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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
3. Claims 1, 4, and 6 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that “in response to on an approval action taken” should read as −in response to an approval action taken.−
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
5. Claims 1-5 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-3, and 5, have been included based on its dependency.
5. Claim 1 recites the limitation "proposing a lane change and making a lane change" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, it is unclear if the proposed lane change and the lane change made are the same. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the lanes changes are interpreted as the same. Claim 4 has the same limitations as Claim 1 except for it is a separate independent claim but is rejected for the same reasoning.
6. Claim 1 recites the limitation "cancelling a proposal of the lane change" in Line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, it is unclear if the proposal of the lane change that is canceled is the same as the proposed lane change to the first adjacent lane. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the proposals are interpreted as the same. Claim 4 has the same limitations as Claim 1 except for it is a separate independent claim but is rejected for the same reasoning.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-9, filed 5/13/2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1-7 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
9. Claims 6-7 are allowed.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter as the closest prior art references do not teach or render an obvious combination for the following limitations: “before execution of the lane change to the first adjacent lane begins and before the approval action is received from the passenger, continuing to propose the lane change to the first adjacent lane as long as the first distance is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is greater than the second threshold value, and the second threshold value is greater than zero; before the approval action is received from the passenger while proposing the lane change to the first adjacent, cancelling a proposal of the lane change when the first distance becomes less than the second threshold value.”
Independent Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter as the closest prior art references do not teach or render an obvious combination for the following limitations: “before execution of the lane change to the first adjacent lane begins and before the approval action is received from the passenger, continuing to propose the lane change to the first adjacent lane as long as the first distance is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is greater than the second threshold value, and wherein the second threshold value is greater than zero; before the approval action is received from the passenger while proposing the lane change to the first adjacent, cancelling a proposal of the lane change when the first distance becomes less than the second threshold value.”
Independent Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter as the closest prior art references do not teach or render an obvious combination for the following limitations: “in cases where the first distance becomes less than the first threshold value before execution of the lane change to the first adjacent lane begins and before the approval action is received from the passenger, continuing to propose the lane change to the lane adjacent to the lane on which the own vehicle travels until receiving the approval action or the first distance becomes less than or equal to a second threshold value.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights