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata in further view of Takama et al in further view of Kato et al (US 20210107510, 4/2021, EFD 2019)
As per dependent claim 11, Claim 11 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Miyata discloses continues provision of the first lane change assistance function during estimation processing. (0135 states that the lane changing support/assist control is a control for applying the steering torque to the steering mechanism to change the steering angle of the own vehicle SV in such a manner that the own vehicle SV is moved from the own lane (that is, an original lane) to “a lane adjacent to the original lane desired by the driver (that is, a target adjacent lane)” … the lane changing support control is a control for setting “a target lateral position of the own vehicle SV” with reference to the center line of the original lane as a function of time t from a time point at which the lane changing support control starts in such a manner that the own vehicle SV is moved in the width direction of the road from the original lane to the target adjacent lane in a predetermined time (period), and for changing the steering angle of the own vehicle SV so as to have a lateral position of the own vehicle SV coincide with the target lateral position. This is a form an automatic lane change function since the lane changing support control is performing the changing of the lane. 0118, 0338 discloses the execution of the lane changing support control is selected/initiated through the operation switch 17. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose prohibit provision of the second lane change assistance function. However, Kato et al discloses suppressing a second lane change while the process of the first lane change is occurring (0010, Claim 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Kato since it would have provided the benefit of more appropriate driving control.
As per dependent claim 12, Miyata discloses notify information.( 0130) However, based on the rejection of Claim 11 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Kato et al wherein the information indicates that a surrounding environment of the vehicle cannot be recognized when provision of the lane change assistance function is suppressed. (0090; FIG 6)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10, in response to Applicant’s remarks in regards to the objection to the specification , the objection to the specification remain because the amendment to the specification was not entered. The amendment was not entered because the amendment to the specification titled “IN THE SPECIFICATION” also appears to include an amendment to the Abstract. However, 37 C.F.R. 1.121(h) states “Amendment sections. Each section of an amendment document (e.g., amendment to the claims, amendment to the specification, replacement drawings, and remarks) must begin on a separate sheet” MPEP 608.01(a) states that the Title of the invention and the Abstract are different sections of the specification. MPEP 608.01(b) states that a corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. Therefore, the amendment to the “Abstract” section of the specification needs to be on a separate sheet from the amendment to Title of the specification. Therefore, the amendments to the specification were not entered for these reasons.
On page 10, in regards to the 35 USC 112 rejection, Applicant’s amendment has overcome the pending issues in Claim 1 that were disclosed in the previous office action. However, the amendments made to the claims comprises new issues within the claims that were not previously presented. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” section of the office action above regarding the matter. Therefore, the 112 rejection(s) to the claims remain.
Arguments in regards of the new limitations of Claims 1 and 14 brought forth in the amendments and not addressed by Miyata alone, are now in view of the new ground(s) of rejection of 35 USC 103 using the new reference(s) Takama et al.
All other arguments on pages 17-18 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described in the rejections above.
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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172