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 amendment filed 11/24/2025. Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claim 10 is canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/26/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 10 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Braeuchle et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0228588)-IDS. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. Braeuchle et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0228588), included in the IDS filed on 12/26/2025 after the mailing date of the Non-Final rejection, is relied upon in this office action for the new ground of rejection, and therefore, the Final Rejection is proper.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamabe et. al. (J.P. Publication No. 2019/156295 A)-IDS in view of Braeuchle et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0228588)-IDS.
Regarding claim 1
Yamabe discloses “A driving assistance device comprising: at least one sensor configured to acquire vehicle surrounding information pertaining to a surrounding area of a principal vehicle;” (See Yamabe [0027] disclosing a radar, lidar and camera provided for detecting the road with of the travel lane the host vehicle traverses.).
Yamabe discloses “and at least one processor configured to: execute determination processing of determining whether a current situation is a first situation or a second situation based on the vehicle surrounding information,” (See Yamabe [0032] disclosing the position determination unit determines if another vehicle in the environment, adjacent to the host vehicle is in front of the host vehicle or at the rear of the host vehicle.).
Yamabe discloses “wherein the first situation is a situation in which the principal vehicle overtakes a first other vehicle traveling in a first adjacent lane adjacent to a principal vehicle lane in which the principal vehicle is travelling, and the second situation is a situation in which the principal vehicle is overtaken by the first other vehicle;” (See Yamabe [0056] disclosing when the other vehicle in the adjacent lane is behind the host vehicle the host vehicle is overtaken by the other vehicle and Yamabe [0057] disclosing when the other vehicle in the adjacent lane is front of the host vehicle, the host vehicle overtakes the other vehicle.).
Yamabe discloses “and execute steering control for driving the principal vehicle along the target track based on a result of the determination processing.” (See Yamabe [0062] disclosing a control unit performing offset control depending upon the position of the other vehicle in the adjacent lane.).
Yamabe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except “execute centering control for setting a target track to a center line in the second situation, the center line being a line connecting center positions of the principal vehicle lane in a road width direction;”.
Braeuchle discloses “execute centering control for setting a target track to a center line in the second situation, the center line being a line connecting center positions of the principal vehicle lane in a road width direction;” (See Braeuchle [0021]-[0023] and [0031] disclosing centering a host vehicle in a travel lane when it is being overtaken, “the lateral offset of path 56 is then reduced almost to 0 again because object 50 is now approaching vehicle 10 from the opposite direction.”).
Yamabe and Braeuchle are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamabe to incorporate the teachings of Braeuchle to include centering a host vehicle in a travel lane when it is being overtaken. Doing so provides a known method in the art for performing lane centering control in overtaking situations, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously provides a safety distance which accounts for relative speed differences between a host vehicle and other vehicles in a surrounding environment, see Braeuchle [0031].
Regarding claim 2
Yamabe discloses “The driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute first control for setting the target track to be further away from the first adjacent lane in the first situation.” (See Yamabe Fig. 4, Chars. 405/420 and [0066] disclosing overtaking the preceding vehicle in the adjacent lane with a lateral offset. The offset moves the host vehicle away from the other vehicle, thus away from the adjacent lane, see Yamabe Fig. 5, Char. 520 and [0021].).
Regarding claim 9
Yamabe discloses “The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to correct the target track to keep a current lateral position of the principal vehicle when time taken for the principal vehicle to overtake the first other vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined time threshold during execution of the first control.” (See Yamabe [0086] disclosing when a measurement time exceeds a preset time, then offset control is terminated and the vehicle is returned to its state prior to executing a first offset control.).
Regarding claim 11
Yamabe discloses “The driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute first control for setting the target track to be further away from the first adjacent lane when a relative speed between the principal vehicle and the first other vehicle is equal to or higher than a predetermined speed threshold in the second situation.” (See Yamabe [0022] disclosing performing offset control when based on the relative speed between the host vehicle and the other vehicle.).
Regarding claim 12
Yamabe discloses “The driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the first situation or the second situation in accordance with a change in a distance in a road width direction or a distance in a vehicle longitudinal direction between the principal vehicle and the first other vehicle.” (See Yamabe [0058]-[0063] disclosing determining and evaluating a relative distance between a host vehicle and the other vehicle in the environment to determine when to perform offset control corresponding to Fig. 3, thus determining when the vehicle may be overtaken.).
Regarding claim 13
Yamabe discloses “The driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the first situation by using a first area set ahead of the principal vehicle and in the first adjacent lane.” (See Yamabe [0057] disclosing when the other vehicle in the adjacent lane is front of the host vehicle, the host vehicle overtakes the other vehicle.).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamabe et. al. (J.P. Publication No. 2019/156295 A)-IDS in view of Braeuchle et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0228588)-IDS in further view of Umeda et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0278285).
Regarding claim 3
Yamabe discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the processor is configured to continue the first control when a second other vehicle is present ahead of the first other vehicle in the first adjacent lane.”.
Umeda discloses “wherein the processor is configured to continue the first control when a second other vehicle is present ahead of the first other vehicle in the first adjacent lane.” (See Umeda Fig. 5, Char. M, and [0088] disclosing a host vehicle overtaking a plurality of preceding vehicles by performing lateral offset control to an adjacent lane. While the origin of the congestion is in the same travel lane of the host vehicle, the during execution of the maneuver, the preceding vehicles are present in the adjacent travel lane and the offset control is effectively extended.).
Yamabe, Braeuchle, and Umeda are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamabe to incorporate the teachings of Umeda to include a continuation of offset control for overtaking a plurality of preceding vehicles. Doing so provides a known method in the art for performing overtaking control, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously provides a control device which may determine if offset control for overtaking should be executed on the basis of surrounding information including traffic congestion situations, see Umeda [0004]-[0005].
Regarding claim 4
Yamabe discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the processor is configured to set a line offset by a correction value from the center line as the target track in the first control.”.
Umeda discloses “wherein the processor is configured to set a line offset by a correction value from the center line as the target track in the first control.” (See Umeda Fig. 5, Char. M, [0011] and [0077] disclosing a host vehicle overtaking a plurality of preceding vehicles by performing lateral offset control to an adjacent lane. The offset is a lateral position biased to a right or left mark line side in a lane width direction away from the middle of the travel lane).
Yamabe, Braeuchle, and Umeda are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamabe to incorporate the teachings of Umeda to include offset control for overtaking preceding vehicles with biasing a vehicle from a travelling lane central position. Doing so provides a known method in the art for performing overtaking control, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously provides a buffer zone which may improve a safe operation of the vehicle by improving visibility of the for the control system, see Umeda [0077].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamabe et. al. (J.P. Publication No. 2019/156295 A)-IDS in view of Braeuchle et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0228588)-IDS in further view of Umeda et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0278285) in even further view of Nagae (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0148259).
Regarding claim 5
Yamabe in view of Umeda discloses all the limitations of claim 4, and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the processor is configured to change the correction value in accordance with a distance in a vehicle longitudinal direction between the principal vehicle and the first other vehicle or an inter-vehicle time between the principal vehicle and the first other vehicle.”.
Nagae discloses “wherein the processor is configured to change the correction value in accordance with a distance in a vehicle longitudinal direction between the principal vehicle and the first other vehicle or an inter-vehicle time between the principal vehicle and the first other vehicle.” (See Nagae [0149]-[0150] disclosing when there is the next-lane vehicle, and a longitudinal inter-vehicle distance is equal to or greater than the second predetermined threshold and is equal to or smaller than the first predetermined threshold, a target steering angle is changed and the host vehicle is controlled to an offset displacement in the width direction of the travel lane when it overtakes the adjacent vehicle.).
Yamabe, Braeuchle, Umeda, and Nagae are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yamabe in view of Umeda to incorporate the teachings of Nagae to include adapting offset control for overtaking preceding vehicles in accordance with a longitudinal displacement from the preceding vehicles. Doing so provides a known method in the art for performing overtaking control, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously adapts lateral displacement from neighboring vehicles to improve occupant comfort, see Nagae [0008].
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamabe et. al. (J.P. Publication No. 2019/156295 A)-IDS in view of Braeuchle et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0228588)-IDS in further view of Umeda et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0278285) in even further view of Kume et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0406316).
Regarding claim 6
Yamabe in view of Umeda discloses all the limitations of claim 4, and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a second other vehicle is present in a second adjacent lane that is adjacent to the principal vehicle lane and is on an opposite side of the first adjacent lane;”, & “and change the correction value when the second other vehicle is present.”.
Kume discloses “wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a second other vehicle is present in a second adjacent lane that is adjacent to the principal vehicle lane and is on an opposite side of the first adjacent lane;” (See Kume [0062] disclosing identifying vehicles traveling to the right and left of a host vehicle and performing offset control to have distance from each of the vehicles on the right and left sides.).
Kume discloses “and change the correction value when the second other vehicle is present.” (See Kume [0062] disclosing identifying vehicles traveling to the right and left of a host vehicle and performing offset control to have distance from each of the vehicles on the right and left sides.).
Yamabe, Braeuchle, Umeda, and Kume are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yamabe in view of Umeda to incorporate the teachings of Kume to include offset control for overtaking preceding vehicles on both sides of a travel lane of a host vehicle. Doing so provides a known method in the art for performing overtaking control, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as it advantageously provides additional safety in a travel environment with a plurality of neighboring vehicles by incorporating an offset distance on both sides of a host vehicle, see Kume [0062].
Regarding claim 7
Yamabe in view of Umeda, in further view of Kume discloses all the limitations of claim 6, and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the processor is configured to: determine the first situation by using a first area set ahead of the principal vehicle and in the first adjacent lane;”, & “and determine whether the second other vehicle is present by using a second area set in the second adjacent lane.”.
Kume discloses “wherein the processor is configured to: determine the first situation by using a first area set ahead of the principal vehicle and in the first adjacent lane;” (See Kume [0110]-[0111] disclosing offset and overtaking control when a preceding vehicle is ahead of the host vehicle in an adjacent lane.).
Kume discloses “and determine whether the second other vehicle is present by using a second area set in the second adjacent lane.” (See Kume [0062] disclosing identifying vehicles traveling to both of the right and left of a host vehicle and performing offset control to have distance from each of the vehicles on the right and left sides.).
The motivation to combine references is similar to the motivation to combine Yamabe, Umeda, and Kume under the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamabe et. al. (J.P. Publication No. 2019/156295 A)-IDS in view of Braeuchle et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0228588)-IDS in further view of Ohmura (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0389461).
Regarding claim 14
Yamabe discloses all the limitations of claim 13, and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the processor is configured to change a length of the first area in a vehicle longitudinal direction in accordance with a speed or a driving curvature of the principal vehicle.”.
Ohmura discloses “wherein the processor is configured to change a length of the first area in a vehicle longitudinal direction in accordance with a speed or a driving curvature of the principal vehicle.” (See Ohmura Fig. 4, Char. 42B & [0071] disclosing adapting a size of a rearward boundary corresponding to a preceding vehicle on the basis of the speed of the host vehicle.).
Yamabe, Braeuchle, and Ohmura are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamabe to incorporate the teachings of Ohmura to include adapting the length of an area around a preceding vehicle according to a speed of the host vehicle. Doing so provides a known method in the art for navigating overtaking scenarios safely, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as it advantageously incorporates safety behaviors which may replicate human driving behavior with vehicle control systems by creating safety parameters to adapt the vehicle behavior, see Ohmura [0047]-[0051].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8
The recitation “and set a control gain of the steering control to be larger when the second other vehicle is present than when the second other vehicle is not present.” overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Yamabe et. al. (J.P. Publication No. 2019/156295 A)-IDS. The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to setting a control gain, specifically to be larger, in an overtaking scenario with a plurality of preceding vehicles on both sides of a travel lane of a host vehicle. For example, Yamabe in view of Kume et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0406316), discloses offset control for control of a vehicle in consideration of a plurality of preceding vehicles on both sides of a travel lane, and control gain for overtaking a preceding vehicle is known in the art, however the limitation directed to defining a magnitude of the control gain for this scenario is not disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 12/26/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656