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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Canceled:
Objected to:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of allowability of Claims
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Before a proper review of the pending rejection of the claims, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103, can be conducted, the subject matter encompassed by the claims must be reasonably understood without resort to speculation. . (See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), MPEP §2143.03(I), MPEP §2173.06(II)¶2; “it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions”; “a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”). See Steele, 305 F.2d at 862 (a prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language); see also Wilson, 424 F.2d at 1385 (“If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious — the claim becomes indefinite.”).
The indefiniteness of claims 1–4 as set forth on June 27, 2024, precluded evaluation of the claims for anticipation and/or obviousness. See Steele, 305 F.2d at 862–63. 37 C.F.R. §1.104(b) provides that “examiner’s action will be complete as to all matters, except that in appropriate circumstances, such as misjoinder of invention, fundamental defects in the application, and the like, the action of the examiner may be limited to such matters before further action is made.” As set forth on June 27, 2024, separate rejections that a claims were (1) indefinite and (2) unpatentable over the prior art would have been inconsistent because, if the claim is truly indefinite (it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions), it cannot be determined whether it does or does not read on the prior art. Therefore, the rejection as set forth infra, is final and has been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A vehicle control device comprising:
a processor the processor configured to act as:
a tracking target vehicle setting unit configured to set a first preceding vehicle, which is traveling ahead of an own vehicle in an adjacent lane adjacent to an own lane in which the own vehicle is traveling, as a tracking target vehicle () that has a sign of performing a lane change from the adjacent lane to the own lane, See at least ¶¶, 0066-0067
in response to determining that a traveling state of the first preceding vehicle and a traveling state of a second preceding vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane ahead of the first preceding vehicle satisfy a predetermined condition; See at least ¶¶, 0066-0067
a deceleration control unit configured to execute a first deceleration control for decelerating the own vehicle at a predetermined first deceleration (), See at least ¶¶in response to determining that the first preceding vehicle () is set as the tracking target vehicle by the tracking target vehicle setting; See at least ¶¶ and
a lane change information acquisition unit configured to perform vehicle-to-vehicle communication between the own vehicle and the first preceding vehicle during execution of the first deceleration control by the deceleration control unit, and configured to acquire a lane change information including information indicating whether the first preceding vehicle starts a lane change to the own lane through the vehicle-to-vehicle communication; See at least ¶¶
wherein the deceleration control unit is configured to terminate the first deceleration control upon determining that the lane change information indicating that the first preceding vehicle does not start a lane change to the own lane is acquired by the lane change information acquisition unit, See at least ¶¶ and
configured to continue the first deceleration control upon determining that the lane change information indicating that the first preceding vehicle does not start a lane change to the own lane is not acquired by the lane change information acquisition unit. See at least ¶¶ ()
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the deceleration control unit is configured to execute a second deceleration control for decelerating the own vehicle at a predetermined second deceleration greater than the first deceleration, upon determining that the lane change information indicating that the first preceding vehicle starts a lane change to the own lane is acquired by the lane change information acquisition unit. See at least ¶¶; Examiner notes that emergency braking is performed in the case of cut in based on time to collision calculation. This would be a greater deceleration than the deceleration of ¶0068 to avoid a harsh maneuver.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
References Cited
R1: (US 20150321699)
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747