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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/15/26 has been entered
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura (US PG Pub No. 2020/0094875) in view of Mimura (2) (US PG Pub No 2019/0144004)
Regarding claim 1, Mimura teaches A vehicle configured to be able to automatically change lanes, the vehicle comprising:
a first processor (120 figure 3 and 160 paragraph 87) configured to recognize a surrounding vehicle present around the vehicle and to calculate a relative position of the surrounding vehicle with respect to the vehicle; and (paragraph 55 and 64)
a second processor (190 display controller paragraph 87) configured to display information to be provided to an occupant of the vehicle,
wherein the second processor is configured to:
display the surrounding vehicle at the relative position calculated by the first processor; (IMC and IMD figure 8)
display a mark showing that the vehicle is scheduled to perform an automatic lane change; and (IMB figure 7 paragraph 87 notification on image that notifies observer that subject of vehicle M is in state of auto lane change IMB)
Mimura does not explicitly teach however Mimura (2) teaches after displaying the mark, change a position of the mark in accordance with the relative position of the surrounding vehicle presenting at a destination driving lane. (paragraph 102 figure 8 host vehicle M with respect to L1 and L2… position information of vehicle M)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mimura based on the teachings of Mimura (2) to teach after displaying the mark, change a position of the mark in accordance with the relative position of the surrounding vehicle presenting at a destination driving lane. The motivation would be occupant can easily understand remaining distance until completion of lane change (Mimura (2) paragraph 102)
Regarding claim 2, Mimura teaches a third processor configured to automatically perform part or all of driving operations relating to acceleration, steering, and braking of the vehicle,
wherein the third processor is configured to control speed of the vehicle so that the mark approaches the vehicle. (160 figure 3 paragraph 63 and 96 figure 10).
Regarding claim 3, Mimura teaches wherein the third processor is configured to change lanes when the vehicle is positioned next to the mark. (S104-S122 figure 10)
Regarding claim 4, Mimura does not explicitly teach however Mimura (2) teaches wherein the second processor is configured to change a shape of the mark when a lane change is possible (628-4 figure 6 paragraph 92 advanced notice of lane changing of vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mimura based on the teachings of Mimura (2) to teach wherein the second processor is configured to change a shape of the mark when a lane change is possible. The motivation would be to give advanced notice of lane change (Mimura (2) paragraph 95)
Regarding claim 5, Mimura does not explicitly teach however Mimura (2) teaches giving symbolic animation for the purpose of informing lane change (paragraph 95 exampels of automation include external shape… polygon and the like… still of moving images).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to teach wherein the second processor is configured to change the mark from a line mark to a planar mark when the lane change is possible. The motivation would be to give advanced notice of lane change (Mimura (2) paragraph 95)
Regarding claim 6, Mimura teaches wherein the mark extends perpendicular to a direction of travel of the vehicle (IMB figure 7).
Regarding claim 7, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 8 and 9, see the rejection of claim 1 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Regarding claim 10, Mimura does not explicitly teach however Mimura (2) teaches wherein the mark is displayed in a space in which the lane change is scheduled to be performed. (figure 8 paragraph 102 vehicle M lane L1 and L2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mimura based on the teachings of Mimura (2) to teach wherein the mark is displayed in a space in which the lane change is scheduled to be performed. The motivation would be occupant can easily understand remaining distance until completion of lane change (Mimura (2) paragraph 102).
Regarding claim 11, Mimura does not explicitly teach however Mimura (2) teaches wherein the mark is displayed in a space in which the lane change is scheduled to be performed. (628-6 figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mimura based on the teachings of Mimura (2) to teach wherein the mark is displayed in a space in which the lane change is scheduled to be performed. The motivation would be occupant can easily understand remaining distance until completion of lane change (Mimura (2) paragraph 102).
Regarding claim 12, Mimura does not explicitly teach however Mimura (2) teaches wherein the mark is displayed in a space in which the lane change is scheduled to be performed. (628-6 figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mimura based on the teachings of Mimura (2) to teach wherein the mark is displayed in a space in which the lane change is scheduled to be performed. The motivation would be occupant can easily understand remaining distance until completion of lane change (Mimura (2) paragraph 102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
