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 § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujishima (2019/0027042).
Regarding claim 1, Fujishima discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
at least one memory 15 storing instructions; and
at least one processor 12, 14, configured to execute the instructions to;
to generate a first path (22A, 22B2) for a vehicle to move from a first point 20 where the vehicle is present to a target point 25 so as to be in a target orientation at the target point (figure 4, paragraph 40);
control a driving unit (actuators) such that the vehicle moves along the first path (p. 40, p. 42); and
determine whether or not the vehicle is considered to have reached a multi-point turning point 22 at a second point on a second path 22A in a case where the first path includes the second path from the first point 20 to the multi-point turning point 22 at which multi-point turning of the vehicle is performed and a third path 22B2 from the multi-point turning point 22 to the target point 25, and
in a case where it is determined that the vehicle is considered to have
reached the multi-point turning point 22 at the second point, the control unit controls control the driving unit such that the vehicle travels to a position on the third path, the position being away from the second point by a second distance longer than a first distance between the first point 20 and the multi-point turning point 22 (figure 4, p. 57).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishima in view of Tsuge (US 11,155,257).
Regarding claim 2, Fujishima discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the at least one processor being further configured to execute the instructions to determine that the vehicle has reached the multi-point turning point in a case where the vehicle has reached the multi-point turning point and in a case where the multi-point turning point is not reachable by the vehicle. Tsuge teaches the use of a processor being further configured to execute instructions to determine that a vehicle has reached a multi-point turning point in a case where the vehicle has reached the multi-point turning point and in a case where the multi-point turning point is not reachable by the vehicle (claims 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the at least one processor being further configured to execute the instructions to determine that the vehicle has reached the multi-point turning point in a case where the vehicle has reached the multi-point turning point and in a case where the multi-point turning point is not reachable by the vehicle to the apparatus of Fujishima as taught by Tsuge for the purpose of effectively controlling the movement of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Fujishima discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further discloses a distance between the second point and the target point being shorter than a predetermined traversing determination distance, but does not disclose a distance between the second point and multi-point turning point. Tsuge further teaches the use of a distance between a second point and a multi-point turning point in comparison (column 20, lines 15-35, claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a distance between the second point and multi-point turning point to the apparatus of Fujishima as taught by Tsuge for the purpose of effectively controlling the movement of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Fujishima discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further discloses controlling a direction in which the vehicle travels by determining a steering angle and a time being required to rotate from a current steering angle to a steering angle for the vehicle to travel toward the multi-point turning point being longer than a maximum value of a time required for the vehicle to move to the multi-point turning point (paragraphs 57, 50, 64), but does not disclose determining that the multi-point turning point is not reachable. Tsuge teaches the use of determining that the multi-point turning point is not reachable in a case and determining that the multi-point turning point is reachable in a different case (claims 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining that the multi-point turning point is not reachable in a case where a time is required to rotate from a current steering angle to a steering angle for the vehicle to travel toward the multi-point turning point being longer than a maximum value of a time required for the vehicle to move to the multi-point turning point to the apparatus of Fujishima as taught by Tsuge for the purpose of effectively controlling the movement of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Fujishima discloses a vehicle control method comprising:
generating a first path 22A for a vehicle to move from a first point 20 where the vehicle is present to a target point 25 so as to be in a target orientation at the target point;
determining whether or not the vehicle has reached a multi-point turning point 22 or whether or not the multi-point turning point is reachable by the vehicle in a case where the first path 22A includes the multi-point turning point 22 at which multi-point turning of the vehicle is performed; and
generating a second path 22B2 for moving the vehicle to a position away from a
second point in a case where it is determined that the vehicle has reached the multi-point turning point 22 or the multi-point turning point is not reachable by the vehicle at the second point.
Fujishima does not disclose generating the second path 22B2 for moving the vehicle to a position away from a second point by a second distance longer than a first distance between the first point 20 and the second point. Tsuge teaches the use of generating an adjustable second path 213A for moving a vehicle to a position away from a selective second point by an adjustable second distance (figure 3, column 7, lines 15-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating the second path 22B2 for moving the vehicle to a position 25 away from a selective second point 22 by a second distance longer than a first distance between the first point 20 and the second point to the method of Fujishima as taught by Tsuge for the purpose of effectively controlling the movement of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Fujishima discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute (claim 15):
generating a first path 22A for a vehicle to move from a first point 20 where the vehicle is present to a target point 25 so as to be in a target orientation at the target point;
determining whether or not the vehicle has reached a multi-point turning point 22 or whether or not the multi-point turning point is reachable by the vehicle in a case where the first path 22A includes the multi-point turning point 22 at which multi-point turning of the vehicle is performed; and
generating a second path 22B2 for moving the vehicle to a position away from a
second point in a case where it is determined that the vehicle has reached the multi-point turning point 22 or the multi-point turning point is not reachable by the vehicle at the second point.
Fujishima does not disclose generating the second path 22B2 for moving the vehicle to a position away from a second point by a second distance longer than a first distance between the first point 20 and the second point. Tsuge teaches the use of generating an adjustable second path 213A for moving a vehicle to a position away from a selective second point by an adjustable second distance (figure 3, column 7, lines 15-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating the second path 22B2 for moving the vehicle to a position 25 away from a selective second point 22 by a second distance longer than a first distance between the first point 20 and the second point to the a non-transitory computer-readable medium of Fujishima as taught by Tsuge for the purpose of effectively controlling the movement of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tokuhiro, Kim, Zhu, and Yoshida disclose driving assistance systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH V LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2970. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ANH V LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
ANH V. LA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
Al
March 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights