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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 10/3/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-172046 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. See corresponding examiner attached non-certified copy JP2025062789A. Further, see Priority Document Exchange Failure Status Report mailed 3/3/25.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1,4,5 l 1 or 2 recite typographical error of “waring” which was intended to be “warning.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-3 objected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
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 1-5 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.
The preamble of claims 1,4,5 recites controlling a vehicle so that it does not deviate from the travel area when the host vehicle deviates from the travel area. This statement is contradictory. If the vehicle deviates from the travel area it is not being controlled to not deviate from the travel area. It cannot be determined if the vehicle is controlled to stay in the travel area or if the vehicle control is merely intended to keep the vehicle in the travel area with permissible intrusions outside the travel area. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined and are therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examining the statement “or when the host vehicle deviates from the travel area” will be taken as optional, examiner suggests but does not require removing the language. Claims 2-3 rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
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) 1,4,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Takahashi US 2023/0059106.
In Re 1, Takahashi teaches A driving support apparatus (title) configured to execute, as a deviation control, at least one of a deviation waring (see objection above)(S130 S200 fig 4, 190 fig 2) for informing a driver of a host vehicle (abstract 1, fig 1) that the host vehicle deviates from a travel area (120,130 fig 2) in which the host vehicle is traveling and a vehicle control (160,170,180 fig 2) for controlling a travel state of the host vehicle so that the host vehicle does not deviate from the travel area (lane departure prevention) , when there is a possibility that the host vehicle may deviate (lane departure yes S110 fig 4) from the travel area or (optional) (also see 35 USC 112b rejection above) when the host vehicle deviates from the travel area, wherein, the driving support apparatus configured to:
suspend or terminate the deviation control when an override condition is satisfied while the deviation control is being executed, the override condition being a condition that is satisfied when a steering index value related to a steering operation performed by the driver (S140YES into S160) is equal or greater than a threshold (first override threshold value); and
make the override condition more difficult to be satisfied (second override threshold value greater than first, para 10) when there is a rear approaching vehicle (S120 yes) in the travel area than when there is no rear approaching vehicle in the travel area, the rear approaching vehicle being a vehicle approaching the host vehicle from a rear of the host vehicle (at least all figs and paras).
In Re 4, the driving support method of claim 4 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Takahashi as described above, see especially fig 4 paras 42-46.
In Re 5, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute , as a deviation control of claim 5 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Takahashi as described above, see especially fig 2 item 100 and paras 25-31.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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. Note the above 35 USC 112b rejection and claim objection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious when there is the rear approaching vehicle and the rear approaching vehicle indicates an intention to change lanes, make the override condition on a side of a lane change destination of the rear approaching vehicle of the right override condition and the left override condition more difficult to be satisfied than when there is no rear approaching vehicle in combination with the other claim limitations.
The closest prior art not applied includes Loussaut et al 2020/0391793 teaches right and left steering indexes para 113.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747