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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 13 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 12 is directed to a computer program and fail to claim the "program" recorded on an appropriate computer readable medium or processed by an appropriate processor so as to be structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium or the processor and permit the function of descriptive material to be realized.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 13 is require a computer readable store medium, which stores a program. The specification does not set forth what constitutes a computer readable medium, and therefore said medium could be directed towards a propagated carrier signal. Claims that recite nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are nonstatutory natural phenomena. O'Reilly, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 112-14. Moreover, it does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in §101.
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 4 and 12 – 13 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitations of: the manually operated steering wheel is adjusted along a direction of rotation which corresponds to a change in the direction of travel of the motor vehicle toward the adjacent second lane.
It is not clear how manually operating steering wheel for lane change is part of automatic lane change when the driver manually change direction of steering wheel to desired adjacent lane. The Examiner construes that manually adjusting the steering wheel make the process manual lane change, not automatic lane change. Clarification is required. For the purpose of the examination, the Examiner will make the claim interpretation as the steering wheel direction is manually adjusted for lane change despite in automatic lane change status.
Claims 12 recites the limitation of “ … executed by the control device according to claim 10, cause the control device to carry out the method according to claim 10.”
Claim 10 is not directed to a method but to a control device. Clarification is required. The Examiner will construe that the carried out the method according to claim 1 for the examination purposes.
Claims 13 recites the limitation of “ … according to claim 10, causes the computer system and/or by the control device to carry out the method according to claim 10.”
Claim 10 is not directed to a method but to a control device. Clarification is required. The Examiner will construe that the carried out the method according to claim 1 for the examination purposes.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 7 and 10 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka et al. (Hereinafter Ishioka) (US 20200207355 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (Hereinafter Nakamura) (US 2018/0373250 A1).
As per claim 1, Ishioka teaches the limitations of:
a method for performing an automatic lane change of a motor vehicle from a first lane into an adjacent second lane of a roadway with at least two lanes, comprising:
suggesting, with the motor vehicle, the automatic lane change from the first lane into the adjacent second lane (See at least paragraph 108 – 109; The lane change assist control unit 222 confirms permission of the merging assist control at a timing within which the driver is capable of sufficiently responding to the merging point P5 (merging point 316), at a point P1 at which the host vehicle 12 is traveling along the approach path 304. Such a confirmation is notified at the point P1 by way of voice guidance after a synthesized sound “dong” is provided through the speaker 104, stating that “if the turn signal lever is operated, merging assist will be performed”. The notification may also be shown on the display 103. At point P2, when an operation in a clockwise direction of the turn signal lever 101 (including an operation in a clockwise direction by a one-touch turn signal) is confirmed, the lane change assist control unit 222 confirms through the contact sensor 108 whether or not the driver is gripping the steering wheel, and in the case that the driver is not gripping the steering wheel, then at point P3, a hands-on request is initiated through the speaker 104 so as to prompt the driver to grasp the steering wheel.);
confirming the suggestion to change from the first lane into the adjacent second lane, by the driver touching the manually operated steering wheel of the motor vehicle at least temporarily (See at least paragraph 110; At point P4, when it is confirmed that the driver has grasped the steering wheel (is in a hands-on state), and it is deemed that the driver desires (the driver has acknowledged) the lane change assist control, a notification is issued through the speaker 104 to the driver by way of a synthesized sound and voice (hereinafter referred to simply as voice) “dong . . . the merging assist will be performed”.); and
automatically, with the vehicle, changing from the first lane into the adjacent second lane automatically in response to the confirmation (See at least paragraph 111 – 112; From point P4 at which the driver acknowledgment is confirmed, the lane change assist control is initiated by the lane change assist control unit 222, and a speed adjustment (acceleration to the system upper limit speed) is carried out along the target trajectory 301. However, the host vehicle speed Vj is limited to a set vehicle speed that is preset by the driver using the HMI 32. Upon passing through the merging point 316 at point P5, lateral movement is terminated, and when a follow-on control (ACC) in the main line 320 is initiated at point P6, the direction indicator lamp (among the lamps 112, the turn signal lamp) of the host vehicle 12 on the side of the main line 320, and the direction indicator lamp within the meter panel 102 are turned off. In this manner, the lane change assist control (merging assist control) is successfully brought to an end.).
Ishioka teaches the limitations of hand-off state and adjusting the direction of vehicle for a lane change (see the rejection above) but does not teach in the nuance of the claim limitation which is:
driving the motor vehicle in the first lane in a semi-automated manner, wherein a driver of the motor vehicle does not touch a manually operated steering wheel of the motor vehicle in a manner which adjusts a direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
Nakamura teaches the limitation of:
driving the motor vehicle in the first lane in a semi-automated manner, wherein a driver of the motor vehicle does not touch a manually operated steering wheel of the motor vehicle in a manner which adjusts a direction of travel of the motor vehicle (See at least paragraph 80; When the LKAS is executed, the driving support control unit 200 controls the steering device 520 so that the subject vehicle M travels while maintains (lane keeping) a travel lane on which the subject vehicle M is currently traveling. That is, the driving support control unit 200 performs a steering control for maintaining a lane. The steering control by the driving support control unit 200 (the driving support control) is set to be smaller than a maximum steering torque given to a shaft of the steering wheel 82 at the time of the steering control by the automatic driving control unit 300 (the automatic driving control). That is, under the driving support control, a freedom degree of the operation of the steering wheel 82 of the occupant is relatively high, and under the automatic driving control, the freedom degree of the operation of the steering wheel 82 of the occupant is lower than that under the driving support control. The driving support of the first degree may also include various controls other than the automatic driving (the driving support of the second degree and the third degree) that does not require the operation of the driving operation element 80 to the occupant (driver)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include element of driving the motor vehicle in the first lane in a semi-automated manner, wherein a driver of the motor vehicle does not touch a manually operated steering wheel of the motor vehicle in a manner which adjusts a direction of travel of the motor vehicle as taught by Nakamura in the system of Ishioka, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura teaches the limitation of:
wherein: the motor vehicle suggests the automatic lane change in response to the motor vehicle recognizing, using an optical sensor, that the driver is looking into a side mirror of the motor vehicle facing the adjacent second lane (Nakamura, see at least abstract and paragraph 184 – 185).
As per claim 3, the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura teaches the limitation of:
wherein: the suggesting, with the motor vehicle, the automatic lane change is made by a visual and/or acoustic and/or haptic signal generated by the motor vehicle in its interior (Ishioka, see at least paragraph 108 and 110).
As per claim 4, the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura teaches the limitation of:
wherein: the confirming the suggestion by the driver of the motor vehicle is only accepted as having taken place when, in addition to the driver touching the manually operated steering wheel at least temporarily, the manually operated steering wheel is adjusted along a direction of rotation which corresponds to a change in the direction of travel of the motor vehicle toward the adjacent second lane (Ishioka, see at least paragraph 181 and Nakamura, see at least paragraph 139).
As per claim 5, the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura teaches the limitation of:
wherein: the confirming the suggestion by the driver of the motor vehicle is only accepted as having taken place when, in addition to the driver touching the manually operated steering wheel at least temporarily, a change in a line of vision of the driver in the direction of the adjacent second lane is detected using an optical sensor (Ishioka, see at least paragraph 110 – 112, and Nakamura, see at least abstract and paragraph 184 – 185).
As per claim 10, the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura teaches the limitation of:
a control device for a motor vehicle, wherein the control device is configured/programmed to perform the method according to claim 1(See at least figure 1).
As per claim 11, the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura teaches the limitation of:
A motor vehicle (Ishioka, see at least paragraph 5), comprising:
a steering device configured to set a current direction of travel of the motor vehicle (Ishioka, see at least figure 1);
a manually operated steering wheel configured to control the steering device by a driver of the motor vehicle, wherein the manually operated steering wheel has a touch sensor configured to detect the driver touching the manually operated steering wheel with at least one hand (Ishioka, see at least paragraph 36); and
a control device operably connected to the touch sensor of the manually operated steering wheel and configured to control the steering device during at least a semi-automated driving of the motor vehicle thus allowing the direction of travel of the motor vehicle to be adjusted (Ishioka, see at least paragraph 110 – 112), wherein the control device is configured/programmed to perform the method according to claim 1.
As per claim 12, the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura teaches the limitation of:
a computer program product comprising commands which, when the computer program product (Ishioka, see at least paragraph 44 – 46) is executed by the control device according to claim 10, cause the control device to carry out the method according to claim 10.
As per claim 13, the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura teaches the limitation of:
A data carrier which contains commands that, when executed by a computer system and/or by the control device (Ishioka, see at least paragraph 44 – 46) according to claim 10, causes the computer system and/or by the control device to carry out the method according to claim 10.
Regarding claim 6:
Claims 6 – 7 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 – 5 above, respectively.
Claims 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka and Nakamura and in further view of Hashimoto et al. (Hereinafter Hashimoto) (US 2019/0143982 A1).
As per claim 8, the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura teaches the all the limitation of the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
aborting the automatic lane change in response to the driver adjusting the manually operated steering wheel in a direction of rotation which corresponds to a change in the direction of travel of the motor vehicle away from the adjacent second lane.
Hashimoto teaches the limitation of;
aborting the automatic lane change in response to the driver adjusting the manually operated steering wheel in a direction of rotation which corresponds to a change in the direction of travel of the motor vehicle away from the adjacent second lane (See at least paragraph 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include aborting the automatic lane change in response to the driver adjusting the manually operated steering wheel in a direction of rotation which corresponds to a change in the direction of travel of the motor vehicle away from the adjacent second lane as taught by Hashimoto in the system of the combination of Ishioka and Nakamura, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, the combination of Ishioka, Nakamura and Hashimoto teaches the all the limitation of the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
aborting the automatic lane change in response to the driver removing the at least one hand from the manually operated steering wheel during the lane change or stopping touching the manually operated steering wheel altogether (Hashimoto, see at least paragraph 73).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Su et al. (CN 116161036 A1) disclsoes an automatic lane changing method, device, electronic device and storage medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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 at (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.
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662