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 1-8 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 6-8 have been added since the last Office Action.
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 Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims have an extra “the” in lines 3, 4, and 4, respectively. They should read “a condition selected from . Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-8 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.
Claims 6-8 recite the limitation "vehicle" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation. The Office recommends “another vehicle”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0331232 to Tominaga et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0126851 to Lu et al.
As per claim 1, Tominaga discloses a vehicle control device configured to execute a lane change control that causes a vehicle to automatically change lanes from a current travel lane in which the vehicle is traveling to a target travel lane adjacent to the current travel lane (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 11), the vehicle control device comprising:
a processor (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 40 and 41); and
a memory storing executable instructions that cause the processor to (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 40 and 41)
control the vehicle to travel along a set target trajectory in the lane change control (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 74),
acquire, when a driver of the vehicle performs a steering operation during the execution of the lane change control (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 75)
execute a correction process when the steering torque input causes a lateral position of the vehicle to deviate from the target trajectory, the correction process being executed to advance or delay a timing of the target trajectory so that a target lateral position of the target trajectory coincides with 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 advances or delays the target trajectory in time so that the position of the target trajectory matches the current position of the vehicle).
Tominaga discloses a steering input (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 75) used to adjust the lane change trajectory (Tominaga; At least paragraph(s) 77, 79, and 80, and figures 6 and 17). Although, the steering torque would have to be less than a predetermined threshold torque, such as the physical limit of the steering system, in light of compact prosecution, Tominaga does not explicitly disclose the intent of the predetermined threshold nor, even though well-known in the art, the use of torque sensor, i.e. a detected steering torque input by the steering operation, the steering torque being detected by a steering torque sensor, and when the steering torque input by the steering operation is less than a predetermined threshold torque value.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Lu (Lu; At least paragraph(s) 3 and 4). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Lu into the invention of Tominaga with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Adjusting the target path based on a steering input less than a threshold allows the user to adjust the intended path of the vehicle without needing to assume control of the vehicle, as discussed in paragraph(s) 2 of Lu. Further, use of steering torque to determine steering input, which would require a torque sensor, is well-known in the art and would be obvious to substitute as a means of determining steering input.
As per claim 2, Tominaga discloses wherein, when executing the correction process, the executable instructions further cause the processor to change a movement amount by which the target trajectory is advanced or delayed 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 when executing the correction process, the executable instructions further cause the processor to 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.
As per claims 6-8, Tominaga does not explicitly disclose wherein, the executable instructions further cause the processor to cancel the lane change control when a cancellation condition is satisfied, the cancellation condition being a condition selected from the among the following conditions the steering torque input by the steering operation is equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold torque value; a brake operation is performed by the driver; a boundary line between the current travel lane and the target travel lane changes from a broken white line to a solid white line; and a distance between vehicle traveling in the target lane and the vehicle falls below a threshold distance.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Lu (Lu; At least paragraph(s) 26). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Lu into the invention of Tominaga with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Canceling the lane change control when the steering input exceeds the threshold would provide a smoother control and a better user experience. If the driver input exceeds a threshold, the vehicle would be too far off the target trajectory to smoothly return to it and the driver clearly intends to perform a different action or follow a different trajectory. Therefore, canceling the lane change control would align with the driver’s intention and provide a better experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection 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.
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.
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 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