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 .
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.
Introduction
Claims 1-5 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is taken as the representative claim. Claim 1 is directed to “moving the target trajectory forward or backward”, which is a mental process. That is, other than the moving being done on a vehicle control device, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or recite additional elements that amount to significantly more because the additional element of a vehicle control device is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality upon which the abstract idea is intended to be implemented on.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. Claims 2 and 3 merely add details about the abstract idea and, thus, do not add significantly more or a practical idea to the abstract idea.
Similar to claim 1, claims 4 and 5 are directed to the mental process of “moving the target trajectory forward or backward”. Claim 4 does not include any additional elements. Claim 5 does not include any additional elements that result in a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea because the only additional element is a storage medium, which is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality upon which the abstract idea is intended to be implemented on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0331232 to Tominaga et al.
As per claim 1, Tominaga discloses a vehicle control device configured to execute lane change control for automatically changing lanes from a lane where a vehicle is traveling to a target lane adjacent to the lane by causing the vehicle to travel along a set target trajectory (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 11), the vehicle control device comprising a correction processing unit configured to, when a lateral position of the vehicle deviates from the target trajectory due to a steering operation of a driver of the vehicle during execution of the lane change control, execute a correction process for moving the target trajectory forward or backward to bring a target lateral position of the target trajectory closer to a current lateral position of the vehicle (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 77, 79, and 80, and figures 6 and 17; in response to a lateral shift due to driver steering intervention, the generation unit moves the target trajectory forward or backward in time so that the position of the target trajectory matches the current position of the vehicle).
As per claim 2, Tominaga discloses wherein the correction processing unit is configured to, in execution of the correction process, change a movement amount for moving the target trajectory forward or backward according to an amount of deviation of the lateral position of the vehicle from the target trajectory (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 79, 80, and 83).
As per claim 3, Tominaga discloses wherein the correction processing unit is configured to, in execution of the correction process, move the target trajectory backward when the lateral position of the vehicle deviates from the target trajectory toward the target lane, and move the target trajectory forward when the lateral position of the vehicle deviates from the target trajectory to a side opposite to the target lane (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 79, 80, and 83, and figures 6 and 17; if the vehicle moves to the opposite side, the target trajectory is move forward in time, as seen in figure 6, and if the vehicle moves to the lane change side, the target trajectory would move backward is time, i.e., further along the target trajectory).
As per claims 4 and 5, Tominaga discloses the control method and storage medium associated with the control device of claim 1 (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 40, 76-80, and 83; the process (method) is described in the reference as a whole). Therefore, claims 4 and 5 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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 Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights