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 .
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.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 further defines a single limitation as requiring two further limitations with one optional further limitation. However, examiner finds only a single instance of the three alternatives is possibly selected at a time. Examiner finds, claim 3 is an erroneously defined Markush limitation. Further, the limitation “center of the vehicle” is ambiguous as “center of gravity of the vehicle” is also present in the claim. It is unclear what center defines. The metes and bounds cannot be determined and are therefore indefinite.
For the purposes of examining “or” will be inserted between “a changing lane side” and “a center of the vehicle.” “center of the vehicle” will be taken as “center of a width of the vehicle” consistent with instant US PGPub para 62.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,9,11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Satoru JP2008012989 (see IDS).
In Re 1,11,12 the device/method/non-trans memory, Satoru teaches
A driving assistance device comprising:
a recognizer (white line recognition sensor 12 fig 1) configured to recognize surrounding conditions (curve radius R1, deflection angle theta_1, offset D1) of a vehicle (“vehicle” abstract);
a driving controller (ECU 30 fig 1) configured to execute lane keeping control ([0068]) for controlling at least steering of the vehicle so that the vehicle travels within a predetermined lane on the basis of a result of the recognition by the recognizer (lane maintenance assistance ECU 30 performs lane maintenance control for a vehicle which is currently traveling if a lane maintenance control flag is ON and a lane change control flag is OFF); and
a receiver (turn signal 14 fig 1, [0028]) configured to receive an intention of a lane change of the vehicle according to an operation of an occupant of the vehicle,
wherein the driving controller stops the lane keeping control when the intention of the lane change is received by the receiver while the lane keeping control is executed, and resumes the lane keeping control at a timing before the lane change is completed ([0044], [0080], and [0090]; the lane maintenance assistance ECU 30 sets the lane change control flag to be ON and performs lane change processing if sufficient time has elapsed since a turn signal has been turned ON. That is, the lane maintenance control is stopped if the intention for a lane change has been received. The lane maintenance control for the next lane is performed when a center-of-gravity position of the vehicle enters the lane. That is, the lane maintenance control is resumed at an earlier timing than when the lane change is completed)(at least all figs and paras especially paras 17-99).
In Re, 2-4,9, Satoru teaches:
2. (original) The driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein a timing before the lane change is completed is a timing at which a predetermined position of the vehicle crosses a division line that divides a first lane in which the vehicle is traveling from a second lane to which the lane is to be changed and which is adjacent to the first lane, and enters the second lane (the earlier timing than when the lane change is completed is a timing at which the center of gravity of the vehicle has gone past a partition line that partitions a first lane in which the vehicle travels and a second lane which is a lane change destination adjacent to the first lane, and enters the second lane.).
3. (original) The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined position of the vehicle is a front wheel of the vehicle on a changing lane side (optional), or (see 35 USC 112b rejection above) a center of the vehicle (optional), or a center of gravity of the vehicle (“center of gravity” see fig 2, [0025]).
4. (original) The driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein the driving controller controls steering of the vehicle so that a center or a center of gravity of the vehicle travels in a center of the second lane when a predetermined position of the vehicle crosses the division line ([0055]).
9. (original) The driving assistance device according to 1, wherein the driving controller does not resume the lane keeping control for a lane to which the lane is to be changed when the recognizer is unable to recognize one of division lines of the lane to which the lane is to be changed ([0049]-[0050]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru JP2008012989 (see IDS) in view Ghanbari et al US 2021/0101600.
In Re 5, Satoru teaches wherein the driving controller executes steering control to return the vehicle to the lane before the lane change without an operation of the occupant (paras 48,68), while the lane change is executed, and resumes the lane keeping control ([0068]) at a timing at which the steering control is completed ([0048]).
Satoru does not teach however Ghanbari teaches a determiner configured to determine whether there is a possibility of contact (“collision” paras 15,34,93-94) with another vehicle present around the vehicle, when the determiner determines that there is a possibility of contact with the other vehicle. Ghanbari further teaches avoiding undesirable collision (para 15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Ghanbari’s determiner to Satoru’s vehicle to prevent undesirable collision.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru JP2008012989 (see IDS) in view Odate US 2019/0061811.
In Re 10, Satoru does not teach although Odate teaches driving controller resumes the lane keeping control for a lane to which the lane is to be changed (fig 8) when the recognizer is unable to recognize one of division lines of the lane (para 45 teaches recognizer other markers such as guardrail) to which the lane is to be changed and recognizes a traveling trajectory of a preceding vehicle (optional) or lane end information other than the division lines (para 45 guard rail). Odate further teaches multiple recognition inputs other than lane markings para 45. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Odate’s plural recognition inputs to Satoru’s lane changing as other lane markers exist in road systems beyond mere white lines.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious
when the determiner determines that there is a possibility of contact with the other vehicle while the lane change is executed, and resumes the lane keeping control at a timing before the steering control for returning the vehicle to the lane before the lane change is completed by an operation of the occupant;
when the determiner determines that there is a possibility of contact with the other vehicle while the lane change is executed, the driving controller differentiates between timings of resuming the lane keeping control for first steering control for returning the vehicle to a lane before the lane change without an operation of the occupant and second steering control for returning the vehicle to a lane before the lane change according to an operation of the occupant.
in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747