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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 12 May 2026.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5, 8-15 and 18-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to clarify that the “defensive driving area” is an area including “a lane merge point or a lane diverge point.” . . .”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. The previously identified issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) remain as detailed below, and new issues are introduced, also as detailed below.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
“an information obtainer configured to obtain” in claim 1.
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.
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 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 1-5, 8-15 and 18-20 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “obtain area information about a defensive driving area”. It is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by “area information”. For example, is the “area information” information related the spatial extent of the defensive driving area (e.g. a location/boundary of the defensive driving area) or is it a surrounding information inside the defensive driving area? Additionally, it is unclear to the Examiner what the metes and bounds are of what would and would not be “a defensive driving area” and “area information about a defensive driving area”. Further, while the specification provides examples of the area information about the defense driving area, it specifically states that it is merely an example and is not limited thereto, so it is unclear exactly what these terms encompass. Additionally, the claim recites “wherein the area information includes information about an area including . . .” . It is unclear to the Examiner if “an area” is referring to the defensive area or is it a new area or is it just a portion of the defensive area? Moreover, the claim recites “based on at least one of the surrounding information and the area information”. It is unclear to the Examiner what the limitation “based on at least one of the surrounding information and area information” is intended to modify.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the area information further includes information about an area including a lane merge point, a lane diverge point . . . “. It is unclear to the Examiner if “an area” recited in line 2 of claim 2 is referring to the same “an area” in line 5 of claim 1 or is it referring to a new area.
As to claim 11, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 12, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations recited in claims 2 and 12 have apparently already been recited in the claims from which claims 2 and 12 depend. For example, claims 2 and 12 recite “wherein the area information further includes information about an area including a lane merge point, a lane diverge point, . . . or . . . ”; however, claims 1 and 11 have already recited “wherein the area information includes information about an area including a lane merge point or a lane diverge point”. It appears to the Examiner that claims 2 and 12 do not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1) in view of Kitajima et al. (US 2022019372 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 11, Kueperkoch discloses A vehicle
driving control device, comprising: a plurality of sensors configured to obtain surrounding information about a vehicle; ([0037] “a distance control in relation to slower vehicles driving ahead, which is also known as ACC: automatic cruise control. A roadway has a driving lane 101 in which a vehicle 100, which is hereinafter referred to as an ego vehicle, drives, along with an adjacent lane 102 and a further adjacent lane 103. The ego vehicle 100 has environment sensor system 110 for detecting the traffic environment, including an adjacent lane. This environment sensor system 100 can comprise, for example, radar sensors and/or ultrasonic sensors and/or lidar sensors and/or video sensors and/or camera sensors.”)
an information obtainer configured to obtain area information about a defensive driving area during adaptive cruise control (ACC) of the vehicle, wherein the area information includes information about an area including a lane merge point or a lane diverge point; and ([0037] “a distance control in relation to slower vehicles driving ahead, which is also known as ACC: automatic cruise control… Depending on this environment sensor system 110, the distance of a vehicle 120 driving ahead in the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100 is calculated. This allows a target distance 111, also known as the safety distance, to be calculated and automatically adjusted by accelerating or braking the ego vehicle 100.”, [0040] “a virtual vehicle 260 is determined in the lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100, which is located at a distance from the merge zone 300, which corresponds to the distance s of the vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121 from the merge zone 300. The vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121 is “projected,” so to speak, onto the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100. The result of this “projection” is the virtual vehicle 260, which is now located ahead of the ego vehicle 100 in the lane 101. This virtual vehicle 260 is given the same object properties as the real vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121. This means that the size, type and speed of the virtual vehicle 260 correspond to those of the vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121. In addition, this virtual vehicle 260 receives the information that it is virtual, and the distance s to the merge zone 300 is assigned thereto”, [0044] “The ego vehicle 100 switches to the adjacent lane 102 if there is a sufficiently large gap in this lane, which is determined with the aid of the environment sensor system 110 of the ego vehicle 100, which also detects the adjacent lane 102.”, and [0045] “Alternatively, a distance control is effected. This means that the driving speed of the ego vehicle 100 is adjusted (increased or decreased) so that a suitable safety distance from the virtual vehicle 260 is established.”, and see at least figure 3)
a controller configured to change a driving lane of the vehicle to a ([0037] “a distance control in relation to slower vehicles driving ahead, which is also known as ACC: automatic cruise control… Depending on this environment sensor system 110, the distance of a vehicle 120 driving ahead in the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100 is calculated. This allows a target distance 111, also known as the safety distance, to be calculated and automatically adjusted by accelerating or braking the ego vehicle 100.”, [0044] “The ego vehicle 100 switches to the adjacent lane 102 if there is a sufficiently large gap in this lane, which is determined with the aid of the environment sensor system 110 of the ego vehicle 100, which also detects the adjacent lane 102.”, and [0045] “Alternatively, a distance control is effected. This means that the driving speed of the ego vehicle 100 is adjusted (increased or decreased) so that a suitable safety distance from the virtual vehicle 260 is established.”)
However, Kueperkoch fails to explicitly disclose wherein the area information includes information about an area including a lane merge point or a lane diverge point; controller configured to change a driving lane of the vehicle to a lane other than a lane joined by another lane or a lane where another lane is branched when the vehicle enters the defensive driving area based on at least one of the surrounding information and the area information.
Kitajima et al. teaches wherein the area information includes information about an area including a lane merge point or a lane diverge point; ([0070] “controller 16 measures the vehicle speed and position of merging vehicle 24 based on the target information from radar 8 (S201). Here, the vehicle speed and position of merging vehicle 24 are, for example, the relative speed and relative position of merging vehicle 24 with respect to host vehicle 4. Based on the measured vehicle speed and position of merging vehicle 24, controller 16 determines the predicted merging time which is a time when merging vehicle 24 is predicted to reach merging point 28 (see FIG. 5) between merging lane 22 and traveling lane 18 (S202).” , and see at least figure 6)
controller configured to change a driving lane of the vehicle to a lane other than a lane joined by another lane or a lane where another lane is branched when the vehicle enters the defensive driving area based on at least one of the surrounding information and the area information. ([0074] “controller 16 controls the traveling of host vehicle 4 by controlling steering actuator 15 and the like so that host vehicle 4 changes lanes from traveling lane 18 to overtaking lane 20 (S207). Accordingly, merging vehicle 24 can safely merge into traveling lane 18.”, and see at least figures 5-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch to incorporate predicting a merging point and changing lane to avoid merging area/lane as taught by Kitajima et al. so that the “traveling safety of the host vehicle can be improved”. ([0045], Kitajima et al.)
Regarding claim 2, and similarly with respect to claim 12, Kueperkoch in view of Kitajima et
al. discloses The vehicle control device of claim 1,
Kueperkoch discloses wherein the area information further includes information about an area including a lane merge point, a lane diverge point, a tunnel entry point, a tunnel exit point, a road widen point, a road narrow point, or a section including a predetermined number of lanes or more. (Figures 3-5, [0040] “a virtual vehicle 260 is determined in the lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100, which is located at a distance from the merge zone 300, which corresponds to the distance s of the vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121 from the merge zone 300. The vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121 is “projected,” so to speak, onto the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100. The result of this “projection” is the virtual vehicle 260, which is now located ahead of the ego vehicle 100 in the lane 101. This virtual vehicle 260 is given the same object properties as the real vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121. This means that the size, type and speed of the virtual vehicle 260 correspond to those of the vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121. In addition, this virtual vehicle 260 receives the information that it is virtual, and the distance s to the merge zone 300 is assigned thereto”, and [0050] “a vehicle 200 is driving in a lane 121 ahead of the ego vehicle 100, and an intention for this vehicle 200 to change lanes to the lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100 can be predicted or is recognized by the environment sensor system 110, such as a turn signal. Even in this general case, in which there is no separation of the driving lanes, a virtual vehicle 260 can be defined, which is projected, so to speak, onto the adjacent lane at right angles. This virtual vehicle 260 can be taken into account in the assistance systems of the ego vehicle 100. In particular, the method can also be applied to lane changes from both sides of the ego vehicle 100.”)
However, Kueperkoch may be alleged to not disclose wherein the area information further includes information about an area including a lane merge point, a lane diverge point, a tunnel entry point, a tunnel exit point, a road widen point, a road narrow point, or a section including a predetermined number of lanes or more.
Kitajima et al. also teaches wherein the area information further includes information about an area including a lane merge point, a lane diverge point, a tunnel entry point, a tunnel exit point, a road widen point, a road narrow point, or a section including a predetermined number of lanes or more. ([0070] “controller 16 measures the vehicle speed and position of merging vehicle 24 based on the target information from radar 8 (S201). Here, the vehicle speed and position of merging vehicle 24 are, for example, the relative speed and relative position of merging vehicle 24 with respect to host vehicle 4. Based on the measured vehicle speed and position of merging vehicle 24, controller 16 determines the predicted merging time which is a time when merging vehicle 24 is predicted to reach merging point 28 (see FIG. 5) between merging lane 22 and traveling lane 18 (S202).” , and see at least figure 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kitajima et al. for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Kueperkoch in view of Kitajima et
al. discloses The vehicle control device of claim 1,
Kueperkoch discloses wherein the controller controls the velocity of the vehicle to secure a maximum safe distance according to adaptive cruise control in the defensive driving area based on the area information. ([0037] “Depending on this environment sensor system 110, the distance of a vehicle 120 driving ahead in the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100 is calculated. This allows a target distance 111, also known as the safety distance, to be calculated and automatically adjusted by accelerating or braking the ego vehicle 100.”, and [0043] “If the virtual vehicle 260 is not driving slower than the ego vehicle 100 or a potential collision is anticipated to occur within the merge zone 300, one of the following steps is initiated:”, [0044] “The ego vehicle 100 switches to the adjacent lane 102 if there is a sufficiently large gap in this lane, which is determined with the aid of the environment sensor system 110 of the ego vehicle 100, which also detects the adjacent lane 102.”, and [0045] “Alternatively, a distance control is effected. This means that the driving speed of the ego vehicle 100 is adjusted (increased or decreased) so that a suitable safety distance from the virtual vehicle 260 is established.”)
Regarding claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 18, Kueperkoch in combination with
Kitajima et al. discloses The vehicle driving control device of claim 1,
Kitajima et al. teaches wherein the controller outputs a proposal for a lane change to a
lane other than a lane joined by another lane or a lane where another lane is branched when the defensive driving area includes a lane merge point or a lane diverge point. ([0074] “If there is no other vehicle in overtaking lane 20 (NO in S206), controller 16 determines that host vehicle 4 can change lanes from traveling lane 18 to overtaking lane 20. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 6, controller 16 controls the traveling of host vehicle 4 by controlling steering actuator 15 and the like so that host vehicle 4 changes lanes from traveling lane 18 to overtaking lane 20 (S207). Accordingly, merging vehicle 24 can safely merge into traveling lane 18. After that, the process proceeds to step S106 of the flowchart in FIG. 2 described above.”, and see at least figures 2 and 6-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kitajima et al. for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1) in view of Kitajima et al. (US 2022019372 A1) and further in view of Jeong Ho Gi (KR 20000055183 A).
Regarding claim 4, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Kueperkoch in view of Kitajima et
al. discloses The vehicle driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein
the controller controls the velocity of the vehicle to further secure an additional distance to the maximum safe distance.
Jeong Ho Gi teaches wherein the controller controls the velocity of the vehicle to further
secure an additional distance to the maximum safe distance. (Page 5 lines 6-17 “Performing an ACC operation mode for maintaining a vehicle speed set when the ACC operation mode setting key is on while maintaining a predetermined safety distance with the front vehicle when the turn signal operation switch is in an off state; When the turn indicator operation switch is in the ON state of the ACC operation mode setting key, the lane change mode is provided to adjust the speed of the vehicle according to the operation of the accelerator pedal within the maximum safety distance and the minimum safety distance with the front vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. to incorporate safety distance determination as taught by Jeong Ho Gi for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to secure a safety distance with the front vehicle/surrounding vehicles.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1) in view of Kitajima et al. (US 2022019372 A1) and further in view of Lee Sang Ho (KR 101511865 B1).
Regarding claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Kueperkoch in view of Kitajima et
al. discloses The vehicle driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein
the controller controls the velocity of the vehicle to secure a safety space on a side of the vehicle when a surrounding vehicle is present on the side of the vehicle, based on the surrounding information.
Lee Sang Ho teaches wherein the controller controls the velocity of the vehicle to secure a
safety space on a side of the vehicle when a surrounding vehicle is present on the side of the vehicle, based on the surrounding information. (Page 4 lines 10-19 “When the adaptive cruise control apparatus receives a plurality of adjacent vehicle driving information, the adaptive cruise control apparatus can identify the adjacent vehicle that is likely to collide with the vehicle. The adaptive cruise control apparatus can prioritize the position of the adjacent vehicle with the highest possibility of collision and adjust the speed of the vehicle. The adaptive cruise control device can predict a travel route of a vehicle that may collide with the vehicle. The adaptive cruise control device can adjust the speed of the vehicle so that the distance between the vehicle and the adjacent vehicle satisfies the allowable distance range. The adaptive cruise control device can adjust the speed of the vehicle so as to secure a safety distance from a plurality of adjacent vehicles.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. to incorporate safety distance determination as taught by Lee Sang Ho for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to “secure a safety distance from a plurality of adjacent vehicles”. (Lee Sang Ho, page 4 line 19)
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1) in view of Kitajima et al. (US 2022019372 A1) and further in view of Horiguchi (US 20230202479 A1).
Regarding claim 9, and similarly with respect to claim 19, Kueperkoch in combination with
Kitajima et al. discloses The vehicle driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the information obtainer obtains the area information through communication from an external device or obtains the area information based on map data or GPS information.
Horiguchi teaches wherein the information obtainer obtains the area information through communication from an external device or obtains the area information based on map data or GPS information. ([0054] “the road map DB 36b may thus serve, together with the GNSS sensor 36a, as the “traveling environment recognizer” that recognizes the traveling environment information regarding the outside of the vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. to incorporate road map data base as taught by Horiguchi for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to accurately recognize the traveling environment information regarding the outside of the vehicle.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1) in view of Kitajima et al. (US 2022019372 A1) and further in view of Jiao (US 20210295067 A1).
Regarding claim 10, and similarly with respect to claim 20, Kueperkoch in view of Kitajima et
al. discloses The vehicle driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein
the controller recognizes a traffic sign from the surrounding information and obtains the area information based on the traffic sign.
Jiao teaches wherein the controller recognizes a traffic sign from the surrounding information and obtains the area information based on the traffic sign. ([0031] “, based on image data captured by the cameras 106, the vehicle 101 can adjust vehicle speed based on speed limit signs posted on roadways. For example, the vehicle 101 can maintain a constant, safe distance from a vehicle ahead (e.g., adaptive cruise control). In this example, the vehicle 101 maintains this safe distance by constantly adjusting its vehicle speed to that of the vehicle ahead.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch in combination with Kitajima et al. to incorporate traffic sign recognition as taught by Jiao for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to adjust its speed based on road signs and “maintain(ing) a constant, safe distance from a vehicle ahead (e.g. adaptive cruise control)”, increasing safety. (Jiao, [0031])
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 MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights