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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 06/15/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 11-12 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are currently pending.
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 drive device, a sensing device, an operator, and a control device in claims 1-12.
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. A drive device is interpreted as a device for causing the mobile object to move on a road in view of Paragraph 0040 of the published application (i.e. wheels, motor, battery, engine, etc.). A sensing device is interpreted as devices for acquiring a situation in at least a traveling direction of the mobile object in view of Paragraph 0035 of the published application (i.e. camera, radar, lidar, etc.). An operator is interpreted as a joystick, a cross key, or the like in view of Paragraph 0044 of the published application. A control device is interpreted as the hardware in view of Paragraph 0049 of the published application (i.e. a central processing unit (CPU) to execute the program (software), etc.).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claims 1, and 11-12, the applicant claims “wherein the control device generates, in accordance with the operation, a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to turn right or left onto a road when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left exists in the traveling direction, and generates a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to change a lane when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left does not exist in the traveling direction”. Said limitation is not supported in the specification. Paragraph 0041 discloses “The target trajectory generating unit 130 searches for a lane closest to the mobile object 1 out of right-turn lanes as a lane crossing the lane along which the mobile object 1 is currently traveling at a time point at which the first operator OP1 has been operated to the right side” and ” when there is a sufficient margin of distance for turning to right and there is a lane crossing the lane on which the mobile object is currently traveling, the target trajectory generating unit 130 generates a target trajectory such that the mobile object 1 turns right onto that lane”. However that’s not the same as “generates a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to change a lane when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left does not exist in the traveling direction”. Furthermore, Paragraph 0042 discloses “it is first ascertained whether a distance X1 from a lane 240 extending to right is equal to or greater than a margin distance, and the target trajectory K is changed to a course for entering the lane 240 when the distance X1 is equal to or greater than the margin distance” and again that’s not the same as “generates a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to change a lane when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left does not exist in the traveling direction”. Accordingly, said limitation is not supported in the specification.
Claims 2-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claims 1-8, and 10-12 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.
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 12, the applicant claims “wherein the control device generates, in accordance with the operation, a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to turn right or left onto a road when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left exists in the traveling direction, and generates a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to change a lane when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left does not exist in the traveling direction”. It is not clear what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. If the vehicle is traveling on a center lane and a right or left lane exist ahead of the vehicle, will the vehicle perform a lane change or take that left or right road. Furthermore, it is not clear to the examiner how to determine “when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left exists in the traveling direction”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as the control device initiating a lane change.
Claims 2-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otaka JP 2020192877 A (provided in IDS on 12/23/2024, the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Otaka) in view of Ide et al US 2020/0406930 A1 (hence Ide).
In re claims 1, 11, and 12, Otaka discloses a control device is mounted on a vehicle, and the determination unit is arranged on a steering operator of the vehicle (Paragraph 0009) and teaches the following:
A mobile object which an occupant is able to get in (Paragraph 0025 “own vehicle M”), the mobile object comprising:
a drive device configured to move the mobile object (Paragraph 0027 “an internal combustion engine”);
sensing device configured to sense a situation in at least a traveling direction of the mobile object (Paragraph 0028 “camera 10, a radar device 12, a finder 14, an object recognition device 16”);
an operator used for the occupant to indicate the traveling direction of the mobile object (Paragraph 0049 “driving operator 70 includes, for example, a steering wheel 303, an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a shift lever, a turn signal, a joystick, an operating lever, and other controls”);
and a control device configured to cause the mobile object to travel in a mode in which acceleration/deceleration and steering are automatically performed (Paragraph 0049 “the automatic operation control device 100, or the traveling driving force output device 200, the brake device 210, and the steering device”), the control device automatically generating a target trajectory for changing the traveling direction of the mobile object on the basis of the sensed situation in the traveling direction in accordance with an operation of indicating the traveling direction performed on the operator (Paragraph 0059 “a target trajectory generation unit 144”, Paragraph 0063 “change lanes may be given by operating the steering wheel”, and Paragraphs 0064-0066 “target track”)
and controlling the drive device such that the mobile object moves along the target trajectory (Paragraph 0067 “second control unit 160 sets the traveling driving force output device 200, the braking device 210, and the steering device 220 so that the own vehicle M passes the target track generated by the target track generating unit 144 at the scheduled time”)
wherein the control device generates, in accordance with the operation, a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to turn right or left onto a road when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left exists in the traveling direction, and generates a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to change a lane when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left does not exist in the traveling direction (Paragraph 0060 “a lane change”)
However, Otaka discloses an operator being a joystick (Paragraph 0049) but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
an operator provided in an armrest of the mobile object, capable of being operated at least to right and left
Nevertheless, Ide discloses an autonomous vehicle is provided with a touch panel that enables an operator to input vehicle speed control instructions during an automatic driving mode and a mechanical operation unit for inputting driving control instructions (Abstract), and teaches the following:
an operator provided in an armrest of the mobile object, capable of being operated at least to right and left (Fig.6, and Paragraph 0055 “the mechanical operation unit 70 is configured to be tiltable in the front, rear, left, and right directions”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Otaka reference to include the mechanical operation unit operable by hand, as taught by Ide, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the vehicle in a plurality of modes (Ide, Paragraph 0010).
In re claim 2, Ide teaches the following:
wherein the control device generates the target trajectory with a first direction as the traveling direction to which a change is to be made when an operating direction of the operator is the first direction which is one of right and left (Paragraph 0055 “when the mechanical operation unit 70 is tilted leftward, a left-turn control instruction can be input to the autonomous vehicle 10”), and wherein the control device cancels change of the traveling direction when the operator is operated in a direction different from the first direction after the first direction has been determined as the traveling direction to which a change is to be made (Paragraph 0055 “When the mechanical operation unit 70 is tilted rightward, a right-turn control instruction can be input to the autonomous vehicle 10”, i.e. left cancels right and right cancels left)
In re claim 5, Ide teaches the following:
wherein the mobile object includes a notification device configured to notify the occupant, and wherein the control device causes the notification device to output a notification indicating that an operation on the operator has been received when the operation has been received (Paragraph 0045 “The information displayed on the display device 36 includes, for example, vehicle speed of the autonomous vehicle 10”)
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otaka and Ide, and further in view of Aoki US 2017/0225685 A1 (hence Aoki).
In re claim 6, the combination of Otaka and Ide discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the control device maintains an instruction to change the traveling direction when the mobile object is stopped or a speed of the mobile object becomes equal to or lower than a predetermined value with interruption of the occupant while the mobile object is moving along the target trajectory
Nevertheless, Aoki discloses a vehicle control system that performs lane change control (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the control device maintains an instruction to change the traveling direction when the mobile object is stopped or a speed of the mobile object becomes equal to or lower than a predetermined value with interruption of the occupant while the mobile object is moving along the target trajectory (Paragraph 0050, all conditions to cancel lane change have to be equal or above than a predetermined value, therefore any steering, braking, accelerating less than the predetermined value maintains the lane change)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Otaka reference to include the predetermined value to decide whether to maintain or cancel a lane change, as taught by Aoki, in order to control the lane change on the basis of at least one of an operation of the driver (Aoki, Paragraph 0049).
In re claim 7, the combination of Otaka and Ide discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the mobile object includes a notification device configured to notify the occupant, and wherein the control device causes the notification device to notify the occupant that an operation of cancelling an instruction to change the traveling direction is to be performed when the mobile object stops due to interruption of the occupant while the mobile object is moving along the target trajectory
Nevertheless, Aoki discloses a vehicle control system that performs lane change control (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the mobile object includes a notification device configured to notify the occupant, and wherein the control device causes the notification device to notify the occupant that an operation of cancelling an instruction to change the traveling direction is to be performed when the mobile object stops due to interruption of the occupant while the mobile object is moving along the target trajectory (Paragraphs 0049-0050 “the lane change control unit 14 cancels the lane change control on the basis of at least one of an operation of the driver”, Fig.4, S20, S26, S28 and Paragraphs 0072-0073)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Otaka reference to include notifying the driver that the lane change control has been cancelled through the HMI, as taught by Aoki, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the convenience of the driver (Aoki, Paragraph 0008).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 8, and 10 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.
Claim 9 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that the claims are not within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The terms “a drive device, a sensing device, an operator, and a control device” are terms that act as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. Accordingly, examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis and said terms are used as a substitute for "means" that are generic placeholder, modified by functional language, and not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5, and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otaka in view of Ide and that neither Otaka nor Ide teaches or discloses “wherein the control device generates, in accordance with the operation, a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to turn right or left onto a road when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left exists in the traveling direction, and generates a target trajectory for causing the mobile object to change a lane when a road which allows the mobile object to turn right or left does not exist in the traveling direction”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. Because of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) recited above, according to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as the control device initiating a lane change and Otaka teaches that as disclosed above in at least Paragraph 0060.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights