DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 and 12/02/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a recognition unit configured to…” in claim 1
“a lane change determination unit configured to…” in claim 1
“a travel control unit configured to…” in claim 1
“the travel control unit is configured to…” in claims 4 and 5
“a notification control unit configured to…” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the units listed above, para. [0031] of the specification discloses “The control device 100 is a computer that integrally controls the entire host vehicle M, and includes, for example, a first control unit 120 and a second control unit 160. Each of the first control unit 120 and the second control unit 160 is implemented by, for example, a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a program (software).” Para. [0032] further states “The first control unit 120 includes, for example, a recognition unit 130 and an action plan generating unit 140.” Lastly, para. [0043] and [0044] further disclose “[0043] The second control unit 160 further includes, for example, a notification control unit 167. The notification control unit 167 controls the HMI 30, the navigation HMI 62, and the like to issue various notifications (presentation of various information) to the occupant (for example, the driver) of the host vehicle M. [0044] In the control device 100, for example, a combination of the action plan generating unit 140 (including the lane change determination unit 150) of the first control unit 120, and the acquisition unit 162, the speed control unit 164, and the steering control unit 166 of the second control unit 160 constitutes the travel control unit 170.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Matsumoto teaches:
A lane change assistance device capable of executing a lane change of a host vehicle from a host lane on which the host vehicle travels to an adjacent lane adjacent to the host lane, the lane change assistance device comprising:
a recognition unit configured to recognize a surrounding situation of the host vehicle;
(Matsumoto – [0046] “First of all, a group of sensors and an operation portion of the vehicle 2 will be described. The external sensor 3 is a detector that detects information on an external situation of the vehicle 2. The external situation is a situation around the vehicle 2, for example, objects that exist around the vehicle 2 and a running environment of the vehicle 2.”)
a lane change determination unit configured to determine, when another vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane is detected by the recognition unit, whether the lane change is possible based on a relative speed between the host vehicle and the another vehicle and an inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the another vehicle; and
(Matsumoto – [0091] “First of all, the path generation unit 203 determines whether or not a lane change is possible, based on a running environment (a lane width) recognized by the second external situation recognition unit 201, a recognition result (a relative distance and a relative speed) of the first preceding vehicle and the second preceding vehicle, and a recognition result (a speed and a lateral position of the vehicle 2) of the second running state recognition unit 202. As an example, the path generation unit 203 determines whether or not a lane change is possible, based on the lane widths of the driving lane and the adjacent lane and changes in positional relationship among the vehicle 2, the first preceding vehicle and the second preceding vehicle with time.”)
a travel control unit configured to execute the lane change based on a determination result of the lane change determination unit, wherein
(Matsumoto – [0111] “If it is determined in the lane change possibility processing procedure (S46) that a lane change is possible, the path generation unit 203 generates the path P of the lane change according to a geometrical method within the range of the turning performance of the vehicle 2, as a path generation processing procedure (S48).” [0112] “Then, the steering control unit 206 controls the steering of the vehicle 2 through the path P of the lane change generated through the path generation processing procedure (S48), as a steering control processing procedure (S58). Then, the steering control ECU 20 outputs an OFF signal of one of the direction indicators, as the direction indicator OFF processing procedure (S60).”)
the travel control unit is configured to further execute travel speed control for controlling a travel speed of the host vehicle based on a target speed set in advance, and the lane change determination unit is configured to determine, while the travel speed control is being executed, whether the lane change is possible based on the relative speed when the target speed is the travel speed of the host vehicle.
(Matsumoto – [0066] “Incidentally, the first acceleration calculation unit 104 determines whether or not the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 recognized by the first running state recognition unit 102 is equal to or lower than a set speed determined in advance by the driver (including a legal speed that is ordered by decree). If the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 is not equal to or lower than the set speed determined in advance by the driver (including the legal speed ordered by decree), the first acceleration calculation unit 104 calculates a target acceleration (a normal target acceleration) such that the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 becomes equal to the set vehicle speed. The target selection unit 105 selects the normal target acceleration as the target acceleration that is eventually used for speed control.” [0110] “Subsequently, the path generation unit 203 of the steering control ECU 20 determines whether or not a lane change is possible, based on the lane widths recognized through the external situation recognition processing procedure (S42), the relative distance and relative speed between the first preceding vehicle and the second preceding vehicle, and the speed and lateral position of the vehicle 2 recognized through the running state recognition processing procedure (S44), as a lane change possibility determination processing procedure (S46).”)
Regarding claim 10,
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein when there is a lane change request from a driver of the host vehicle, the lane change determination unit determines whether the lane change is possible.
(Matsumoto – [0070] “The ON signal acquisition unit 200 acquires an ON signal of one of the direction indicators of the vehicle 2. The ON signal acquisition unit 200 acquires an ON signal of the direction indicator for the right direction or an ON signal of the direction indicator for the left direction, which is output from the direction indicator operation portion 5 in accordance with the driver's operation.”)
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 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1) in view of Niino et al. (US 20170313311 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Niino teaches:
wherein the another vehicle is a following vehicle traveling behind the host vehicle.
(Niino – Fig. 6 vehicle 101 traveling behind the own vehicle 100, [0073] “In the example shown in FIG. 6, a state is shown in which, after the lane change is performed in the state shown in FIG. 5A, that is, the preceding vehicle 101 is passed, the area of a size necessary for performing lane change is present ahead of the preceding vehicle 101 that has been passed. In this case, lane change is performed with the speed of the own vehicle 100 reduced to 90 km/h, which is the preset vehicle speed (step S170).”)
Niino is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining when to perform a lane change. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsumoto and Niino to include deciding to perform a lane change based on the speed of the preceding vehicles in order to suitably determine the traffic lane without the driving having to make the determination themselves (Niino, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Matsumoto and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein the travel speed control is control to set the travel speed of the host vehicle to the target speed when a preceding vehicle traveling in front of the host vehicle is not present in the host lane, and to adjust the travel speed of the host vehicle according to a travel speed of the preceding vehicle when the preceding vehicle is present in the host lane.
(Matsumoto – [0099] “As described hitherto, if the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 is equal to or lower than the set vehicle speed and the first preceding vehicle does not exist, the speed control ECU 10 performs automatic speed control to make the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 coincident with the set vehicle speed.” [0100] “In the preceding vehicle determination processing procedure (S16), if it is determined that the first preceding vehicle exists, the first external situation recognition unit 101 executes a speed calculation processing procedure (S18). The first external situation recognition unit 101 calculates a speed V.sub.A of the first preceding vehicle, through the use of the relative speed V.sub.DA recognized through the external situation recognition processing procedure (S10) and the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 recognized through the running state recognition processing procedure (S12), as the speed calculation processing procedure (S18).”)
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Matsumoto and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein the travel control unit is configured to accelerate, when executing the lane change during the execution of the travel speed control, the host vehicle based on the target speed before completion of movement to the adjacent lane by the lane change.
(Matsumoto – [0068] “As described above, when the steering control ECU 20 calculates the second target acceleration, the target selection unit 105 carries out arbitration of the target acceleration during a lane change.”)
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Matsumoto and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein the travel control unit is configured to accelerate, when executing the lane change during the execution of the travel speed control, the host vehicle to the target speed before the completion of the movement to the adjacent lane by the lane change.
(Matsumoto – [0068] “As described above, when the steering control ECU 20 calculates the second target acceleration, the target selection unit 105 carries out arbitration of the target acceleration during a lane change.” [0077] “The second acceleration calculation unit 204 of the steering control ECU 20 outputs the calculated second target acceleration a2 to the target selection unit 105 of the speed control ECU 10.”)
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Matsumoto and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Niino further teaches:
wherein in a case where the travel speed control is being executed and a preceding vehicle that prevents acceleration based on the target speed of the host vehicle is further present in the adjacent lane, the lane change determination unit determines not to execute the lane change.
(Niino – [0047] “At step S130, the control apparatus 15 determines whether or not, of the preceding vehicle and the adjacent vehicle, the vehicle having a smaller difference in speed from the preset vehicle speed is the adjacent vehicle. Specifically, the control apparatus 15 determines the smaller of the difference between the speed of the preceding vehicle and the preset vehicle speed, and the difference between the speed of the adjacent vehicle and the preset vehicle speed, based on the own vehicle information, the preceding vehicle information, and the adjacent vehicle information acquired at steps S110 to S125.” [0049] “At step S131, the control apparatus 15 makes an affirmative determination when the difference between the speed of the preceding vehicle and the preset vehicle speed and the difference between the speed of the adjacent vehicle and the preset vehicle speed are the same, and the speed of the adjacent vehicle is higher than the preset vehicle speed. The control apparatus 15 proceeds to step S132, with lane change to the adjacent lane set as the recommended behavior. Meanwhile, when a negative determination is made, the control apparatus 15 proceeds to step S159, with tracking of the preceding vehicle set as the recommended behavior.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsumoto and Niino to include deciding to perform a lane change based on the speed of the preceding vehicles in order to suitably determine the traffic lane without the driving having to make the determination themselves (Niino, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Matsumoto and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Niino further teaches:
wherein in a case where the travel speed control is being executed and a preceding vehicle that prevents acceleration based on the target speed of the host vehicle is further present in the host lane, the lane change determination unit determines not to execute the lane change.
(Niino – [0047] “At step S130, the control apparatus 15 determines whether or not, of the preceding vehicle and the adjacent vehicle, the vehicle having a smaller difference in speed from the preset vehicle speed is the adjacent vehicle. Specifically, the control apparatus 15 determines the smaller of the difference between the speed of the preceding vehicle and the preset vehicle speed, and the difference between the speed of the adjacent vehicle and the preset vehicle speed, based on the own vehicle information, the preceding vehicle information, and the adjacent vehicle information acquired at steps S110 to S125.” [0049] “At step S131, the control apparatus 15 makes an affirmative determination when the difference between the speed of the preceding vehicle and the preset vehicle speed and the difference between the speed of the adjacent vehicle and the preset vehicle speed are the same, and the speed of the adjacent vehicle is higher than the preset vehicle speed. The control apparatus 15 proceeds to step S132, with lane change to the adjacent lane set as the recommended behavior. Meanwhile, when a negative determination is made, the control apparatus 15 proceeds to step S159, with tracking of the preceding vehicle set as the recommended behavior.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsumoto and Niino to include deciding to perform a lane change based on the speed of the preceding vehicles in order to suitably determine the traffic lane without the driving having to make the determination themselves (Niino, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Matsumoto and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Niino further teaches:
further comprising:
a notification control unit configured to propose, when the travel speed control is being executed and the preceding vehicle is present in the host lane, the lane change to a driver of the host vehicle based on a speed difference between a current travel speed of the host vehicle and the target speed.
(Niino – [0155] “At step S230, the control apparatus 15 outputs a command to the speaker 143 and the display 144 to transmit an inquiry to the driver of the own vehicle regarding whether or not to change the preset vehicle speed. That is, the control apparatus 15 makes an inquiry to the driver of the own vehicle using audio and an image displayed in the display 144 regarding whether or not to change the preset vehicle speed such as to set the current vehicle speed, which is higher than the basic preset vehicle speed, as a new preset vehicle speed.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsumoto and Niino to include deciding to perform a lane change based on the speed of the preceding vehicles in order to suitably determine the traffic lane without the driving having to make the determination themselves (Niino, para. [0008]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1) in view of Niino et al. (US 20170313311 A1) and in further view of Nattermann et al. (US 20210053571 A1).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Matsumoto and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
The combination of Matsumoto and Niino does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however Nattermann teaches:
wherein in a case where the travel speed control is being executed and a speed difference between a current travel speed of the host vehicle and the target speed is equal to or greater than a threshold value, the lane change determination unit determines not to execute the lane change.
(Nattermann – [0037] “In the subsequent step 210, the actual and target speeds are related to one another and their deviation is compared to a threshold value. If the deviation is below the threshold value, the process jumps back to step 200, so that no lane change is considered.”)
Nattermann is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a lane change of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Matsumoto and Niino with Nattermann to prevent a lane change based on the difference between the actual and target speed in order to increase the safety of road users and the comfort for occupants during a driving process (Nattermann, para. [0004]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1) in view of Tsuji et al. (US 20200247416 A1).
Regarding claim 11,
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein the lane change request is a predetermined operation for a blinker lever of the host vehicle,
(Matsumoto – [0018] “In the aspect of the disclosure, the at least one electronic control unit may be configured to acquire an ON signal of a direction indicator mounted in the vehicle, as the lane change information.”)
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Tsuji teaches:
a position at which the blinker lever is movable includes a neutral position,
(Tsuji – [0028] “Positions to which the turn signal lever 200 can be moved include a neutral position 201, middle positions 202R and 202L, and end positions 203R and 203L. The neutral position 201 is a position where the turn signal lever 200 is placed when the driver is not instructing the vehicle 1.”)
a first position that is located in each of two directions different from each other with respect to the neutral position, and returns to the neutral position when the driver does not apply an operation force to the blinker lever, and
(Tsuji – [0029] “If there is no operation force from the driver when the turn signal lever 200 is at one of the middle positions 202R and 202L, the turn signal lever 200 will be returned to the neutral position 201 by a physical biasing mechanism. Each of the middle positions 202R and 202L can be called a half position.”)
a second position that is located in each of two directions with respect to the neutral position, has an amount of movement from the neutral position greater than that of the first position, and is capable of being maintained when the driver does not apply an operation force to the blinker lever, and
(Tsuji – [0030] “The end position 203R is a position in the clockwise direction 204R with respect to the neutral position 201. The end position 203L is a position in the counterclockwise direction 204L with respect to the neutral position 201. If there is no operation force from the driver when the turn signal lever 200 is at one of the end positions 203R and 203L, the turn signal lever 200 can be maintained at the position by a physical lock mechanism.”)
the predetermined operation is an operation of maintaining the blinker lever at the first position.
(Tsuji – [0033] “As will be described more specifically hereinafter, the driver will operate the turn signal lever 200 to the middle position 202R in a case in which he/she wants make a lane change to an adjacent lane on the right side, and the driver will operate the turn signal lever 200 to the middle position 202L in a case in which he/she wants to make a lane change to an adjacent lane on the left side.”)
Tsuji is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of monitoring a lane change request from a driver. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto with Tsuji to include a turn signal lever with neutral, middle, and end positions so it will be easier for the driver to grasp the timing of the lane change operation and monitor the periphery and intervene when necessary (Tsuji, para. [0079]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1) in view of Fujiki et al. (US 20170203764 A1).
Regarding claim 12,
Matsumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Fujiki teaches:
wherein when the lane change is being executed and the inter-vehicle distance is equal to or less than a threshold value before the host vehicle reaches a division line configured to divide the host lane and the adjacent lane, the travel control unit stops the lane change.
(Fujiki – [0008] “The merging assistance device further includes a distance-A acquisition unit, an own-vehicle speed acquisition unit, a traveling-distance-B calculator, and a stop controller. The distance-A acquisition unit acquires a distance A from the own vehicle to a reference position in the first lane. The own-vehicle speed acquisition unit acquires speed of the own vehicle. The traveling-distance-B calculator calculates a traveling distance B required for the own vehicle to stop under a condition where the own vehicle traveling at the speed acquired by the own-vehicle speed acquisition unit starts to slow down at predetermined deceleration. The stop controller stops an operation of assisting in merging, on condition that a value obtained by subtracting the distance B from the distance A is smaller than a predetermined threshold value during a period from a start time of acceleration controlled by the accelerator to a start time of changing a travel lane controlled by the lane-change controller.”)
Fujiki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a lane change for a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto with Fujiki to include stopping the lane change when the distance is smaller than a threshold in order to stop assistance in merging before the own vehicle gets excessively close to a reference point and as a result enhancing the safety of the own vehicle (Fujiki, para. [0009]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Sakayori et al. (US 20210261133 A1) discloses a lane changeable space determination unit determines whether the host vehicle can change lanes using road environment information of the adjacent lane. A lane change control unit determines whether the target vehicle traveling in the host lane is allowed to change lanes, based on the operation of the target vehicle and the adjacent vehicle traveling in their lanes. The lane change control unit causes the host vehicle to change lanes based on determining whether the host vehicle can change lanes in the adjacent lane by the lane changeable space determination unit and whether or not the target vehicle is allowed to change lanes.
Im et al. (US 20190004529 A1) discloses as a vehicle speed difference between a current lane and a change target lane increases, the number of opportunities to change from the current lane to the change target lane decreases and, thus, it is more difficult to change lanes rapidly. In these cases, there is a need for a method of rapidly and appropriately changing lanes by an autonomous vehicle adaptively to a situation in which lane change is required without obstructing traffic flow and an increase in accident risk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668