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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on February 4, 2026. Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that amended claim 1 is not anticipated by Nakajima (Applicant’s Response, pg. 12). The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that nothing in Lewandowski teaches or suggests that “when…it is determined that the distance…is greater than the second reference distance”, the computers sets the middle travel lane as the target lane (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14). The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that in Lewandowski, the lane programed for a case in which the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the exit ramp can be the same lane as the lane programed for a case in which the vehicle is out of a predetermined distance of the exit ramp (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14). The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Specification
Amendments to specification were received on February 4, 2026.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 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.
In claim 1, lines 20 and 23, claim 11, lines 16 and 19, and claim 20, lines 18 and 21, the limitation “the target lane” renders the claim indefinite as it appears that this is a different target lane than the one previously recited in claim 1, lines 14-15, claim 11, line 11, and claim 20, lines 12-13. The first target lane is in reference to a scenario when the vehicle is exiting a road while the second target lane line is in reference to a scenario when the vehicle is entering a main road.
In claim 1, line 26, claim 11, line 22, and claim 20, line 24, the limitation “control the vehicle to perform lane change to the target lane” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the exit target lane or the enter target lane.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 11-17, and 19 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 2018/0211533) in view of Lewandowski (US 2024/0059284) and Hazelton (US 2016/0231746).
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 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 target lane (Nakajima, [0056] regarding the autonomous vehicle autonomously changing lanes).
Nakajima does not disclose when the vehicle is to enter 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 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 the 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 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.
Lewandowski teaches when the vehicle is to enter 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 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 the 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 to incorporate travelling in the lane closest to the exit if the next turn is within a predetermined distance, as disclosed 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 disclosed 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 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 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 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 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 target lane among lanes next to a lane on which the vehicle is traveling, until the vehicle reaches the target lane; and
move the vehicle to the reference lane so that the vehicle reaches the 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 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).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Lewandowski and Hazelton, and further in view of Sato (US 6,115,652) and Koh (US 2020/0217685).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Nakajima in view of 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:
control the vehicle to move to the 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 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.
Sato teaches the vehicle is to enter the main road lanes from another road (Sato, Fig. 5 regarding a vehicle merging from a branch lane to a main lane).
Nakajima and Sato are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle lane changes. 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 entering a main road from another road, as disclosed by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling the vehicle to merge onto a highway.
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 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 disclosed 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.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Lewandowski, Hazelton, Sato and Koh, and further in view of Park (KR 20230016445).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Nakajima in view of Lewandowski, Hazelton, Sato 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 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 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 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 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 disclosed 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 Lewandowski and Hazelton, and further in view of Muller (US 2019/0384303).
Regarding claim 10, Nakajima in view of 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 disclosed 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
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 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
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights