DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed March 30th, 2026. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Takashi; Komaru (JP Pub. No. 2018169895 A), herein after Takashi, in view of previously cited of record Okuyama et al. (US Pub. No. 20200231158 A1), herein after Okuyama, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (US Pub. No. 20180043935 A1), herein after Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 1, Takashi teaches [a]n automated travel device, comprising (Takashi: Para. 0038, teaching a device for automatically controlling the operations of a vehicle): at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the automated travel device (Takashi: Para. 0022, teaching that the vehicle is controlled using driving ECUs that are computers which includes components like CPUs, RAM, and the like): to execute automated driving control to allow a subject vehicle to travel autonomously along a predetermined scheduled travel route based on a signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor (Takashi: Para. 0045, teaching that the control of the vehicle is based on sensors the monitor the surroundings of the vehicle); to recognize a merge point with a main road, on which the subject vehicle travels, based on at least one of map data, a detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor, or data acquired from an external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0058, teaching that the vehicle is controlled automatically to merge into a lane based on information on the surroundings acquired from sensors); to recognize a merging vehicle, which is another vehicle attempting to merge at the merge point into the main road, based on at least one of the detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor or the data acquired from the external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the host vehicle based on other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into); and during execution of the automated driving control, to perform control to change a running position of the subject vehicle with respect to a surrounding vehicle on the main road, when a remaining distance to the merge point reaches less than a predetermined value, and to identify a number of… vehicles,… wherein the control to change the running position of the subject vehicle with respect to the surrounding vehicle on the main road includes control to increase temporarily an inter-vehicle distance from a preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount, during execution of the automated driving control, and when recognizing the merging vehicle (Takashi: Para. 0047-0048, teaching determining the locations of multiple vehicles around the host vehicle; and Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into).
Takashi is silent to the other vehicles being merging vehicles, which merge between the subject vehicle and a preceding vehicle, and the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the automated travel device, during execution of the automated driving control, to perform a takeover request to an occupant on a driver seat to ask a driving operation, based on determination that a predetermined number of merging vehicles, which is two or more, merge between the subject vehicle and a preceding vehicle, and when the merging vehicles remain.
In a similar field, Okuyama teaches the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the automated travel device, during execution of the automated driving control, to perform a takeover request to an occupant on a driver seat to ask a driving operation, based on determination that a predetermined number of merging vehicles… merge between the subject vehicle and a preceding vehicle, and when the merging vehicles remain (Okuyama: Para. 0069 and 0071, teaching that during a merging operation of the host vehicle to another lane, the system hands over control of the vehicle from the autonomous system to the driver based on the congestion of the lane the vehicle is merging into) for the benefit of allowing the driver to merge in a situation where it is difficult for the autonomous system to act.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the autonomous merging operation from Takashi to hand over control of the vehicle to the driver when the merging lane is congested, as taught by Okuyama, for the benefit of allowing the driver to merge in a situation where it is difficult for the autonomous system to act.
Takashi in view of Okuyama are silent to the other vehicles being merging vehicles, which merge between the subject vehicle and a preceding vehicle, and that the number of vehicle that merge between the subject vehicle and a preceding vehicle are more than two.
In a similar field, Hashimoto teaches identify a number of merging vehicles, which merge between the subject vehicle and a preceding vehicle, wherein the control to change the running position of the subject vehicle with respect to the surrounding vehicle on the main road includes control to increase temporarily an inter-vehicle distance from a preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount, during execution of the automated driving control, and when recognizing the merging vehicle (Hashimoto: Para. 0086 and 0087, teaching a scenario where two vehicles perform a lane change maneuver between a preceding vehicle in a lane and a following vehicle in the lane), and a determination that a predetermined number of merging vehicles, which is two or more, merge between the subject vehicle and a preceding vehicle (Hashimoto: Para. 0086 and 0087, teaching a scenario where two vehicles perform a lane change maneuver between a preceding vehicle in a lane and a following vehicle in the lane) for the benefit of improving the flow of traffic.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the autonomous merging operation from Takashi in view of Okuyama to allow multiple vehicles to merge at the same time, as taught by Hashimoto, for the benefit of improving the flow of traffic.
Regarding claim 3, Takashi, Okuyama, and Hashimoto remain as applied in claim 1, and Takashi goes on to further teach [t]he automated travel device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the automated travel device, during execution of the automated driving control, to temporarily increase a set value of the inter-vehicle distance, which is a control target of the automated driving control, by a predetermined amount, when recognizing the merging vehicle (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into).
Regarding claim 4, Takashi, Okuyama, and Hashimoto remain as applied in claim 1, and Takashi goes on to further teach [t]he automated travel device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the automated travel device, during execution of the automated driving control, temporarily reduce speed by a predetermined amount, when recognizing the merging vehicle (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into).
Regarding claim 5, Takashi, Okuyama, and Hashimoto remain as applied in claim 1, and Takashi goes on to further teach [t]he automated travel device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the automated travel device to: recognize the preceding vehicle based on an input signal from the surrounding monitoring sensor (Takashi: Para. 0045, teaching that the control of the vehicle is based on sensors the monitor the surroundings of the vehicle); and during execution of the automated driving control, and when the merging vehicle is recognized, to perform control to increase an inter-vehicle distance from the preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount, when the preceding vehicle exists, and to select whether to maintain a current speed or reduce the current speed according to a relative position and a relative speed of the merging vehicle with respect to the subject vehicle, when the preceding vehicle does not exist (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi in view of Okuyama in further view of Hashimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Mimura et al. (US Pub. No. 20170315551 A1), herein after Mimura.
Regarding claim 2, Takashi, Okuyama, and Hashimoto remain as applied as in claim 1, and Okuyama goes on to further teach [t]he automated travel device according to claim 1, wherein the automated travel device is to be connected with an outward display device that is configured to display an image in an area, which is visually recognizable by a driver of the merging vehicle (Okuyama: Para. 0130, teaching a display that shows the area around the vehicle).
They are silent to the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the automated travel device, during execution of the automated driving control, to change an operation manner of the outward display device depending on the number of merging vehicles merging between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle.
In a similar field, Mimura teaches the vehicle control unit is configured, during execution of the automated driving control, to change an operation manner of the outward display device depending on a number of merging vehicles merging between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle (Mimura: Para. 0134, teaching that the display shows the vehicles in the area around the host vehicle) for the benefit of enhanced awareness for the driver of the surroundings during merging operations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the merging operations from Takashi in view of Okuyama in further view of Hashimoto to display the vehicles around the vehicle to the driver, as taught by Mimura, for the benefit of enhanced awareness for the driver of the surroundings during merging operations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi and further in view of previously cited of record Shalev-Shwartz et al. (US Pub. No. 20210200235 A1), herein after Shalev-Shwartz.
Regarding claim 6, Takashi teaches [a]n automated travel device, comprising (Takashi: Para. 0038, teaching a device for automatically controlling the operations of a vehicle): at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the automated travel device (Takashi: Para. 0022, teaching that the vehicle is controlled using driving ECUs that are computers which includes components like CPUs, RAM, and the like): to execute automated driving control to allow a subject vehicle to travel autonomously along a predetermined scheduled travel route based on a signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor (Takashi: Para. 0045, teaching that the control of the vehicle is based on sensors the monitor the surroundings of the vehicle); to recognize a merge point with a main road, on which the subject vehicle travels, based on at least one of map data, a detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor, or data acquired from an external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0058, teaching that the vehicle is controlled automatically to merge into a lane based on information on the surroundings acquired from sensors); to recognize a merging vehicle, which is another vehicle attempting to merge at the merge point into the main road, based on at least one of the detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor or the data acquired from the external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the host vehicle based on other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into); during execution of the automated driving control, to perform control to change a running position of the subject vehicle with respect to a surrounding vehicle on the main road, when a remaining distance to the merge point reaches less than a predetermined value (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into).
Takashi is silent to the automated travel device being controlled to determine whether traffic congestion occurs; and during execution of the automated driving control, and when recognizing the merging vehicle, to execute front space shortening control to decrease temporarily an inter-vehicle distance from a preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount, based on determination that no traffic congestion occurs, and to execute front space extension control to increase the inter-vehicle distance from the preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount, based on determination that traffic congestion occurs.
In a similar field, Shalev-Shwartz teaches a host vehicle processor being configured to determine whether traffic congestion occurs; and during execution of the automated driving control, and when recognizing the merging vehicle, to execute front space shortening control to decrease temporarily an inter-vehicle distance from a preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount, based on determination that no traffic congestion occurs, and to execute front space extension control to increase the inter-vehicle distance from the preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount, based on determination that traffic congestion occurs (Shalev-Shwartz: Para. 0632 and 0838, teaching that the separation distance between the host vehicle and preceding vehicle is adjusted based on the level of congestion of the road) for the benefit of improved safety of the vehicle during autonomous merging operations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the autonomous merging operation from Takashi to adjust the distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle based on how congested the traffic is, as taught by Shalev-Shwartz, for the benefit of improved safety of the vehicle during autonomous merging operations.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Takashi; Komaru (JP Pub. No. 2018169895 A), herein after Takashi, and further in view of Kubota et al. (US Pub. No. 20070010938 A1), herein after Kubota.
Regarding claim 7, Takashi teaches [a]n automated travel device, comprising (Takashi: Para. 0038, teaching a device for automatically controlling the operations of a vehicle): at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the automated travel device (Takashi: Para. 0022, teaching that the vehicle is controlled using driving ECUs that are computers which includes components like CPUs, RAM, and the like): to execute automated driving control to allow a subject vehicle to travel autonomously along a predetermined scheduled travel route based on a signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor (Takashi: Para. 0045, teaching that the control of the vehicle is based on sensors the monitor the surroundings of the vehicle); to recognize a merge point with a main road, on which the subject vehicle travels, based on at least one of map data, a detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor, or data acquired from an external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0058, teaching that the vehicle is controlled automatically to merge into a lane based on information on the surroundings acquired from sensors); to recognize a merging vehicle, which is another vehicle attempting to merge at the merge point into the main road, based on at least one of the detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor or the data acquired from the external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the host vehicle based on other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into); and during execution of the automated driving control, to perform control to change a running position of the subject vehicle with respect to a surrounding vehicle on the main road, when a remaining distance to the merge point reaches less than a predetermined value (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into).
Takashi is silent to the automated travel device being controlled to determine whether the subject vehicle travels on an ordinary road or on a limited-access road, to perform merge development control to prompt the merging vehicle to merge in front of the subject vehicle, based on determination that the subject vehicle travels on the ordinary road, when recognizing the merging vehicle, during execution of the automated driving control on the ordinary road, and not to perform the merge development control, based on determination that the subject vehicle travels on the limited-access road, during execution of the automated driving control on the limited-access road.
In a similar field, Kubota teaches a navigation system configured to determine whether the subject vehicle travels on an ordinary road or on a limited-access road, to perform merge development control to prompt the merging vehicle to merge in front of the subject vehicle, based on determination that the subject vehicle travels on the ordinary road, when recognizing the merging vehicle, during execution of the automated driving control on the ordinary road, and not to perform the merge development control, based on determination that the subject vehicle travels on the limited-access road, during execution of the automated driving control on the limited-access road (Kubota: Para. 0036, teaching determining the road type that the driver will be traveling over including whether it is a general purpose road or a highway; Para. 0045-0047, teaching a driving assistance navigation system that aids a driver in navigation and control of the vehicle and determining whether the vehicle is approaching a highway entrance; and Para. 0083, teaching determining if a driver's skill level and preventing driving assistance during merging on a highway if the driver's skill level is deemed high enough) for the benefit of reducing the annoyance a highly skilled driver would feel when performing maneuvers they are comfortable with.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the autonomous merging operation from Takashi to have the autonomous operations be disabled when a highly skilled driver is performing a merging operation on a highway, as taught by Kubota, for the benefit of reducing the annoyance a highly skilled driver would feel when performing maneuvers they are comfortable with.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi, and further in view of previously cited of record Ueda et al. (US Pub. No. 20210300317 A1), herein after Ueda.
Regarding claim 8, Takashi teaches [a]n automated travel device, comprising (Takashi: Para. 0038, teaching a device for automatically controlling the operations of a vehicle): at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the automated travel device (Takashi: Para. 0022, teaching that the vehicle is controlled using driving ECUs that are computers which includes components like CPUs, RAM, and the like): to execute automated driving control to allow a subject vehicle to travel autonomously along a predetermined scheduled travel route based on a signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor (Takashi: Para. 0045, teaching that the control of the vehicle is based on sensors the monitor the surroundings of the vehicle); to recognize a merge point with a main road, on which the subject vehicle travels, based on at least one of map data, a detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor, or data acquired from an external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0058, teaching that the vehicle is controlled automatically to merge into a lane based on information on the surroundings acquired from sensors); to recognize a merging vehicle, which is another vehicle attempting to merge at the merge point into the main road, based on at least one of the detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor or the data acquired from the external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the host vehicle based on other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into)…, during execution of the automated driving control, to perform control to change a running position of the subject vehicle with respect to a surrounding vehicle on the main road, when a remaining distance to the merge point reaches less than a predetermined value (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into).
Takashi is silent to the automated travel device being controlled to determine whether the driver performs a second task based on an image of a driver taken by a cabin camera… and during execution of the automated driving control, and when recognizing the merging vehicle, to perform merge development control to prompt the merging vehicle to merge in front of the subject vehicle, when the driver performs the second task, and not perform the merge development control when the driver does not perform the second task.
In a similar field, Ueda teaches an electrical device controller configured to determine whether the driver performs a second task based on an image of a driver taken by a cabin camera (examiner interprets that the second task can be any task that indicates that the autonomous vehicle may perform the autonomous action such as the driver paying attention to the road) (Ueda: Para. 0090, teaching monitoring the attention of a driver to the road)…; and during execution of the automated driving control, and when recognizing the merging vehicle, to perform merge development control to prompt the merging vehicle to merge in front of the subject vehicle, when the driver performs the second task, and not perform the merge development control when the driver does not perform the second task (Ueda: Para. 0090, teaching monitoring the attention of a driver to the road; and Para. 0092, teaching that whether the autonomous operation of the vehicle is conducted or if the control is handed over the driver is determined based on whether the driver is paying attention to the road) for the benefit of allowing the driver to merge in a situation where it is difficult for the autonomous system to act.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the autonomous merging operation from Takashi to determine whether or not to perform the autonomous operation based on if the driver is performing the task of paying attention, as taught by Ueda, for the benefit of preventing manual operations when the user is not prepared to take over control of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Takashi teaches [a]n automated travel device, comprising (Takashi: Para. 0038, teaching a device for automatically controlling the operations of a vehicle): at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the automated travel device (Takashi: Para. 0022, teaching that the vehicle is controlled using driving ECUs that are computers which includes components like CPUs, RAM, and the like): to execute automated driving control to allow a subject vehicle to travel autonomously along a predetermined scheduled travel route based on a signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor (Takashi: Para. 0045, teaching that the control of the vehicle is based on sensors the monitor the surroundings of the vehicle); to recognize a merge point with a main road, on which the subject vehicle travels, based on at least one of map data, a detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor, or data acquired from an external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0058, teaching that the vehicle is controlled automatically to merge into a lane based on information on the surroundings acquired from sensors); to recognize a merging vehicle, which is another vehicle attempting to merge at the merge point into the main road, based on at least one of the detection result of the surrounding monitoring sensor or the data acquired from the external apparatus via wireless communications (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the host vehicle based on other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into)…; during execution of the automated driving control, to perform control to change a running position of the subject vehicle with respect to a surrounding vehicle on the main road, when a remaining distance to the merge point reaches less than a predetermined value (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into).
Takashi is silent to the automated travel device being controlled to determine whether the driver performs a second task based on an image of a driver taken by a cabin camera… and during execution of the automated driving control, when recognizing the merging vehicle, to execute processing to inquire the driver whether the driver permits merge development control to prompt the merging vehicle to merge in front of the subject vehicle, when the driver performs the second task.
In a similar field, Ueda teaches an electrical device controller configured to determine whether the driver performs a second task based on an image of a driver taken by a cabin camera (examiner interprets that the second task can be any task that indicates that the autonomous vehicle may perform the autonomous action such as the driver paying attention to the road) (Ueda: Para. 0090, teaching monitoring the attention of a driver to the road)…; and during execution of the automated driving control, when recognizing the merging vehicle, to execute processing to inquire the driver whether the driver permits merge development control to prompt the merging vehicle to merge in front of the subject vehicle, when the driver performs the second task (Ueda: Para. 0090, teaching monitoring the attention of a driver to the road; Para. 0091, teaching that the switch from autonomous operations to manual operations is performed if the driver allows autonomous operation via an operation switch; and Para. 0092, teaching that whether the autonomous operation of the vehicle is conducted or if the control is handed over the driver is determined based on whether the driver is paying attention to the road) for the benefit of allowing the driver to merge in a situation where it is difficult for the autonomous system to act.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the autonomous merging operation from Takashi to determine whether or not to perform the autonomous operation based on if the driver is performing the task of paying attention when they operate a device that initiates manual control of the vehicle, as taught by Ueda, for the benefit of preventing manual operations when the user is not prepared to take over control of the vehicle.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi in view of Ueda as applied to claims 8 and 9 above, and further in view of Shalev-Shwartz.
Regarding claim 10, Takashi and Ueda remain as applied as in claim 8, and Takashi goes on to further teach [t]he automated travel device according to claim 8, wherein the merge development control is at least one of front space extension control to increase an inter-vehicle distance from a preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into), or transmitting a message of merging permission via vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Takashi: Para. 0033, teaching transmitting a message to a cooperative vehicle to ask for them to execute acceleration/deceleration control to permit merging).
They are silent to the merge development control is at least one of… turning-off a headlight of the subject vehicle, temporary halting the headlight, momentarily turning-off the headlight, displaying an entry permission image on an outward display device of the subject vehicle, or outputting light and/or sound in a predetermined pattern toward an outside of the subject vehicle in order to communicate permission to merge in front of the subject vehicle.
In a similar field, Shalev-Shwartz teaches turning-off a headlight of the subject vehicle, temporary halting the headlight, momentarily turning-off the headlight, displaying an entry permission image on an outward display device of the subject vehicle, outputting light and/or sound in a predetermined pattern toward an outside of the subject vehicle in order to communicate permission to merge in front of the subject vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz: Para. teaching autonomous navigation actions that a vehicle can take including merge maneuvers; and Para. 0904, teaching that navigational actions taken can include adjusting the speed of the vehicle and also adjusting the headlights of the vehicle to turn them on or off, flashing turning lights or brake lights, or producing audible signals) for the benefit of improving the ability for surrounding vehicles to respond to the maneuvers the vehicle will take.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the autonomous merge control from Takashi in view of Ueda to also manipulate the headlights and turning signals during the merge maneuver, as taught by Shalev-Shwartz, for the benefit of improving the ability for surrounding vehicles to respond to the maneuvers the vehicle will take.
Regarding claim 11, Takashi and Ueda remain as applied as in claim 9, and Takashi goes on to further teach [t]he automated travel device according to claim 9, wherein the merge development control is at least one of front space extension control to increase an inter-vehicle distance from a preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount (Takashi: Para. 0089, teaching that during merging of the vehicle into a lane, the system adjusts the speed of the host vehicle and the separation distance between it and the other vehicles in the lane that the host vehicle is merging into), or transmitting a message of merging permission via vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Takashi: Para. 0033, teaching transmitting a message to a cooperative vehicle to ask for them to execute acceleration/deceleration control to permit merging).
They are silent to the merge development control is at least one of… turning-off a headlight of the subject vehicle, temporary halting the headlight, momentarily turning-off the headlight, displaying an entry permission image on an outward display device of the subject vehicle, or outputting light and/or sound in a predetermined pattern toward an outside of the subject vehicle in order to communicate permission to merge in front of the subject vehicle.
In a similar field, Shalev-Shwartz teaches turning-off a headlight of the subject vehicle, temporary halting the headlight, momentarily turning-off the headlight, displaying an entry permission image on an outward display device of the subject vehicle, outputting light and/or sound in a predetermined pattern toward an outside of the subject vehicle in order to communicate permission to merge in front of the subject vehicle (Shalev-Shwartz: Para. teaching autonomous navigation actions that a vehicle can take including merge maneuvers; and Para. 0904, teaching that navigational actions taken can include adjusting the speed of the vehicle and also adjusting the headlights of the vehicle to turn them on or off, flashing turning lights or brake lights, or producing audible signals) for the benefit of improving the ability for surrounding vehicles to respond to the maneuvers the vehicle will take.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the autonomous merge control from Takashi in view of Ueda to also manipulate the headlights and turning signals during the merge maneuver, as taught by Shalev-Shwartz, for the benefit of improving the ability for surrounding vehicles to respond to the maneuvers the vehicle will take.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments filed March 30th, 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 1 and 6-9 and the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-9 have been fully considered have been rendered moot. Therefore the claim objections of claims 1 and 6-9 and the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-18, filed March 30th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-5 under 103 in view of Takashi in further view of Okuyama in light of the amendments filed have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takashi in view of Okuyama and in further view of Hashimoto.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 19, filed March 30th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 103 in view of Takashi in further view of Okuyama in light of the amendments filed have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Takashi in further view of Kubota.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed March 30th, 2026 with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 6 and 8-9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 18 lines 19-23, filed March 30th, 2026) that Okuyama is deficient in teaching executing front space shortening or extension control based on a determination of congestion in claim 6. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Okuyama teaches in at least paragraph 0069 and 0071 that congestion is a factor considered in their operation, however the examiner notes that the prior art of Shalev-Shwartz is being utilized to teach this limitation.
Applicant contends (see pages 19-20, filed March 30th, 2026) that Ueda is deficient in teaching performing or not performing automated merge development control based on whether the driver is performing a second task for claims 8 and 9. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the BRI of a second task includes paying attention to the road as the specification in page 52 paragraph 0139 states that “[t]he second task is an act that the user is permitted to perform other than driving, the act being predefined… the second task include acts of viewing content such as moving images and/or the like, operating a smartphone and/or the like, reading an e-book, having a meal with one hand, and the like”. The prior art of Ueda teaches in paragraph 0090 determining if a user is performing the task of paying attention to the road while paragraph 0092 teaches permitting or prohibiting autonomous operations of the vehicle based on whether the driver is performing the task of paying attention to the road. This teaching, when combined with the autonomous merge control of Takahashi, renders obvious performing autonomous merge control based on whether the driver is paying attention as required by the BRI of the claims 8 and 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tosa et al. (US Pub. No. 20220027640 A1) teaches permitting autonomous control of a vehicle on limited-access roads and prohibiting autonomous control of the vehicle on general-use roads.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights