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
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on August 3, 2026. Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated Augst 3, 2026, Examiner withdrew prior 112(b) and art rejections and made a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 with newly found prior art.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed August 3, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
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.
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 1-6, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 2018/0211533; previously cited) in view of Teruo (JP 2010170385; newly cited) Lewandowski (US 2024/0059284; previously cited) and Hazelton (US 2016/0231746; previously cited).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Nakajima discloses a driving assistance system, non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions, that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to performed operation, and vehicle, respectively, comprising:
a memory configured to store a program for controlling the driver assistance system; and
at least one processor to execute the program to control driving of a vehicle based on camera information provided from a camera module configured to capture a surrounding image to generate the camera information representing an environment of the vehicle, and navigation information provided from a navigator associated with the vehicle (Nakajima, [0014] regarding a camera for imaging views in front of the host vehicle, [0019] regarding a navigation device indicating a travel route to a destination, & [0056] regarding an autonomous vehicle autonomously driving along a travel route. By autonomously driving the vehicle would have a controller to control driving of the vehicle and would use both the camera and navigation device for performing the control.),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
when the vehicle is to exit a road on which the vehicle is traveling, compare a distance to a diverging point of the road on which the vehicle is traveling with a first reference distance (Nakajima, Fig. 2C & [0033] regarding determining the distance from the current position of the host vehicle to a branch point reaches a third predetermined distance (e.g., two kilometers)); and
when the distance to the diverging point of the road on which the vehicle is traveling is shorter than the first reference distance, set a lane closest to the diverging point among lanes of the road as a first target lane (Nakajima, Fig. 2C & [0033] regarding informing the driver to take the rightmost lane, and go in the right direction two kilometer ahead); and
control the vehicle to perform lane changes to the first or second target lane (Nakajima, [0056] regarding the autonomous vehicle autonomously changing lanes).
Nakajima does not disclose when the vehicle is traveling in an on-ramp lane or an acceleration lane to enter main road lanes, accelerate the vehicle to a speed calculated based on a length of the on-ramp lane or the acceleration lane, a speed of another vehicle traveling in a lane closest to the on-ramp lane or the acceleration lane, and a traffic volume of the main road lanes;
when the vehicle is to enter the main road lanes, determine whether a distance to a next diverging point on the main road lanes is greater than a second reference distance;
when the vehicle is to enter the main road lanes and it is determined that the distance to the next diverging point on the main road lanes is less than the second reference distance, set one of the main road lanes other than a main road lane closest to a center line as a second target lane; and
when the vehicle is to enter main road lanes and it is determined that the distance to the next diverging point on the main road lanes is greater than the second reference distance, set, as the second target lane, another of the main road lanes closer to the center lane than the one of the main road lanes set for a case in which the distance to the next diverging point on the main road lanes is less than the second reference distance.
Teruo teaches when the vehicle is traveling in an on-ramp lane or an acceleration lane to enter main road lanes, accelerate the vehicle to a speed calculated based on a length of the on-ramp lane or the acceleration lane, a speed of another vehicle traveling in a lane closest to the on-ramp lane or the acceleration lane, and a traffic volume of the main road lanes (Teruo, [0005] & Fig. 7 regarding merging into a lane from an on-ramp lane, [0066] regarding a merging speed setting process first obtaining congestion information (i.e., traffic volume), [0067] regarding determining the difference between the average vehicle speed indicated by information acquired and the average speed of own vehicle, vehicle immediately ahead, and vehicle immediately behind is 10 km/h or more (i.e., speed of another vehicle), [0075-0078] regarding adjusting the merging speed based on the length of the lane (i.e., length of the lane)).
Nakajima and Teruo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle lane merging. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakajima to incorporate accelerating the vehicle in the merging lane to a speed based on congestion, other vehicle speed, and the length of the lane, as taught by Teruo, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety by having the vehicle adjust it’s speed to the driving environment.
Lewandowski teaches when the vehicle is to enter the main road lanes, determine whether a distance to a next diverging point on the main road lanes is greater than a second reference distance (Lewandowski, [0030] regarding determining the route specifies that the vehicle is to turn or exit within a predetermined distance when entering a roadway); and
when the vehicle is to enter the main road lanes and it is determined that the distance to the next diverging point on the main road lanes is less than the second reference distance, set one of the main road lanes other than a main road lane closest to a center line as a second target lane (Lewandowski, [0030] regarding maintaining the vehicle in a target travel lane closest to the exit ramp if the next exit or turn is within a predetermined distance when entering a roadway).
Nakajima and Lewandowski are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle lane determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakajima, as modified, to incorporate travelling in the lane closest to the exit if the next turn is within a predetermined distance, as taught by Lewandowski, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety by having the vehicle perform less lane changes than necessary.
Hazelton discloses when the vehicle is to enter main road lanes and it is determined that the distance to the next diverging point on the main road lanes is greater than the second reference distance, set, as the target lane, another of the main road lanes closer to the center lane than the one of the main road lanes set for a case in which the distance to the next diverging point on the main road lanes is less than the second reference distance (Hazleton, [0282] regarding the lane-selection strategy giving preference for the left lane when the vehicle remains a significant distance from the destination).
Nakajima and Hazelton are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle lane determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakajima, as modified, to incorporate travelling in the left lane if the next turn is significantly far away, as taught by Hazelton, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety by having the vehicle stay out of the lanes where other vehicles are entering and exiting the road.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, and Hazelton teaches the driving assistance system and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is configured to set the first reference distance based on at least one of a traffic volume on the road on which the vehicle is traveling or a lane in which the vehicle is traveling (Nakajima, Fig. 2C regarding the lane change being earlier when the vehicle is in a lane farther from the branch point & [0056] regarding shifting the points for changing lanes to earlier points if there is traffic congestion).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, and Hazelton teaches the driving assistance system and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is configured to set the first reference distance to be longer as a traffic volume on the road on which the vehicle is traveling is higher (Nakajima, [0056] regarding shifting the points for changing lanes to earlier points if there is traffic congestion).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, and Hazelton teaches the driving assistance system and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is configured to set the first reference distance to be longer as a lane in which the vehicle is traveling is farther from the diverging point of the road (Nakajima, Fig. 2C regarding the lane change being earlier when the vehicle is in a lane farther from the branch point).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, and Hazelton teaches the driving assistance system and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
change a reference lane, which is a lane closer to the first or second target lane among lanes next to a lane on which the vehicle is traveling, until the vehicle reaches the first or second target lane; and
move the vehicle to the reference lane so that the vehicle reaches the first or second target lane (Nakajima, Fig. 2C regarding the vehicle moving over one lane at a time until it reaches the rightmost lane. Since the vehicle is moving one lane at a time it sets the lane to the right as the reference lane and then moves into that lane and repeats this process until it is in the rightmost lane).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, and Hazelton teaches the driving assistance system and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is configured to move the vehicle to a diverged lane after the vehicle passes the diverging point of the road (Nakajima, Fig. 2C regarding an arrow pointing to the exit being part of the travel route which is after the branch point & [0056] regarding the autonomous vehicle autonomously traveling along the route).
Claim 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, and Hazelton as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, respectively, and further in view of Koh (US 2020/0217685; previously cited).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, and Hazelton teaches the driving assistance system and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
when the vehicle is to enter the main road lanes from another road (Teruo, [0005] & Fig. 7 regarding merging into a lane from an on-ramp lane)…
control the vehicle to move to a target lane after the vehicle passes the merging point of the main road lanes and the another road (Nakajima, [0056] regarding the autonomous vehicle autonomously traveling along the route).
Nakajima does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
when the vehicle is to enter the main road lanes from another road, compare a distance to a merging point of the main road lanes and the another road with a third reference distance; and
set one of the main road lanes as the second target lane when the distance to the merging point of the main road lanes and the another road is less than the third reference distance; and
control the vehicle to move to the second target lane after the vehicle passes the merging point of the main road lanes and the another road.
Koh teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
compare a distance to a merging point of the main road lanes and the another road with a third reference distance (Koh, [0054] regarding generating a maneuver guidance that the roadway lane will end with a lane merger at a specific distance. By generating the maneuver guidance at a specific distance, the vehicle would be comparing it's distance to the point with the specified distance.); and
set one of the main road lanes as the second target lane when the distance to the merging point of the main road lanes and the another road is less than the third reference distance (Koh, [0054] regarding generating a maneuver guidance when the roadway lane ends with a lane merger at a specific distance and the maneuver guidance including instructions to perform a lane change maneuver. Since the vehicle knows which lane it is it and that there is only one lane to merge into, it would repeatedly set the destination merge lane as the only option which would include after the distance to the merge point is less than the specified distance.).
Nakajima and Koh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle merging. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakajima, as modified, to incorporate determining the vehicle is at a distance less than a specific distance from a merge point and determine a lane to merge into, as taught by Koh, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety by knowing which lane to merge into on the main road.
Nakajima, as modified, teaches control the vehicle to move to the second target lane after the vehicle passes the merging point of the main road lanes and the another road (Controlling the vehicle, as disclosed by Nakajima, to the lane, as disclosed by Koh).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, Hazelton, and Koh as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, respectively, and further in view of Park (KR 20230016445; previously cited).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, Hazelton, and Koh teaches the driving assistance system and non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 7 and 17, respectively, but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
when at least one of the main road lanes is an exclusive lane, set an n-th lane (n is an integer of 2 or more) among the main road lanes as the second target; and
when the main road lanes have no exclusive lane, set an m-th lane (m is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and smaller than n) among the main road lanes as the second target lane.
Park teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
when at least one of the main road lanes is an exclusive lane, set an n-th lane (n is an integer of 2 or more) among the main road lanes as the second target lane (Park, [0052] regarding the driving lane being the first lane if there is not a bus-only lane); and
when the main road lanes have no exclusive lane, set an m-th lane (m is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and smaller than n) among the main road lanes as the second target lane (Park, [0053] regarding the driving lane being the second lane if there is a bus-only lane).
Nakajima and Park are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle lane determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakajima, as modified, to incorporate adjusting the target lane based on whether there’s a bus lane or not, as taught by Park, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety by ensuring the vehicle is not in a lane that is prohibited.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, and Hazelton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muller (US 2019/0384303; previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Nakajima in view of Teruo, Lewandowski, and Hazelton teaches the driving assistance system as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive the camera information and the navigation information through controller area network (CAN) communication with the camera module and the navigation module, respectively.
Muller teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive the camera information and the navigation information through controller area network (CAN) communication with the camera module and the navigation module, respectively (Muller, Fig. 6C regarding cameras, GNSS sensors and HD map & [0128] regarding all components being connected via a CAN bus 602).
Nakajima and Muller are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakajima, as modified, to incorporate using a CAN bus, as taught by Muller, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of having a method for the controller to communicate with the camera and navigation device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights