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 .
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.
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a second target velocity" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation.
Claim(s) 2-9 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a lateral acceleration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation. Further claim 1 calculates the velocity profile so that a lateral acceleration is within a selected limit, so it is also unclear if this limitation further limits the scope of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 2 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
Claim 4 recites that the second segment extends from the location of the vehicle; however, claim 1 states that the second segment extends longitudinally from the first segment. Therefore, it is unclear if the second segment begins at the vehicle location or the first segment.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a vehicle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a second target velocity" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 10 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a lateral acceleration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation. Further claim 10 calculates the velocity profile so that a lateral acceleration is within a selected limit, so it is also unclear if this limitation further limits the scope of claim 10.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 11 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
Claim 13 recites that the second segment extends from the location of the vehicle; however, claim 10 states that the second segment extends longitudinally from the first segment. Therefore, it is unclear if the second segment begins at the vehicle location or the first segment.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a second target velocity" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 17 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
Claim 19 recites that the second segment extends from the location of the vehicle; however, claim 17 states that the second segment extends longitudinally from the first segment. Therefore, it is unclear if the second segment begins at the vehicle location or the first segment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, taken alone or in combination, teach acquiring a trajectory for a vehicle to perform a lane change maneuver within a time window and calculating a longitudinal velocity profile by blending the insertion velocity profile and the curve velocity profile, as defined, along with the other limitations of the independent claim(s). The Examiner could find no motivation to combine references to read on all the limitations without improper hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:30pm 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
