DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 6 filed on 03/16/2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive thus withdrawn the previous 112b rejection.
As in response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 filed on 03/16/2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
With respect to the newly amended subject matter and applicant’s arguments, the Examiner relies upon newly cited reference Kanoh et al (US 2021/0300377 A1).
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 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, 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Yasuhisa et al (JP2021091282A), (hereinafter Yasuhisa) in further view of Kanoh et al (US 2021/0300377 A1), (hereinafter Kanoh).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuhisa discloses a controller configured to execute lane change control causing a vehicle capable of automated driving to make a lane change, the lane change control including at least automated steering control, the controller comprising: (see Yasuhisa paras “0027” and “0032-0035” “autonomously control the travel of the own vehicle without depending on the operation of the driver. The autonomous traveling control function of the control device 19 includes an autonomous speed control function that autonomously controls the traveling speed of the own vehicle and an autonomous steering control function that autonomously controls the steering of the own vehicle” and “<< Autonomous Steering Control Function >> In the autonomous steering control function, the control device 19 controls the steering of the own vehicle by controlling the operation of the steering actuator when a predetermined condition is satisfied during the execution of the above-mentioned autonomous speed control function. It is a function to execute. This autonomous steering control function includes, for example, a lane keeping function, a lane change support function”),
at least one processor; and at least one memory which is a non-transitory tangible storage medium configured to store data and program instructions to be used by the processor, wherein the at least one processor is, when the program instructions stored in the at least one memory is executed by the at least one processor (see Yasuhisa paras “0012” and “0021” “The control device 19 includes a ROM (Read Only Memory) that stores a program for controlling the running of the own vehicle, a CPU (Central Processing Unit) that executes the program stored in the ROM, and an accessible storage device. It is equipped with a functioning RAM (Random Access Memory) and the like. As the operating circuit, instead of or in addition to the CPU (Central Processing Unit), MPU (Micro Processing Unit), DSP (Digital Signal Processor), ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), etc. Can be used”),
configured to carry out restricting the lane change control regardless of an instruction of a driver to start a lane change during the automated driving without the obligation of surrounding monitoring (see Yasuhisa paras “0057”, “0065-0071” and “0081” “when the difference between the specified vehicle speed and the traveling speed of the other vehicle V6 is small, the own vehicle V1 cannot complete the change of the traveling direction toward the branch road L3 by the branch point P2. There is. In this case, the control device 19 determines that the traveling operation is not completed within the predetermined time by the autonomous steering control function”, “The traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1 may be automatically prohibited without the intervention of the driver's operation. In this case, when the control device 19 automatically prohibits the traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1, the presenting device 16 may output that the traveling operation of changing lanes is prohibited, and may notify the driver... Alternatively, the control device 19 of the present embodiment may obtain the consent of the driver before prohibiting the traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1 by the autonomous steering control function”),
in a first case where a transition region is determined to be located within the predetermined distance or within the predetermined time from the vehicle (see Yasuhisa at least paras “0070-0071”).
But Yasuhisa fails to explicitly teach determining whether a transition region for takeover in which a driving automation level drops from automated driving without an obligation of surrounding monitoring to automated driving with the obligation of surrounding monitoring is located within a predetermined distance or within a predetermined time from the vehicle.
However, Kanoh teaches determining whether a transition region for takeover in which a driving automation level drops from automated driving without an obligation of surrounding monitoring to automated driving with the obligation of surrounding monitoring is located within a predetermined distance or within a predetermined time from the vehicle (see Kanoh paras “0047-0049”, “0058” and “0098” “The driving mode is set according to a so-called automated driving level. For example, the automated driving levels include level 0 (L0), level 1 (L1), level 2A (L2A), level 2B (L2B), and level 3 (L3). The definition of each level is as follows. The degree of automation becomes higher in the order of L0, L1, L2A, L2B, and L3”, “The main process performed by the vehicle control apparatus 10 is described using FIG. 6. The main process described below is performed at prescribed time intervals in a state where the control state setting section 76 has set the driving mode to level 2A or higher and set the automated lane change to category 1 or 2”, “The vehicle control apparatus 10 performs an automated lane change inside the lane-changeable region 130. Here, the lane-changeable region 130 is described using FIG. 5. The lane-changeable region 130 is a region in which it is judged that an automated lane change can be performed, based on the lane change time needed from the start to the end of the automated lane change” and “the user vehicle 100 may be a vehicle capable of travelling by setting one of a plurality of automated driving levels, and if the automated driving level set for the user vehicle is a level (level 3) at which it is not necessary for a driver to observe an environment around the user vehicle 100 and at which the driver does not need to grip a steering wheel W, the lane change control section 92 may make it possible to perform the multiple lane change.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yasuhisa for vehicle travel control method and vehicle travel control device “to determine whether the vehicle can drive autonomously without the driver looking at the surrounding of the vehicle or not” as taught by Kanoh (paras. [0047-0049]) in order to reduce the burden on the driver relating to automated lane changes.
Regarding claim 2, Yasuhisa discloses wherein the restricting the lane change control includes disallowing execution of the lane change control (see Yasuhisa paras “0057”, “0065-0071” and “0081” “when the difference between the specified vehicle speed and the traveling speed of the other vehicle V6 is small, the own vehicle V1 cannot complete the change of the traveling direction toward the branch road L3 by the branch point P2. There is. In this case, the control device 19 determines that the traveling operation is not completed within the predetermined time by the autonomous steering control function”, “The traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1 may be automatically prohibited without the intervention of the driver's operation. In this case, when the control device 19 automatically prohibits the traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1, the presenting device 16 may output that the traveling operation of changing lanes is prohibited, and may notify the driver... Alternatively, the control device 19 of the present embodiment may obtain the consent of the driver before prohibiting the traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1 by the autonomous steering control function”).
Regarding claim 3, Yasuhisa discloses wherein the restricting the lane change control includes canceling execution of the lane change control that has been started (see Yasuhisa paras “0066”, “0081” and “0101” “The traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1 may be automatically prohibited without the intervention of the driver's operation”, “After pressing the lane change support switch 176 during the lane change proposal, the LCP could not be started… after the LCP was activated, there was no space in the adjacent lane required to change lanes before starting the LCM, the driver canceled before the start of the LCM” and “the control device 19 prohibits the traveling operation of changing lanes. The control device 19 proceeds to step S11 in FIG. 11B without performing a predetermined traveling operation such as changing lanes or overtaking. When the lane change of the own vehicle V1 is automatically prohibited without the intervention of the driver's operation” regarding canceling a lane change operation after it has been initiated/ proposed).
Regarding claim 5, Yasuhisa discloses wherein the processor is further configured to carry out notifying the driver that the lane change control is restricted (see Yasuhisa paras “0057”, “0065-0071” and “0101” “the presenting device 16 may output that the traveling operation of changing lanes is prohibited, and may notify the driver”).
Regarding claim 6, Yasuhisa discloses wherein the memory is configured to store a traveling route set in advance for the vehicle, the processor is further configured to, in the first case carry out restricting the lane change control during the automated driving without the obligation of surrounding monitoring when determining that the lane change is not required in the traveling route (see Yasuhisa paras “0057”, “0065-0071” and “0081” “when the difference between the specified vehicle speed and the traveling speed of the other vehicle V6 is small, the own vehicle V1 cannot complete the change of the traveling direction toward the branch road L3 by the branch point P2. There is. In this case, the control device 19 determines that the traveling operation is not completed within the predetermined time by the autonomous steering control function”, “The traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1 may be automatically prohibited without the intervention of the driver's operation. In this case, when the control device 19 automatically prohibits the traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1, the presenting device 16 may output that the traveling operation of changing lanes is prohibited, and may notify the driver... Alternatively, the control device 19 of the present embodiment may obtain the consent of the driver before prohibiting the traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1 by the autonomous steering control function”),
and allowing execution of the lane change control even in the first case when determining that the lane change is required in the traveling route (see Yasuhisa at least paras “0063-0066” and “0081” “the autonomous steering control function based on the traveling speed of the other vehicle V6 traveling in the overtaking lane L2 on the right side and the remaining distance from the current position of the own vehicle V1 to the branch point P2. It is determined whether or not the change of the traveling direction is completed within a predetermined time”).
Regarding claim 11, Yasuhisa discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to carry out determining whether a merging point or a curve point is present in a lane change destination region, and restricting the lane change control regardless of the instruction of the driver to start the lane change during the automated driving without the obligation of surrounding monitoring (see Yasuhisa paras “0057”, “0065-0071” and “0081” “when the difference between the specified vehicle speed and the traveling speed of the other vehicle V6 is small, the own vehicle V1 cannot complete the change of the traveling direction toward the branch road L3 by the branch point P2. There is. In this case, the control device 19 determines that the traveling operation is not completed within the predetermined time by the autonomous steering control function”, “The traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1 may be automatically prohibited without the intervention of the driver's operation. In this case, when the control device 19 automatically prohibits the traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1, the presenting device 16 may output that the traveling operation of changing lanes is prohibited, and may notify the driver... Alternatively, the control device 19 of the present embodiment may obtain the consent of the driver before prohibiting the traveling operation of changing the lane of the own vehicle V1 by the autonomous steering control function”),
in a second case where the merging point or the curve point is determined to be present in the lane change destination region or in a second case where a merging point or a curve point is present in a lane change destination region (see Yasuhisa at least paras “0054”, “0058-0059”, “0065” and “0081” “when the difference between the specified vehicle speed and the traveling speed of the other vehicle V6 is small, the own vehicle V1 cannot complete the change of the traveling direction toward the branch road L3 by the branch point P2. There is. In this case, the control device 19 determines that the traveling operation is not completed within the predetermined time by the autonomous steering control function” and “It was detected, before the start of LCM, it was judged that there was no adjacent lane in the direction to change lanes, or there was no adjacent lane within a certain distance ahead, and before the start of LCM, the radius of curvature within a certain distance ahead. Judging that there is a curve of 250 m or less, judging that there is a section within a certain distance ahead that the type of lane division prohibits changing lanes to the adjacent lane, before the start of LCM, The side radar detected shielding and radio interference” regarding a branch point P2 which functions as a merging point toward which the vehicle changes its travelling direction “i.e., prohibited” additionally when the vehicle is too close to a branch preventing the lane change execution as shown in para “81”; fig 10).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Yasuhisa et al (JP2021091282A), (hereinafter Yasuhisa) in further view of Kanoh et al (US 2021/0300377 A1), (hereinafter Kanoh) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view Nishiguchi et al (US 2019/0047469 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yasuhisa fails to explicitly teach wherein the restricting the lane change control includes placing the lane change control on standby.
However, Nishiguchi teaches wherein the restricting the lane change control includes placing the lane change control on standby (see Nishiguchi para “0181” “a modified example of the embodiment will be described. In the above-described embodiment, whether lane change stands by, is prohibited or is started is determined according to whether the time Δt elapsed from when the turn signal lever 40a is operated has passed the third predetermined time Tc or the fourth predetermined time Td. On the other hand, in the modified example of the embodiment, a travel distance of the subject vehicle M from when the turn signal lever 40a is operated is measured and whether lane change stands by, is prohibited or is started is determined according to whether the measured distance is equal to or greater than a first predetermined distance or a second predetermined distance”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yasuhisa for vehicle travel control method and vehicle travel control device “to implement the restriction in a controlled and reversable manner, allowing the system to temporarily hold execution of a lane change while preserving the lane change request” as taught by Nishiguchi (para. [0181]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABDELLATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights