DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 03/13/2026. Claims 10 and 17 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 10-19 are currently pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanoh et al US 2021/0300377 A1 (hence Kanoh) in view of Totzke US 2024/0348207 A1 (hence Totzke).
In re claims 10 and 17, Kanoh discloses a vehicle control apparatus and a vehicle control method causing a user vehicle to change lanes from a user lane in which the user vehicle is travelling to another lane (Abstract) and teaches the following:
receiving a driving command for maneuvering the vehicle from a first traffic lane of the road via a second traffic lane of the road to an exit of the road (Fig.4 and Paragraphs 0044-0046);
adapting a speed of the vehicle in preparation for a lane change maneuver from the first traffic lane to the second traffic lane (Paragraphs 0038-0039, and 0047);
and adapting the preparation for the lane change maneuver (Fig.6, S1-S2, S4-S9, Paragraphs 0052-0053, and 0057-0061)
However, Kanoh doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
determining a gradient of the road in a region of the exit;
adapting the preparation for the lane change maneuver depending on the determined gradient
Nevertheless, Totzke discloses a method for automatically assisting a motor vehicle when driving on an exit of a main road (Abstract) and teaches the following:
determining a gradient of the road in a region of the exit (Paragraphs 0012, 0015, and 0019);
adapting the preparation for the lane change maneuver depending on the determined gradient (Paragraphs 0007, and 0032-0035)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Kanoh reference to include the geographic data of an exit including the gradient, as taught by Totzke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to automatically assist a motor vehicle when driving onto an exit of a main road (Totzke, Paragraph 0007).
In re claim 11, Kanoh teaches the following:
wherein a traffic density and/or a presence of trucks in the second traffic lane is determined, and the preparation of the lane change maneuver is adapted in a manner which is dependent on the traffic density and/or the presence of the trucks (Fig.5, and Paragraphs 0047-0051)
In re claim 12, Kanoh teaches the following:
wherein in the case of the preparation of the lane change maneuver, the speed of the vehicle is reduced to a target speed, and the target speed and/or a distance from the exit, from which the target speed is reached, is adapted in a manner (Fig.5, and Paragraphs 0047-0051, Fig.6, S1-S2, S4-S9, Paragraphs 0052-0053, and 0057-0061)
However, Kanoh doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the target speed is reached, is adapted in a manner which is dependent on the determined gradient
Nevertheless, Totzke discloses a method for automatically assisting a motor vehicle when driving on an exit of a main road (Abstract) and teaches the following:
the target speed is reached, is adapted in a manner which is dependent on the determined gradient (Paragraphs 0007, 0012, 0015, 0019, and 0032-0035 “motivation to combine has been provided above”).
In re claim 13, Kanoh teaches the following:
wherein the speed of the vehicle is reduced in a plurality of steps, and the plurality of steps are adapted in a manner (Paragraphs 0038-0039)
However, Kanoh doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the plurality of steps are adapted in a manner which is dependent on the determined gradient
Nevertheless, Totzke discloses a method for automatically assisting a motor vehicle when driving on an exit of a main road (Abstract) and teaches the following:
the plurality of steps are adapted in a manner which is dependent on the determined gradient (Paragraphs 0014-0016, “motivation to combine has been provided above”).
In re claim 14, Kanoh teaches the following:
wherein in the case of the preparation of the lane change maneuver, a gap is sought between further road users in the second traffic lane, and a distance from the exit, from which distance the gap search is started, is adapted in a manner (Fig.5, and Paragraphs 0047-0051) which is dependent on the determined gradient
However, Kanoh doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a distance from the exit, from which distance the gap search is started, is adapted in a manner which is dependent on the determined gradient
Nevertheless, Totzke discloses a method for automatically assisting a motor vehicle when driving on an exit of a main road (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a distance from the exit, from which distance the gap search is started, is adapted in a manner which is dependent on the determined gradient (Paragraph 0031, “motivation to combine has been provided above”)
In re claim 15, Totzke teaches the following:
wherein in the case of the preparation of the lane change maneuver, at least one notice is output to a user of the vehicle, the outputting of the at least one notice being adapted to the determined gradient (Paragraphs 0017, 0024, and 0035)
In re claim 16, Kanoh teaches the following:
wherein the preparation of the lane change maneuver is adapted in a manner which is dependent on a known driving behavior of the user of the vehicle (Paragraph 0037)
In re claim 18, Kanoh teaches the following:
A vehicle comprising a system according to claim 17 (Fig.1 and Paragraph 0021)
In re claim 19, Kanoh teaches the following:
wherein the vehicle is a passenger motor car (Fig.1 and Paragraph 0021)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 03/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant admits on record that the term “adapting a vehicle speed” cannot be performed without physically operating the vehicle. Therefore, the rejection of claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/13/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanoh in view of Totzke have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanoh in view of Totzke and that Kanoh is silent about adapting a speed of the vehicle in preparation for a lane change maneuver from the first traffic lane to the second traffic lane, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. Kanoh, Paragraph 0047 discloses that the vehicle control apparatus 10 performs an automated lane change inside the lane-changeable region 130 based in part on the travel velocity of the user vehicle 100. However, in Paragraphs 0038, Kanoh discloses “obtains the travel velocity and travel trajectory for realizing this action”, i.e. travel velocity is a calculated value and in Paragraph 0039, Kanoh discloses “The vehicle control section 88 performs travel control relating to the automated control, in accordance with the action plan. For example, the vehicle control section 88 calculates the acceleration/deceleration for causing the user vehicle 100 to travel at the travel velocity obtained by the action planning section 86”. Furthermore, Paragraphs 0062 and 009 disclose that “If the user vehicle 100 is to accelerate during the lane change from the user lane 110 to the first other lane 114, the lane change control section 92 causes the user vehicle 100 to accelerate during the lane change from the first other lane 114 to the second other lane 116 as well”. Accordingly, the vehicle speed is calculated and adapted to perform the action plan.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669