DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Rejection is in response to the remarks filed on 12/10/2025.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending.
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 .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10/20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et a. (US 2021/0024059).
As to claim 1 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus for a vehicle, the driver-assistance apparatus comprising:
a stability control program arranged to provide vehicle stability during operation of the vehicle (figure 6);
a first lane-aligning program arranged to maintain the vehicle substantially at center of a road lane during operation of the vehicle (paragraph 0075);
a second lane-aligning program arranged to maintain the vehicle substantially at outer edges of a road lane during operation of the vehicle (shown in figures 7 and paragraph 0123); and
a vehicle controller arranged to switch from the first lane-aligning program to the second lane-aligning program when the first lane-aligning program is running and the stability control program is invoked as the first lane-aligning program is running (paragraph 0075 discloses the lane centering and the figure 6 discloses the override when avoiding a collision).
As to claim 2 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein (i) the first lane- aligning program comprises a lane-centering assist program, and (ii) the second lane- aligning program comprises a lane-keeping assist program (paragraph 0075).
As to claim 3 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising:
a combination of a forward-looking camera (figure 1 #11) and a forward-looking radar (figure 1 #12).
As to claim 4 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 3 further comprising:
a combination of a left-side-looking camera, a left-side-looking radar, a right-side-looking camera, and a right-side-looking radar (paragraph 0016 and 0017)
The figure 2 discloses front, left and right facing cameras and radar.
As to claim 5 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 3 further comprising:
a processor for monitoring a number of signals received from the combination of a forward-looking camera and a forward-looking radar to provide a number of signals to the first lane-aligning program and the second lane-aligning program. (paragraph 0077 -0080)
As to claim 6 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising:
a steering actuator (paragraph 0080 and figure 1#32);
a steering controller arranged to control the steering actuator in response to a control signal from the vehicle controller. (paragraph 0086 and 0087).
As to claim 7 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising:
a number of driver-alerting devices arranged to alert a vehicle driver when the first lane-aligning program is switched to the second lane-aligning program (paragraph 0083 and 0097).
As to claim 8 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the number of driver- alerting devices includes a combination of visual alerting devices (turn signal 0097), audible alerting devices (0083), and haptic alerting devices (braking or acceleration 0071).
As to claim 10 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus for a vehicle, the driver-assistance apparatus comprising:
a lane-centering assist program (paragraph 0075);
a lane-keeping assist program (paragraph 0075); and
means for, without vehicle driver intervention, automatically switching from the lane-centering assist program to the lane-keeping program when the lane-centering assist program is running and a vehicle stability control program is invoked as the lane- centering assist program is running (figure 6).
As to claim 11 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 10 further comprising:
a combination of a forward-looking camera (figure 1 # 11) and a forward-looking radar (figure 1 #12).
As to claim 12 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 11 further comprising:
a combination of a left-side-looking camera, a left-side-looking radar, a right-side-looking camera, and a right-side-looking radar. (paragraph 0016 and 0017)
The figure 2 discloses front, left and right facing cameras and radar.
As to claim 13 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 11 further comprising:
a processor for monitoring a number of signals received from the combination of a forward-looking camera and a forward-looking radar to provide a number of signals to the lane-centering assist program and the lane-keeping assist program. (paragraph 0077 -0080).
As to claim 14 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 10 further comprising:
a steering actuator (figure 1 #32);
a steering controller arranged to control the steering actuator when the lane- centering assist program is automatically switched to the lane-keeping assist program. (paragraph 0086 and 0087)
As to claim 15 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 10 further comprising:
a number of driver-alerting devices arranged to alert a vehicle driver when the lane-centering assist program is automatically switched to the lane-keeping assist program. (paragraph 0083 and 0097).
As to claim 16 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the number of driver-alerting devices includes a combination of visual alerting devices (turn signal 0097), audible alerting devices (0083), and haptic alerting devices (braking or acceleration 0071).
As to claim 17 Miyamoto discloses a method for a vehicle having stability control arranged to provide vehicle stability during operation of the vehicle, the method comprising:
switching from a first lane-aligning program to a second lane-aligning program when the first lane-aligning program is running and stability control is invoked as the first lane-aligning program is running. (paragraph 0075 discloses that both programs run together).
As to claim 18 Miyamoto discloses a method according to claim 17 further comprising:
controlling a steering actuator in response to switching from the first lane-aligning program to the second lane-aligning program. (paragraph 0018)
As to claim 19 Miyamoto discloses a method according to claim 17 further comprising:
alerting a vehicle driver when the first lane-aligning program is switched to the second lane-aligning program (paragraph 0071).
As to claim 20 Miyamoto discloses a method according to claim 19 wherein alerting a vehicle driver when the first lane-aligning program is switched to the second lane-aligning program includes:
alerting the vehicle driver with a combination of visual alerts, audible alerts, and haptic alerts when the first lane-centering program is switched to the second lane- centering program. (paragraph 0083 and 0097).
As to claim 21 Miyamoto discloses a method according to claim 17 further comprising:
monitoring a number of signals received from a combination of a forward-looking camera and a forward-looking radar to provide a number of signals to the first lane- aligning program and the second lane-aligning program. (paragraph 0077 -0080).
As to claim 22 Miyamoto discloses a method according to claim 21 further comprising:
monitoring a number of signals received from a combination of a left-side-looking camera, a left-side-looking radar, a right-side-looking camera, and a right-side- looking radar to provide a number of signals to the first lane- aligning program and the second lane-aligning program. (Paragraph 0077 -0080)
As to claim 23 Miyamoto discloses a method according to claim 17, wherein the method is performed by a computer having a memory executing one or more programs of instructions which are tangibly embodied in a program storage medium readable by the computer. (paragraph 0066).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al. (US 2021/0024059) in further view of Anderson et al. (US 2012/0083947).
As to claim 9 Miyamoto discloses a driver-assistance apparatus according to claim 1, including discloses a yaw (paragraph 0067) however is silent to wherein the stability control program comprises a combination of a roll control and a yaw control.
Anderson discloses it is well known in the art to have a vehicle with control assistance including a yaw and roll stability control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle safety controls to include a yaw and roll control to prevent accidents as disclosed in Anderson paragraph 0003.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose a stability control program. Respectfully the examiner disagrees. The examiner interpreted the word program differently from the applicant intended it to be interpreted. The applicant should narrow the claim language to point the word program to the “system”. As it stands the citation included with the applicants’ arguments on page 2 give two definitions for program as follows “a vehicle controller arranged to switch from the first lane-aligning program to the second lane-aligning program when the first lane-aligning program is running and the stability control program is invoked as the first lane-aligning program is running." Paragraph 18 of the present application states the stability control program 140 provides yaw control and roll control during operation of the vehicle. An example of the stability control program 140 is disclosed as an electronic stability control (ESC) system, such as the Bendix® ESP® system.” This give interpretation as both a set of computer instructions (program) and a black box (system). The examiner interpreted the program as its normal inferred meaning, a set of computer instructions. These instructions are part of a stability control program as collision avoidance is a stability control program.
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 SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747