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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendment with respect to amended claims 10 and 17 filed on 10/27/2025 with respect to the previous claim objection have been fully considered and thus withdraw the previous claim objection.
Applicant’s arguments/amendment with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and persuasive and thus withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 10 and 17.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and thus maintaining the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims 11 and 12.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 10 and 17 filed on 10/27/2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Talamonti et al (US 2018/0281854 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, recites a second starting time in preparation for the maneuvering of the vehicle from the second lane to the first lane via a second lane change maneuver limitation which is not clear as what is the difference between the “adjusting the first starting time” in claim 10 and “a second starting time”? it is unclear how the second starting time differs from the adjusted first starting time and how the first starting time is adjusted based on the speed adjustment at the second starting time?. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 12, recites the first starting time is adjusted in a range between an initial value and a minimum starting time limitation which is not clear as what is the initial value here means and also what the minimum starting time? It is not clear to the examiner what the metes and bounds of " a range between an initial value and a minimum starting time" are, from the teachings of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 10, 12-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Kanoh et al (US 2021/0300377 A1), (hereinafter Kanoh) in further view of Talamonti et al (US 2018/0281854 A1), (Hereinafter Talamonti).
Regarding claim 10, Kanoh discloses a method for maneuvering a vehicle on a multi-lane road, comprising: (see Kanoh fig 4 and paras “0006-0009”),
receiving a driving command for maneuvering the vehicle from a second lane of the road, across a first lane of the road, to an exit of the road (see Kanoh fig 4 and paras “0043”, “0058”, “0075-0076” and “0081-0083” “the driver provides approval or shows intent for a lane change by manipulating the blinker lever L” and “The action planning section 86 judges the approval of the driver based on the detection result of the lever sensor 58. The action planning section 86 performs the multiple lane change if the approval of the user has been acquired.” and “If the approval of the user has been obtained, the lane change control section 92 may make it unnecessary to obtain approval for a lane change to the second other lane 116 leading to the destination 122 that is to be performed after the approval has been obtained”),
adjusting a speed of the vehicle at a predetermined first starting time before the exit is reached by the vehicle and in preparation for maneuvering the vehicle from the second lane to the first lane via a first lane change maneuver (see Kanoh paras “0062”, “0078” and “0088-0089” “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. This is because a situation in which the user vehicle 100 accelerates during the lane change from the user lane 110 to the first other lane 114 means that the user vehicle 100 is moving from a low-speed lane toward a high-speed lane” regarding adjusting the speed of the vehicle during the first lane change from the user lane to the first lane before reaching to the final destination (i.e., a speed of the vehicle is adjusted starting from an original first starting time before the exit is reached by the vehicle)),
But Kanoh fails to explicitly teach checking whether the speed adjustment at the first starting time is accepted by a user of the vehicle; and adjusting the first starting time for a subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle on the multi-lane road or another multi-lane road based on the check of whether the speed adjustment at the first starting time is accepted.
However, Talamonti teaches checking whether the speed adjustment at the first starting time is accepted by a user of the vehicle (see Talamonti paras “0024-0025” and “0046” “This can be the case when computing device 115 is assisting an occupant by directing controllers 112, 113, 114 to maintain vehicle 110 speed at an occupant-selected level, e.g. adaptive speed control or “cruise control”, including executing lane change maneuvers.”),
and adjusting the first starting time for a subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle on the multi-lane road or another multi-lane road based on the check of whether the speed adjustment at the first starting time is accepted (see Talamonti paras “0024-0025”, “0046” and “0091-0092” “Determining the reaction time can be based on predetermined values and determining the occupant acceptance time based on the reaction time and the vehicle maneuver time. Determining the vehicle maneuver time can be based on the time during which vehicle can execute a lane change maneuver and determining the maneuver cancellation time based on determining the end of the lane change maneuver”, “Determining maneuver time as a time from the beginning of a first lane change maneuver to a time of the beginning of a last lane change maneuver and determining maneuver cancellation time as time remaining until the end of the lane change maneuver” and “At step 1806 computing device 115 begins a loop, first checking to see if the time bound determined in step 1802 has expired. If the answer is yes, process 1800 control passes to step 1808 where the authorization request displayed as a prompt to an occupant in step 1804 is canceled and process 1800 then ends. If the answer is no, control passes to step 1810, where computing device 115 checks to see if an authorization has been received from an occupant”).
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 Kanoh for vehicle control apparatus and vehicle control method “to determine the time-bound authorization and maneuvers timing”, as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0024-0025] – [0091-0092]) in order to improve safety and ensure that lane change maneuvers and associated speed control are executed only after confirmed user authorization within an appropriate reaction and maneuver time window.
Regarding claim 12, Kanoh discloses wherein the first starting time is adjusted in a range between an initial value and a minimum starting time (see Kanoh paras “0047” and “0067-0068” “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, the position of the branching path 120 (position of the destination 122), and the travel velocity of the user vehicle 100. The lane change time includes a wait time (surrounding area observation time) before lateral movement is started, movement time for the movement from the user lane 110 to the other lane 112 adjacent thereto, and adjustment time for adjusting the travel position in the other lane 112”).
Regarding claim 13, Kanoh discloses wherein the first starting time is additionally adjusted based on a known driving behavior of the user (see Kanoh para “0041” “The first category of automated lane change is a first lane change in which the vehicle control apparatus 10 proposes a lane change to the driver and, when the driver has accepted this proposal, the vehicle control apparatus 10 starts the automated lane change. The control performed by the vehicle control apparatus 10 when the first lane change is performed is referred to as the first lane change control. The second category of automated lane change is a second lane change in which the vehicle control apparatus 10 starts the automated lane change without requiring the approval of the driver.”).
Regarding claim 15, Kanoh fails to explicitly teach determining a current traffic density on the road wherein the adjustment of the first starting time is further based on the determined current traffic density.
However, Talamonti teaches determining a current traffic density on the road wherein the adjustment of the first starting time is further based on the determined current traffic density (see Talamonti paras “0024-0025”, “0046” and “0050-0055” “Determining the reaction time can be based on predetermined values and determining the occupant acceptance time based on the reaction time and the vehicle maneuver time. Determining the vehicle maneuver time can be based on the time during which vehicle can execute a lane change maneuver and determining the maneuver cancellation time based on determining the end of the lane change maneuver” and “Left lane traffic density 1504 and right lane traffic density 1506 graphs also include lines 1512, 1514 that indicate when traffic density 1508, 1510 can be low enough to permit a lane change maneuver to be executed. This is indicated by shaded regions 1520, 1522, 1526, 1528, 1530 that show time periods of allowable traffic density for lane change maneuvers for adjacent left and right lanes”).
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 Kanoh for vehicle control apparatus and vehicle control method “to determine the traffic density of the adjacent lanes”, as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0024-0025] – [0050-0055]) in order to improve safety and ensure that lane change maneuvers and associated speed control are executed only after confirmed user authorization within an appropriate reaction and maneuver time window.
Regarding claim 16, Kanoh discloses wherein before the first lane change maneuver from the second lane to the first lane, a preliminary lane change maneuver from a third lane of the road to the second lane is prepared for (see Kanoh figs 4 & 5).
Regarding claim 17, Kanoh discloses a system for a vehicle, comprising: a computer-implemented driver assistance system configured to: (see Kanoh fig 4, claim 1 and paras “0006-0009”),
receive a driving command for maneuvering the vehicle from a second lane of the road, across a first lane of the road, to an exit of the road (see Kanoh fig 4 and paras “0043”, “0058”, “0075-0076” and “0081-0083” “the driver provides approval or shows intent for a lane change by manipulating the blinker lever L” and “The action planning section 86 judges the approval of the driver based on the detection result of the lever sensor 58. The action planning section 86 performs the multiple lane change if the approval of the user has been acquired.” and “If the approval of the user has been obtained, the lane change control section 92 may make it unnecessary to obtain approval for a lane change to the second other lane 116 leading to the destination 122 that is to be performed after the approval has been obtained”),
adjust a speed of the vehicle at a predetermined first starting time before the exit is reached by the vehicle and in preparation for maneuvering the vehicle from the second lane to the first lane via a first lane change maneuver (see Kanoh paras “0062”, “0078” and “0088-0089” “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. This is because a situation in which the user vehicle 100 accelerates during the lane change from the user lane 110 to the first other lane 114 means that the user vehicle 100 is moving from a low-speed lane toward a high-speed lane” regarding adjusting the speed of the vehicle during the first lane change from the user lane to the first lane before reaching to the final destination (i.e., a speed of the vehicle is adjusted starting from an original first starting time before the exit is reached by the vehicle)),
But Kanoh fails to explicitly teach check whether the speed adjustment at the first starting time is accepted by a user of the vehicle and adjust the first starting time for a subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle on the multi-lane road or another multi-lane road based on the check of whether the speed adjustment at the first starting time is accepted.
However, Talamonti teaches check whether the speed adjustment at the first starting time is accepted by a user of the vehicle (see Talamonti paras “0024-0025” and “0046” “This can be the case when computing device 115 is assisting an occupant by directing controllers 112, 113, 114 to maintain vehicle 110 speed at an occupant-selected level, e.g. adaptive speed control or “cruise control”, including executing lane change maneuvers.”),
and adjust the first starting time for a subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle on the multi-lane road or another multi-lane road based on the check of whether the speed adjustment at the first starting time is accepted (see Talamonti paras “0024-0025”, “0046” and “0091-0092” “Determining the reaction time can be based on predetermined values and determining the occupant acceptance time based on the reaction time and the vehicle maneuver time. Determining the vehicle maneuver time can be based on the time during which vehicle can execute a lane change maneuver and determining the maneuver cancellation time based on determining the end of the lane change maneuver”, “Determining maneuver time as a time from the beginning of a first lane change maneuver to a time of the beginning of a last lane change maneuver and determining maneuver cancellation time as time remaining until the end of the lane change maneuver” and “At step 1806 computing device 115 begins a loop, first checking to see if the time bound determined in step 1802 has expired. If the answer is yes, process 1800 control passes to step 1808 where the authorization request displayed as a prompt to an occupant in step 1804 is canceled and process 1800 then ends. If the answer is no, control passes to step 1810, where computing device 115 checks to see if an authorization has been received from an occupant”).
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 Kanoh for vehicle control apparatus and vehicle control method “to determine the time-bound authorization and maneuvers timing”, as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0024-0025] – [0091-0092]) in order to improve safety and ensure that lane change maneuvers and associated speed control are executed only after confirmed user authorization within an appropriate reaction and maneuver time window.
Regarding claim 18, Kanoh discloses a vehicle comprising a system (see Kanoh para “0002”).
Regarding claim 19, Kanoh discloses wherein the vehicle is a passenger motor car (see Kanoh paras “0005-0008”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Kanoh et al (US 2021/0300377 A1) (hereinafter Kanoh) in further view of Talamonti et al (US 2018/0281854 A1), (Hereinafter Talamonti) as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Ishikawa (US 2017/0018189 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kanoh fails to explicitly teach determining when the exit is reached by the vehicle, and the first starting time is further based on whether the vehicle has reached the exit or has driven past the exit.
However, Ishikawa teaches determining when the exit is reached by the vehicle, and the first starting time is further based on whether the vehicle has reached the exit or has driven past the exit (see Ishikawa paras “0049-0051” “whether or not the distance from the vehicle position to the branch point for guidance has reached a distance at which detection of a space that allows a lane change is started, that is, whether or not the vehicle position has reached a lateral detection start location at which detection of a space that allows a lane change is started, i.e. whether or not the vehicle has passed the lateral detection start location. The CPU 41 determines that the vehicle position has reached the lateral detection start location, i.e. the vehicle has passed the lateral detection start location, when the distance from the vehicle position to the branch point for guidance which requires a lane change ahead of the vehicle has become equal to or less than 3 km, for example”),
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 Kanoh for vehicle control apparatus and vehicle control method “to recognize the presence of the start point or the end point of the lane change prohibited section in advance, as taught by Ishikawa (paras. [0049-0051]) in order to recognize in advance, the timing when it becomes impossible to make a lane change or the timing when it becomes possible to make a lane change, which allows appropriate travel in consideration of a lane change.
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