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
The amendment of 06/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-24 are currently pending in the application. Claims 2-3 and 12-13 have been canceled.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-24 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the actuating step in each independent claim applies the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo. Specifically, the claimed invention improves the safety of motor vehicles.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 14 line 3 “in in” should read --in--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include further instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in the first specified amount of time” in lines 1-4 (emphasis added). Applicant’s original disclosure discloses the closely following condition is based on a first specified amount of time t1, e.g. 0.5 seconds (0040 lines 1-end), while the approaching condition is based on a second specified amount of time t2, e.g. 10 seconds (0046 lines 1-3). The limitation “the first specified amount of time” in claim 4 receives antecedent basis from the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is closely following (claim 1 lines 11-14). The limitation “the first specified amount of time” in claim 4 is considered new matter because Applicant’s original disclosure does not disclose the time headway used for the approaching condition may be the same as the time headway for the closely following condition. This rejection may be overcome by amending “the first specified amount of time” in claim 4 to recite --the second threshold amount of time--.
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected for the same reason, mutatis mutandis, as that provided for claim 4. The rejections may be overcome by amending the claims in a similar manner to that proposed for claim 4 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4, 14, and 23 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 4 recites the limitation “wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include further instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in the first specified amount of time” in lines 1-4 (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the limitation “the first specified amount of time” should recite “the second threshold amount of time.” For examination purposes the limitation “the first specified amount of time” has been considered as --the second threshold amount of time--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include further instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in the first specified amount of time” in lines 1-4 (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the limitation “the first specified amount of time” should recite “the second threshold amount of time.” For examination purposes the limitation “the first specified amount of time” has been considered as --the second threshold amount of time--.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include further instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in the first specified amount of time” in lines 1-4 (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the limitation “the first specified amount of time” should recite “the second threshold amount of time.” For examination purposes the limitation “the first specified amount of time” has been considered as --the second threshold amount of time--.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9-11, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RODRIGUEZ (US 10,372,131) in view of SU (US 10,466,717) and UENOYAMA (US 11,891,079).
Regarding claim 1, RODRIGUEZ discloses a system, comprising:
a computer (602) that includes a processor (614) and a memory (616)(col. 9 lines 3-4), the memory including instructions executable by the processor to (col. 11 lines 13-19):
determine that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (implied, i.a. col. 3 lines 13-20);
make a lane change determination (col. 3 lines 18-20) based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is closely following the host vehicle (i.a. within a predetermined distance, col. 3 line 15); and
in response to the lane change determination, actuate a component of the host vehicle (implied, col. 3 lines 18-20).
RODRIGUEZ further discloses wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is closely following include instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance based upon the speed of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 37-46) but is silent regarding how the threshold distance is obtained.
RODRIGUEZ is not relied upon to teach the threshold distance is a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time as claimed.
SU teaches instructions (col. 24 lines 24-26) to determine that a rearward vehicle is closely following (col. 6 lines 12-14) include instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time (e.g., 2 or 3 seconds, col. 6 lines 22-31).
Absent guidance from RODRIGUEZ on how the threshold distance is obtained, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the threshold distance of RODRIGUEZ as taught by SU to provide a dynamic threshold that automatically adjusts to varying vehicle speeds. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in calculating the threshold distance in this fashion in the practice of Applicant’s invention.
RODRIGUEZ does not disclose the instructions to make a lane change determination (col. 3 lines 18-20) based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle as claimed.
UENOYAMA teaches instructions to make a lane change determination (OP105 flows to OP108, Fig. 4) based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle (OP105, Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 41 43), and
in response to the lane change determination, actuate a component of the host vehicle (OP108, Fig. 4, col. 11 lines 31-33),
wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle will reach the host vehicle in less than a second threshold amount of time (e.g., 3-10 seconds, col. 8 lines 47-49 and 58-60) that is different than the first specified amount of time (3-10 seconds includes teaching that is different than 2 or 3 seconds) to suppress worsening of flow of vehicles on a road (col. 2 lines 1-2, col. 3 line 62 - col. 4 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the instructions of RODRIGUEZ, which already prompts a host vehicle to change lanes when a rearward vehicle is closely following, to also change lanes when a rearward vehicle is approaching as taught by UENOYAMA to suppress worsening of flow of vehicles on the road.
It is noted that the determination of a rearward vehicle is approaching and the determination of a rearward vehicle closely following are performed in parallel in Applicant’s disclosed invention (Fig. 5), and that an affirmative determination in either process results in the lane change determination (n.b. OR operator at S508, Fig. 5).
RODRIGUEZ teaches instructions to make a lane change determination based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle and determining whether the rearward vehicle in the passing lane is closely following the host vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
RODRIGUEZ further discloses wherein the determination that the rearward vehicle is closely following (col. 14 lines 13-15) is based on distance information received from a host vehicle sensor (camera, col. 13 line 32)(col. 14 lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 10, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
RODRIGUEZ discloses the instructions determine that the host vehicle is in the passing lane of a highway (implied, i.a. col. 3 lines 13-20).
RODRIGUEZ is silent regarding how this determination is made.
UENOYAMA teaches instructions to determine that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (OP101, Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 20-21) based on lane attributes identified by a host vehicle camera (implied/inherent, col. 6 lines 54-57).
Absent guidance from RODRIGUEZ on how to determine that the host vehicle is in the passing lane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine that the host vehicle is in the passing lane in RODRIGUEZ based on lane attributes identified by a host vehicle camera as taught by UENOYAMA to determine whether the vehicle is in the passing lane of a highway.
Regarding claim 11, RODRIGUEZ discloses a method, comprising:
determining that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (implied, i.a. col. 3 lines 13-20);
making a lane change determination (col. 3 lines 18-20) based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is closely following the host vehicle (i.a. within a predetermined distance, col. 3 line 15); and
in response to the lane change determination, actuating a component of the host vehicle (implied, col. 3 lines 18-20).
RODRIGUEZ further discloses wherein determining that the rearward vehicle is closely following includes determining that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance based upon the speed of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 37-46) but is silent regarding how the threshold distance is obtained.
RODRIGUEZ is not relied upon to teach the threshold distance is a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time as claimed.
SU teaches determining that a rearward vehicle is closely following (col. 6 lines 12-14) includes determining that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time (e.g., 2 or 3 seconds, col. 6 lines 22-31).
Absent guidance from RODRIGUEZ on how the threshold distance is obtained, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtained the threshold distance of RODRIGUEZ as taught by SU to provide a dynamic threshold that automatically adjusts to varying vehicle speeds. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in calculating the threshold distance in this fashion in the practice of Applicant’s invention.
RODRIGUEZ does not disclose making the lane change determination (col. 3 lines 18-20) based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle as claimed.
UENOYAMA teaches making a lane change determination (OP105 flows to OP108, Fig. 4) based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle (OP105, Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 41 43), and
in response to the lane change determination, actuate a component of the host vehicle (OP108, Fig. 4, col. 11 lines 31-33),
wherein determining that the rearward vehicle is approaching includes determining that the rearward vehicle will reach the host vehicle in less than a second threshold amount of time (e.g., 3-10 seconds, col. 8 lines 47-49 and 58-60) that is different than the first specified amount of time (3-10 seconds includes teaching that is different than 2 or 3 seconds) to suppress worsening of flow of vehicles on a road (col. 2 lines 1-2, col. 3 line 62 - col. 4 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of RODRIGUEZ, which already prompts a host vehicle to change lanes when a rearward vehicle is closely following, to also change lanes when a rearward vehicle is approaching as taught by UENOYAMA to suppress worsening of flow of vehicles on the road.
It is noted that the determination of a rearward vehicle is approaching and the determination of a rearward vehicle closely following are performed in parallel in Applicant’s disclosed invention (Fig. 5), and that an affirmative determination in either process results in the lane change determination (n.b. OR operator at S508, Fig. 5).
RODRIGUEZ teaches making a lane change determination based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle and determining whether the rearward vehicle in the passing lane is closely following the host vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the method of claim 11.
RODRIGUEZ further discloses wherein the determination that the rearward vehicle is closely following (col. 14 lines 13-15) is based on distance information received from a host vehicle sensor (camera, col. 13 line 32)(col. 14 lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 20, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the method of claim 11.
RODRIGUEZ discloses determining that the host vehicle is in the passing lane of a highway (implied, i.a. col. 3 lines 13-20).
RODRIGUEZ is silent regarding how this determination is made.
UENOYAMA teaches instructions to determine that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (OP101, Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 20-21) based on location information from a host vehicle GNSS sensor (GPS, col. 7 lines 1-10).
Absent guidance from RODRIGUEZ on how to determine that the host vehicle is in the passing lane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine that the host vehicle is in the passing lane in RODRIGUEZ based on location information from a GNSS sensor as taught by UENOYAMA to determine whether the vehicle is in the passing lane of a highway.
Regarding claim 21, RODRIGUEZ discloses a system, comprising:
a computer (602) that includes a processor (614) and a memory (616)(col. 9 lines 3-4), the memory including instructions executable by the processor to (col. 11 lines 13-19):
make a lane change determination (col. 3 lines 18-20) based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is closely following the host vehicle (i.a. within a predetermined distance, col. 3 line 15); and
in response to the lane change determination, actuate a component of the host vehicle (implied, col. 3 lines 18-20).
RODRIGUEZ further discloses wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is closely following include instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance based upon the speed of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 37-46) but is silent regarding how the threshold distance is obtained.
RODRIGUEZ is not relied upon to teach the threshold distance is a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time as claimed.
SU teaches instructions (col. 24 lines 24-26) to determine that a rearward vehicle is closely following (col. 6 lines 12-14) include instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time (e.g., 2 or 3 seconds, col. 6 lines 22-31).
Absent guidance from RODRIGUEZ on how the threshold distance is obtained, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the threshold distance of RODRIGUEZ as taught by SU to provide a dynamic threshold that automatically adjusts to varying vehicle speeds. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in calculating the threshold distance in this fashion in the practice of Applicant’s invention.
RODRIGUEZ does not disclose the instructions to make a lane change determination (col. 3 lines 18-20) based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle as claimed.
UENOYAMA teaches instructions to make a lane change determination (OP105 flows to OP108, Fig. 4) based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle (OP105, Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 41 43), and
in response to the lane change determination, actuate a component of the host vehicle (OP108, Fig. 4, col. 11 lines 31-33),
wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle will reach the host vehicle in less than a second threshold amount of time (e.g., 3-10 seconds, col. 8 lines 47-49 and 58-60) that is different than the first specified amount of time (3-10 seconds includes teaching that is different than 2 or 3 seconds) to suppress worsening of flow of vehicles on a road (col. 2 lines 1-2, col. 3 line 62 - col. 4 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the instructions of RODRIGUEZ, which already prompts a host vehicle to change lanes when a rearward vehicle is closely following, to also change lanes when a rearward vehicle is approaching as taught by UENOYAMA to suppress worsening of flow of vehicles on the road.
It is noted that the determination of a rearward vehicle is approaching and the determination of a rearward vehicle closely following are performed in parallel in Applicant’s disclosed invention (Fig. 5), and that an affirmative determination in either process results in the lane change determination (n.b. OR operator at S508, Fig. 5).
RODRIGUEZ teaches instructions to make a lane change determination based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle and determining whether the rearward vehicle in the passing lane is closely following the host vehicle.
Claims 6, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RODRIGUEZ (US 10,372,131) in view of SU (US 10,466,717), UENOYAMA (US 11,891,079), and MAASS (US 9,576,483).
Regarding claim 6, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
RODRIGUEZ further discloses wherein the instructions include further instructions to determine that a lane adjacent to the passing lane is clear before causing the host vehicle to change lanes from the passing lane into the adjacent lane (col. 12 line 67 - col. 13 line 2).
RODRIGUEZ is silent regarding whether determining the adjacent lane is clear includes determining that a gap exists in the adjacent lane as claimed.
MAASS teaches determining that a gap exists between a forward adjacent vehicle and a rearward adjacent vehicle in an adjacent lane (abstract lines 4-7) from which lane change options are ascertained (abstract lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the determining that the passing lane is clear in RODRIGUEZ to further include determining that a gap exists in the adjacent lane as taught by MAASS so that the host vehicle may be moved into a gap in the adjacent lane safely and avoid causing an accident.
Regarding claim 16, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the method of claim 11.
RODRIGUEZ further discloses determining that a lane adjacent to the passing lane is clear before causing the host vehicle to change lanes from the passing lane into the adjacent lane (col. 12 line 67 - col. 13 line 2).
RODRIGUEZ is silent regarding whether determining the adjacent lane is clear includes determining that a gap exists in the adjacent lane as claimed.
MAASS teaches determining that a gap exists between a forward adjacent vehicle and a rearward adjacent vehicle in an adjacent lane (abstract lines 4-7) from which lane change options are ascertained (abstract lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the determining that the passing lane is clear in RODRIGUEZ to further include determining that a gap exists in the adjacent lane as taught by MAASS so that the host vehicle may be moved into a gap in the adjacent lane safely and avoid causing an accident.
Regarding claim 22, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 21.
RODRIGUEZ further discloses wherein the instructions include further instructions to determine that a lane adjacent to the passing lane is clear before causing the host vehicle to change lanes from the passing lane into the adjacent lane (col. 12 line 67 - col. 13 line 2).
RODRIGUEZ is silent regarding whether determining the adjacent lane is clear includes determining that a gap exists in the adjacent lane as claimed.
MAASS teaches determining that a gap exists between a forward adjacent vehicle and a rearward adjacent vehicle in an adjacent lane (abstract lines 4-7) from which lane change options are ascertained (abstract lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the determining that the passing lane is clear in RODRIGUEZ to further include determining that a gap exists in the adjacent lane as taught by MAASS so that the host vehicle may be moved into a gap in the adjacent lane safely and avoid causing an accident.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RODRIGUEZ (US 10,372,131) in view of SU (US 10,466,717), UENOYAMA (US 11,891,079), and TOMESCU (US 11,148,669, provided by Applicant on 08/01/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 7, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
RODRIGUEZ discloses in response to the lane change determination, actuate a component of the host vehicle (implied, col. 3 lines 18-20).
RODRIGUEZ is silent regarding whether the component is an actuator of a steering system.
TOMESCU teaches when a rearward vehicle (B, Fig. 6) in the passing lane (col. 6 lines 56-57) is approaching a host vehicle (A, Fig. 6), actuate an actuator of a steering system (steering unit, col. 4 line 46) of the host vehicle (col. 7 lines 4-8) so that if a vehicle is approaching the host vehicle at such a high speed that the driver is not left with sufficient reaction time to change lanes, the lane change is preferably automatically initiated (col. 4 lines 41-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of RODRIGUEZ to automatically initiate the lane change via an actuator of a steering system as taught by TOMESCU so that if a vehicle is approaching the host vehicle at such a high speed that the driver is not left with sufficient reaction time to change lanes, the lane change is preferably automatically initiated.
Regarding claim 8, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 7.
RODRIGUEZ as modified currently teaches wherein the instructions include further instructions to actuate the actuator of the steering system to move the host vehicle out of the passing lane (as taught by Tomescu above, Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 41-46, col. 6 lines 56-57, col. 7 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 17, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the method of claim 11.
RODRIGUEZ discloses in response to the lane change determination, actuate a component of the host vehicle (implied, col. 3 lines 18-20).
RODRIGUEZ is silent regarding whether the component is an actuator of a steering system.
TOMESCU teaches when a rearward vehicle (B, Fig. 6) in the passing lane (col. 6 lines 56-57) is approaching a host vehicle (A, Fig. 6), actuate an actuator of a steering system (steering unit, col. 4 line 46) of the host vehicle (col. 7 lines 4-8) so that if a vehicle is approaching the host vehicle at such a high speed that the driver is not left with sufficient reaction time to change lanes, the lane change is preferably automatically initiated (col. 4 lines 41-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of RODRIGUEZ to automatically initiate the lane change via an actuator of a steering system as taught by TOMESCU so that if a vehicle is approaching the host vehicle at such a high speed that the driver is not left with sufficient reaction time to change lanes, the lane change is preferably automatically initiated.
Regarding claim 18, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the method of claim 17.
RODRIGUEZ as modified currently teaches wherein the instructions include further instructions to actuate the actuator of the steering system to move the host vehicle out of the passing lane (as taught by Tomescu above, Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 41-46, col. 6 lines 56-57, col. 7 lines 4-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 14, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 15, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 23, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the concept of determining a rearward approaching vehicle based on a headway distance of the rearward vehicle being less than a distance covered by the rearward vehicle in a specified amount of time.
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 24, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the concept of determining a rearward vehicle approaching based on determining the time headway of the rearward vehicle being greater than a low threshold amount of time.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 06/24/2026.
Applicant’s arguments that each of the references individually fail to disclose the limitation “make a lane change determination based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle and determining whether the rearward vehicle in the passing lane is closely following the host vehicle” have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Uenoyama teaches “make a lane change determination based on determining whether a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching the host vehicle; and in response to the lane change determination, actuate a component of the host vehicle” to change lanes from the passing lane (see citations in rejections hereinabove) and Rodriguez teaches “make a lane change determination based on determining whether the rearward vehicle in the passing lane is closely following the host vehicle; and in response to the lane change determination, actuate a component of the host vehicle” to change lanes from the passing lane (see citations in rejections hereinabove). Furthermore, it appears obvious to combine the two related concepts in the same system.
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 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 MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (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 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights