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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
2. Claims 1, 4, and 6 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 9/17/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20200369281 A1) in view of Nishiguchi (US 20190176832 A1).
8. Regarding Claim 1, Sato teaches a driving assistance method for proposing a lane change and making a lane change by autonomous travel control, in response to an approval action taken by a passenger, the driving assistance method performed by a controller, the method comprising (Sato: [0002], [0024], and [0045]):
Detecting a preceding vehicle traveling in a lane on which an own vehicle travels at a speed lower than a vehicle speed of the own vehicle (Sato: [0035] and [0040]);
Determining that a first distance, the first distance being distance between another vehicle in a first adjacent lane adjacent to the lane on which the own vehicle travels and the own vehicle, is greater than or equal to a first threshold value (Sato: [0048] and [0081]);
Starting to propose a lane change to the first adjacent lane (Sato: [0058] and [0081]);
…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… (Sato: [0076] and [0088]);
While proposing the lane change to the first adjacent lane, receiving the approval action from the passenger, and causing a turn signal on a first adjacent lane side to operate (Sato: [0045], [0047], and [0102]).
And cancelling a proposal of the lane change when the first distance becomes less than the second threshold value (Sato: [0094]).
Sato fail to explicitly teach before execution of the lane change to the first adjacent lane begins, continuing to propose the lane change... and the second threshold value is greater than zero.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nishiguchi teaches before execution of the lane change to the first adjacent lane begins, 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 (Nishiguchi: [0054] and [0056]),
Wherein the first threshold value is greater than the second threshold value, and the second threshold value is greater than zero (Nishiguchi: [0060], [0063], and [0064] Note that Th3 is equivalent to the first threshold and Th4 is equivalent to the second threshold. Also, note that the first threshold is larger than the second threshold because A12r > A22r and the second threshold is greater than zero because A22r > 0. Fig. 5 displays the first period where the vehicle has not yet started to change lanes and Fig. 6 displays the second period where the vehicle has started the lane change and is partially in both lanes.);
And cancelling a proposal of the lane change when the first distance becomes less than the second threshold value (Nishiguchi: [0058]).
Sato and Nishiguchi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle lane change control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato to incorporate the teachings of Nishiguchi to continue the lane change as long as the first distance is greater than a second threshold before the execution of the lane change begins because it provides the benefit of controlling the vehicle based on unexpected events when changing lanes. This provides the benefit of using different thresholds during the process of a lane change to safely complete the maneuver.
9. Regarding Claim 2, Sato and Nishiguchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sato teaches in a case where the approval action is taken by the passenger while the lane change to the first adjacent lane is proposed, starting a lateral movement of the own vehicle in a direction toward the first adjacent lane side under a condition that the first distance is greater than or equal to the second threshold value (Sato: [0045] and [0085]).
10. Regarding Claim 3, Sato and Nishiguchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches setting a proposal point, the proposal point being a point at which a lane change to a second adjacent lane is proposed, based on a preset target travel route (Sato: [0063] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second adjacent lane is equivalent to the first adjacent lane.);
Proposing the lane change to the second adjacent lane when the own vehicle reaches the proposal point (Sato: [0065]);
Determining that a second approval action for a proposal of the lane change to the second adjacent lane is taken by the passenger (Sato: [0045], [0047], and [0102]);
Determining a second distance, the second distance being distance between another vehicle in the second adjacent lane and the own vehicle, is greater than or equal to the second threshold value, causing a turn signal on a second adjacent lane side to operate (Sato: [0047], [0085], and [0108]);
And in a case where the second distance is greater than or equal to the second threshold value, starting a lateral movement of the own vehicle in a direction toward the second adjacent lane side (Sato: [0045] and [0085]).
11. Regarding Claim 4, Sato teaches a driving assistance device configured to propose a lane change and make a lane change by autonomous travel control, in response to an approval action taken by a passenger, the driving assistance device comprising a controller configured to perform processing comprising (Sato: [0002], [0024], and [0045]):
Detecting a preceding vehicle traveling in a lane on which an own vehicle travels at a speed lower than a vehicle speed of an own vehicle (Sato: [0035] and [0040]);
Determining that a first distance, the first distance being distance between another vehicle in a first adjacent lane adjacent to the lane on which the own vehicle travels and the own vehicle, is greater than or equal to a first threshold value (Sato: [0048] and [0081]);
Starting to propose a lane change to the first adjacent lane (Sato: [0058] and [0081]);
…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… (Sato: [0076] and [0088]);
While proposing a lane change to the first adjacent lane, taking the approval action by the passenger, causing a turn signal on a first adjacent lane side to operate (Sato: [0045], [0047], and [0102]).
And cancelling a proposal of the lane change when the first distance becomes less than the second threshold value (Sato: [0094]).
Sato fail to explicitly teach before execution of the lane change to the first adjacent lane begins, continuing to propose the lane change... and the second threshold value is greater than zero.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nishiguchi teaches before execution of the lane change to the first adjacent lane begins, 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 (Nishiguchi: [0054] and [0056]),
Wherein the first threshold value is greater than the second threshold value, and the second threshold value is greater than zero (Nishiguchi: [0060], [0063], and [0064] Note that Th3 is equivalent to the first threshold and Th4 is equivalent to the second threshold. Also, note that the first threshold is larger than the second threshold because A12r > A22r and the second threshold is greater than zero because A22r > 0. Fig. 5 displays the first period where the vehicle has not yet started to change lanes and Fig. 6 displays the second period where the vehicle has started the lane change and is partially in both lanes.);
And cancelling a proposal of the lane change when the first distance becomes less than the second threshold value (Nishiguchi: [0058]).
Sato and Nishiguchi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle lane change control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato to incorporate the teachings of Nishiguchi to continue the lane change as long as the first distance is greater than a second threshold before the execution of the lane change begins because it provides the benefit of controlling the vehicle based on unexpected events when changing lanes. This provides the benefit of using different thresholds during the process of a lane change to safely complete the maneuver.
12. Regarding Claim 5, Sato and Nishiguchi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sato teaches the first threshold value is greater than the second threshold value (Sato: [0076]).
13. Regarding Claim 6, Sato teaches a driving assistance device configured to propose a lane change and make the lane change by autonomous travel control in response to an approval action taken by a passenger, the driving assistance device comprising a controller configured to perform processing comprising (Sato: [0002], [0024], and [0045]):
Detecting a preceding vehicle traveling in a lane on which an own vehicle travels at a speed lower than a vehicle speed of an own vehicle (Sato: [0035] and [0040]);
Determining that a first distance is greater than or equal to a first threshold value, the first distance being distance between the own vehicle and another vehicle in a lane adjacent to the lane on which the own vehicle travels (Sato: [0048] and [0081]);
Proposing a lane change to the lane adjacent to the lane on which the own vehicle travels (Sato: [0058] and [0081]);
…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 (Sato: [0076], [0088], and [0094]);
And in response to receiving the approval action from the passenger while the lane change is being proposed, causing at least one of a turn signal to operate or lateral movement of the own vehicle toward the lane adjacent to the lane on which the own vehicle travels (Sato: [0045], [0047], and [0102]),
Wherein the first threshold value for proposing the lane change is greater than second threshold value for continuing to propose the lane change… (Sato: [0076] and [0088]).
Sato fail to explicitly teach 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, continuing to propose the lane change... and the second threshold value is greater than zero.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nishiguchi teaches 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, 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 (Nishiguchi: [0054], [0056], and [0058]);
And wherein the first threshold value for proposing the lane change is greater than second threshold value for continuing to propose the lane change, and wherein the second threshold value is greater than zero (Nishiguchi: [0060], [0063], and [0064] Note that Th3 is equivalent to the first threshold and Th4 is equivalent to the second threshold. Also, note that the first threshold is larger than the second threshold because A12r > A22r and the second threshold is greater than zero because A22r > 0. Fig. 5 displays the first period where the vehicle has not yet started to change lanes and Fig. 6 displays the second period where the vehicle has started the lane change and is partially in both lanes.).
Sato and Nishiguchi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle lane change control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato to incorporate the teachings of Nishiguchi to continue the lane change as long as the first distance is greater than a second threshold before the execution of the lane change begins because it provides the benefit of controlling the vehicle based on unexpected events when changing lanes. This provides the benefit of using different thresholds during the process of a lane change to safely complete the maneuver.
14. Regarding Claim 7, Sato and Nishiguchi remains as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Sato teaches the threshold value for proposing the lane change is greater than the threshold value for continuing to propose the lane change (Sato: [0076]).
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Nishiguchi (US 20190176832 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of continuing to propose a lane change before execution of the lane change to the first adjacent lane beginning in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0054] and [0056]. Nishiguchi teaches to not start the automatic lane change until it is determined that the lane change conditions are satisfied. The vehicle stays in its current lane until the processor determines the conditions are satisfied (based on several thresholds) for the vehicle to start changing lanes.
16. Sato (US 20200369281 A1) in view of Nishiguchi (US 20190176832 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
17. Claims 1-7 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
18. 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.
19. 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
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663