DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-22 are pending, and claims dated 02/24/2026 are being examined.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/24/2026 with respect to claims 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.
Claim Objections
The dependent claims that recite “lateral movement” are objected to because of the following informality:
“lateral movement” should be “the lateral movement”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“longitudinal movement” should be “the longitudinal movement”. 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 2-4, 11-13, and 20-22 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “the first dynamic parameter comprises…” but claim 1 recites “at least one first dynamic parameter and/or at least one first static parameter”. It is not clear which claim 2 is referring to. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to refer to limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “the second dynamic parameter comprises…” but claim 1 recites “a plurality of second dynamic parameters”. It is not clear which claim 3 is referring to. Further it appears this is a repeated limitation. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to refer to limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “the second dynamic parameter comprises…” but claim 1 recites “a plurality of second dynamic parameters”. It is not clear which claim 3 is referring to. Further it appears this is a repeated limitation.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “the first dynamic parameter comprises…” but claim 10 recites “at least one first dynamic parameter and/or at least one first static parameter”. It is not clear which claim 11 is referring to. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to refer to limitations in claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “the second dynamic parameter comprises…” but claim 10 recites “a plurality of second dynamic parameters”. It is not clear which claim 12 is referring to. Further it appears this is a repeated limitation. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to refer to limitations in claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “the second dynamic parameter comprises…” but claim 10 recites “a plurality of second dynamic parameters”. It is not clear which claim 13 is referring to. Further it appears this is a repeated limitation. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to refer to limitations in claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “the first dynamic parameter comprises…” but claim 19 recites “at least one first dynamic parameter and/or at least one first static parameter”. It is not clear which claim 20 is referring to. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to refer to limitations in claim 19.
Claims 21-22 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 20, and for similar reasons explained above reciting “the first dynamic parameter” and “the second dynamic parameter”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, 10, and 19 the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically Xiaohui (CN 110435654 B), in view of Kanoh (US-20200339194-A1), in view of Keller et al. (US-20180043890-A1), in view of Parks et al. (US-20190370564-A1), in view of Shimotani et al. (US-20180181818-A1), in view of Jeon (US-20190378416-A1), in view of Dieckmann et al. (US-20210163000-A1) does not teach the configuration of controlling the first terminal to perform lateral movement based on both the added specifics of the first status information and the second status information.
Dependent claims 5-7, 9, 14-16, and 18 are also allowable as they are dependent on their allowable independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190299988 A1 - Sato teaches a travel control apparatus, when a lane line of the traffic lane that had been being detected is no longer detected, estimates an imaginary lane line based on the position of the lane line detected in the past and controls the travel of the host vehicle such that the host vehicle is at a predetermined position with respect to the imaginary lane line.
US 20210078580 A1 – Mangal teaches determining whether a traveling lane marking is above a threshold corresponding to whether lane markings are present to sufficiently demarcate the lane, and if below the threshold, maneuvering into a different lane.
See also prior arts cited in the previous Office Actions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights