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 .
Claims 1 – 9 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
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 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuji et al. (US 2017/0240177).
Regarding Claim 1:
Fuji et al. teaches a driving assistance method for a vehicle executed by a processor, comprising: executing autonomous lane change control under autonomous travel control to change lanes from a subject vehicle lane to another lane, the vehicle traveling in the subject vehicle lane (via 86, ALC, and see S3 to S4 in Fig 2, Fig 3 – 4 for lane change, paragraph 0052); and suspending the autonomous lane change control when a steering operation by a driver input during execution of the autonomous lane change control satisfies a predetermined suspension condition (Steps S5 – S11, via 88, paragraph 0057), the method further comprising: executing first autonomous lane change control for changing a traveling direction and traveling along a travel route to head for a set destination and second autonomous lane change control (Figs 4 – 7, via 86), other than the first autonomous lane change control, in which the traveling direction is not changed; and setting the predetermined suspension condition for the first autonomous lane change control to a condition under which the autonomous lane change control is more readily suspended than under the predetermined suspension condition for the second autonomous lane change control (Figs 2 – 3, paragraphs 0066 – 0075).
Regarding Claim 2:
Fuji et al. teaches the predetermined suspension condition includes at least one of a condition that an absolute value of a rotation angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle becomes greater than a predetermined angle and a condition that an absolute value of a steering torque input by the driver to the steering wheel becomes greater than a predetermined value (via 54, 56, 58, figs 1 – 3).
Regarding Claim 3:
Fuji et al. teaches the predetermined suspension condition is set as, at least one of: a condition for setting the predetermined angle in the first autonomous lane change control smaller than the predetermined angle in the second autonomous lane change control; a condition for setting the predetermined value in the first autonomous lane change control smaller than the predetermined value in the second autonomous lane change control; a condition for setting, regarding a rotation amount of the steering wheel required to change a steering angle of steered wheels of the vehicle, the rotation amount in the first autonomous lane change control smaller than the rotation amount in the second autonomous lane change control; and a condition for setting a torque required to rotate the steering wheel in the first autonomous lane change control smaller than the torque required to rotate the steering wheel in the second autonomous lane change control (Figs 2 – 3, paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0051 – 0053).
Regarding Claim 4:
Fuji et al. teaches wherein, provided that an absolute value of a steering torque input by the driver to a steering wheel of the vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined value, when the steering torque equal to or less than the predetermined value is continuously input to the steering wheel for a predetermined time or more, the processor suspends the autonomous lane change control (Figs 2 – 3, paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0051 – 0053).
Regarding Claim 5:
Fuji et al. teaches wherein, when a traveling speed of the vehicle is fast, the processor sets the predetermined suspension condition so that the autonomous lane change control is more readily suspended than when the traveling speed of the vehicle is slow (paragraphs 0030, 0070, 0082, Figs 4 – 8).
Regarding Claim 6:
Fuji et al. teaches wherein, when another vehicle traveling in the other lane is detected, the processor sets the predetermined suspension condition so that the autonomous lane change control is more readily suspended than when another vehicle is not detected (Figs 2 – 6).
Regarding Claim 7:
Fuji et al. teaches when a traveling speed of the vehicle is slower than a traveling speed of another vehicle traveling in the other lane, the processor sets the predetermined suspension condition so that the autonomous lane change control is more readily suspended than when the traveling speed of the vehicle is faster than the traveling speed of the other vehicle (paragraphs 0030, 0070, 0082, Figs 4 – 8).
Regarding Claim 8:
Fuji et al. teaches wherein, for steering to the other lane in the steering operation, the processor sets the predetermined suspension condition so that the autonomous lane change control is readily suspended (Figs 1 – 3).
Regarding Claim 9:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
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 LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747