DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/944,373 filed on May 11, 2026 in which claims 1-5 were amended.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending, of which claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 recites a method claim including the limitations “the control unit is further configured to determine whether a direction indicator provided in the vehicle is not lit; and the control unit is further configured to determine, after making a determination that the direction indicator is not lit, that the other vehicle has departed the own traffic lane after determining at least one of the following departure operations.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the determination that the other vehicle has departed based on one of the factors to be performed because the method does not require “making a determination that the direction indicator is not lit,” only “whether” it is lit. Thus, there exist scenarios in which the direction indicator is lit and the conditional limitation will not occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim twice refers to “a direction indicator” at lines 2-3 and 8. The second instance should be amended to “[[a]] the direction indicator.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, this claim includes the limitation “the control unit is further configured to continue the following traveling control without executing the constant speed traveling control.” However, parent claim 1 includes the limitation “stop the following travel control.” As a result, claim 4 requires the method to both continuing the following traveling control and to stop following the travel control” and, as a result, contradicts itself. Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kudo, US Publication 2021/0387622 (hereinafter Kudo).
Regarding claim 1, Kudo discloses a vehicle control device, comprising a control unit configured to “execute a following traveling control, the following traveling control causing a vehicle that travels within an own traffic lane in which the vehicle is traveling to travel by following another vehicle that that is traveling in the own traffic lane in front of the vehicle based on a detection value that detects the other vehicle in front of the vehicle” (Kudo ¶¶ 27, 29 and Fig. 6) where preceding vehicle F is detected by own vehicle M and vehicle M determines to follow preceding vehicle F. Fig. 6 shows that preceding vehicle F is traveling in the own traffic lane of vehicle M. Additionally, Kudo discloses “determine that the other vehicle has departed from the own traffic lane after determining a departure operation in which the other vehicle departs the own traffic lane based on the detection value” (Kudo ¶ 56) where it is determined that preceding vehicle F is turning right (i.e., departing from the own traffic lane) based on the detection value of vehicle F accelerating. Finally, Kudo discloses “stop the following travel control after determining the other vehicle has departed from the own traffic lane; and execute a constant speed traveling control, the constant speed traveling control causing the vehicle to travel at a constant speed within the own traffic lane regardless of a travel speed of the other vehicle, after stopping the following traveling control” (Kudo ¶ 56) by “caus[ing] the vehicle M to travel at a set vehicle speed under ordinary ACC” when “vehicle M is going to travel straight” and preceding vehicle F is turning right.
Regarding claim 2, Kudo discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kudo discloses “the control unit is further configured to determine whether a direction indicator provided in the vehicle is not lit.” (Kudo ¶ 52). Further, Kudo discloses “the control unit is further configured to determine, after making a determination that the direction indicator is not lit, that the other vehicle has departed the own traffic lane after determining at least one of the following departure operations: a state in which a direction indicator of the other vehicle is lit; a state in which a relative lateral movement speed of the other vehicle with respect to the vehicle is equal to or more than a threshold; a state in which a relative lateral movement acceleration of the other vehicle with respect to the vehicle is equal to or more than a threshold; a state in which a relative yaw angle of the other vehicle with respect to the vehicle is equal to or more than a threshold; and a state in which a lateral overlap rate of the other vehicle with respect to the vehicle is equal to or less than a threshold” (Kudo ¶ 52) by determining that the direction indicator is blinking, which is first determining that the indicator is not lit and then determining that the direction indicator is lit.
Regarding claim 3, Kudo discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kudo discloses “the control unit is further configured to determine a presence of a stopping factor, the presence of the stopping factor indicating a state in which the other vehicle has stopped in the own traffic lane, based on the detection value; and the control unit, after determining the presence of the stopping factor, is further configured to continue the following traveling control, without executing the constant speed traveling control, and to cause the vehicle to decelerate and stop behind the other vehicle.” (Kudo ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 4, Kudo discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kudo discloses “the control unit is further configured to determine whether a direction indication of the vehicle is in a lit state.” (Kudo ¶ 52). Further, Kudo discloses “the control unit is further configured to determine whether the other vehicle is to depart from the own traffic lane” (Kudo ¶ 56) by determining that preceding vehicle F is turning right. Finally, Kudo discloses “the control unit is further configured to continue the following traveling control without executing the constant speed traveling control” (Kudo ¶ 56) by continuing to follow preceding vehicle M in a case where vehicle M is going to turn right.
Regarding claim 5, it merely recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing the method of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. Kudo comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 5 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 11, 2026, with respect to the objection to the specification (Remarks 8-9) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed May 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Remarks 9-11) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Watanabe, US Publication 2020/0070826, System and method for controlling a vehicle when the preceding vehicle changes lanes.
Kato, US Patent 11,267,474, System and method for stopping preceding vehicle following when the preceding vehicle changes lanes.
友好 青木, JP 6046190, System and method for stopping preceding vehicle following when the preceding vehicle changes lanes.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights