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 Office action is in response to the amendments filed on June 02, 2026. Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are currently pending, with Claims 1-2 and 5-9 being amended, Claims 3 and 4 being canceled, and Claim 10 being newly added.
Response to amendments
In response to Applicant’s arguments, filed June 02, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous objections to the drawings, withdraws the previous objections to the claims, withdraws the previous claim interpretation, and maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, filed June 02, 2026, pertaining to the teachings of an operation lever (see page 12 of instant arguments), the Examiner is unpersuaded. Nishiguchi teaches that the driving operating element includes a turn signal lever configured to activate a turn signal or a lane change start switch, and the operation detection unit detects an amount of operation by an occupant on the droving operating element, and that a lane change start switch can also be activated to start lane change control (see at least Paragraphs [0037], [0039], [0041] of Nishiguchi). Nishiguchi currently teaches all the features of the claims, as they are currently written. As such, the Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, filed June 02, 2026, pertaining to the teachings of Nishiguchi relating to the determination of if a lane change is possible (see pages 13-15 of instant arguments),the Examiner is unpersuaded. Nishiguchi teaches that a lane change is determined to be possible or not, and when it is not possible, the vehicle is kept in a standby status, until the lane change target position requirements for changing lanes are satisfied (see at least Paragraphs [0072], [0077], [0096], [0108] of Nishiguchi). Nishiguchi teaches that a lane change can be conducted when it is possible to change lanes, such that the vehicle can change lanes when it is possible to do so, which means the vehicle must first determine that a lane change is possible and can be performed. Nishiguchi further teaches that the system determines a buffer region for the projected location of the host vehicle to change lanes, and when no vehicles are present in the buffer region, the system determines a lane change is possible (i.e., satisfies a first condition for performing a lane change based on a relative distance of another vehicle) (see at least Paragraphs [004], [0076], [0078] of Nishiguchi). Nishiguchi further teaches that the vehicle can perform a lane change under stricter conditions, such that the vehicle may adjust its speed to accelerate or decelerate so that it can conduct a lane change when other vehicles are present (see at least Paragraphs [0077], [0108] of Nishiguchi. As such, Nishiguchi teaches the features of the claims, as they currently written. The Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 6, and 8-9 recite “an operation receiver …”. Recommend changing the language to be consistent with the disclosure in the written description, such as “a driving operator …” in Paragraph [0028] of the written description.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 limitations use 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 a claim limitation is:
“an operation receiver …” in Claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Regarding the limitation of “an operation receiver …”, the instant specification at Paragraph [0028] at least states that “the driving operator 80 includes, for example, a blinker lever 81, a steering wheel 82, an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a shift lever … and the other operators may include an operation switch SW1 … and a sensor detects an operation amount or presence or absence of an operation …”. The Examiner is interpreting “an operation receiver” as any vehicular device capable of receiving input by a user.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0061766 A1, to Nishiguchi (hereinafter referred to as Nishiguchi; previously of record).
As per Claim 1, Nishiguchi discloses the features of a lane change assistance device capable of assisting lane change of an own vehicle from an own lane in which the own vehicle travels to an adjacent lane adjacent to the own lane (e.g. Paragraphs [0052], [0054], [0057], [0062]; where a vehicle includes a driving support control unit (200) which has a lane change support control unit for recognizing the position and orientation of the host vehicle (M) and may recognize an adjacent lane to the host lane in order to execute a lane change), the lane change assistance device comprising:
circuitry configured to recognize a surrounding situation of the own vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0033], [0128]; where the external environment recognition unit (202) and the host vehicle position recognition unit (204) recognize a situation in the surroundings of the host vehicle (M); and
perform the lane change based on the surrounding situation (e.g. Paragraphs [0061]-[0062]; where the lane change support control unit (210) includes a lane change availability determination unit (211), which determines whether or not a lane change to an adjacent lane is possible), wherein
the circuitry executes a first lane change control in response to an operation on an operation receiver, comprising a sensor that detects an operation amount, presence or absence of an operation provided in the own vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0037], [0039], [0041]; where the driving operating element (40) includes, for example, a turn signal lever (40a) configured to activate a turn signal, or a lane change start switch (22), and various operating elements for operating an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, and a shift lever; and where the operation detection unit detects an amount of operation by an occupant; and where a lane change start switch (22) can be activated to start lane change control), the first lane change control comprising
performing a first determination to determine whether the lane change is possible or impossible based on the surrounding situation (e.g. Paragraphs [0062], [0093]; where the lane change availability determination unit (211) that a lane change is possible, regardless of whether the turn signal lever is operated),
in a case where the lane change is determined to be impossible in the first determination, transitioning to a standby state in which execution of the lane change is on standby (e.g. Paragraphs [0072], [0077], [0096], [0108]; where the lane change availability determination unit (211) sets a target position serving as a lane change destination (target position, TA), determines whether or not there are nearby vehicles at the lane change target position (TAs), and the driving support control unit (200) may control the speed of the host vehicle (M) so that a current speed is kept until the lane change target position (TAs) satisfies the condition for changing lanes; and the system calculates a standby time when it is determined that the host vehicle (M) and a nearby vehicle (m1) are in a parallel state)
after transitioning to the standby state, performing a second determination to determine whether the lane change is possible or impossible based on the surrounding situation (e.g. Paragraphs [0102], [0108]; where the parallel state traveling determination unit (213) acquires a relative position and speed of a nearby vehicle with respect to the host vehicle (M) recognized by the external environment recognition unit (202); and the parallel traveling state determination unit (213) determines whether the host vehicle (M) and each nearby vehicle are in a parallel traveling state; and if they are determined to be in a parallel traveling state, the system determines if a lane change is possible during the standby time), and
in a case where the lane change is determined to be possible in the second determination, performing the lane change (e.g. Paragraphs [0108], [0111]; where the standby time is changed so that the distance between the host vehicle (M) and the nearby vehicle (m1) is greater than or equal to at least a length of one vehicle, such that the vehicles are not in the parallel traveling sate at the time when the lane change of the host vehicle (M) is completed), and wherein in the circuitry is further configured to:
determine, in the first determination, that the lane change is possible in a case where the surrounding situation satisfies a first condition relating to a relative distance with an other vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane (e.g. Paragraphs [0074], [0076], [0078]; where the lane change availability determination unit (211) sets a prohibition region (RA) as being a region having a buffer distance in front of and behind the projected host vehicle (M), and when no vehicles are within the set prohibition region (RA), the time-to-collision (TTC) value is greater than a threshold value for preceding and following vehicles, the system determines a lane change is possible); and
determine, in the second determination, that the lane change is possible in a case where the surrounding situation satisfies a second condition that is stricter than the first condition in terms of a length of the relative distance with the other vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0077], [0108]; where the lane change availability determination unit (211) determines that the condition is not satisfied when there is a nearby vehicle in the prohibition region (RA), the lane change availability determination unit (211) iteratively determines if two other vehicles from among the nearby vehicles located in the adjacent lane (L2) and sets a new lane change target positions (TAs), where the driving support control unit (200) may control the speed of the host vehicle (M) to accelerate or decelerate so the host vehicle (M) moves to the side of the lane change target position (TAs) to conduct a lane change (i.e., is more restrictive)).
As per Claim 2, Nishiguchi discloses the features of Claim 1, and Nishiguchi further discloses the features of wherein in a case where the lane change is determined to be possible in the first determination, the circuitry is further configured to perform the lane change without transitioning to the standby state (e.g. Paragraphs [0076], [0094], [0105]; where the lane change availability determination unit (211) determines that there are no nearby vehicles within the set prohibition region (RA), the system determines that lane change is possible, and the determines control details for executing the lane change).
As per Claim 5, Nishiguchi discloses the features of Claim 1, and Nishiguchi further discloses the features of wherein the relative distance in the second condition gradually increases according to an elapsed time or a movement distance (e.g. Paragraphs [0102]-[0103], [0108]; where the parallel traveling state determination unit (213) acquires a relative distance and speed of the nearby vehicle (m1), and the hist vehicle position recognition unit (204) calculates a position of the nearby vehicle at times (t1 to t4); and the parallel traveling state determination unit (213) compares the position of the host vehicle (M) at times (t1 to t4) with the nearby vehicle (m1) to determine whether they are in a parallel traveling state; and when they are in the parallel traveling state, the lane change execution unit (214) calculates a time in which a distance between the host vehicle (M) and the nearby vehicle (m1) is greater than or equal to at least a length of one vehicle when the host vehicle (M) has completed the lane change).
As per Claim 6, Nishiguchi discloses the features of Claim 1, and Nishiguchi further discloses the features of wherein the operation receiver is an operator different from a blinker lever provided in the own vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0039], [0062]; where the lane change start switch (22) is a switch for starting lane control for causing the host vehicle (M) to change lanes, and the lane change start switch (22) may receive a direction (right or left) for changing the lane of the host vehicle (M)).
As per Claim 7, Nishiguchi discloses the features of Claim 6, and Nishiguchi further discloses the features of wherein the circuitry is further configured to
execute a second lane change control in response to a predetermined operation on the blinker lever, the second lane change control comprising performing the lane change in a case where the lane change is determined to be possible based on the surrounding situation (e.g. Paragraphs [0041], [0062], [0074]; where the an operation detection unit detects a position of the turn signal lever (40), outputs a detection signal to the driving support control unit (200); and when the turn signal (40) is operated, the lane change availability unit (211) determines whether or not a lane change to a lane is possible, and an instruction for changing the lane to the adjacent lane is issued in response), and
not performing the lane change in a case where the lane change is determined to be impossible based on the surrounding situation (e.g. Paragraphs [0082], [0130], [0132]; where when the turn signal lever (40) is operated, and a lane change instruction is issued, the lane change availability determination unit (211) determines that a condition for changing lanes is not satisfied, and the system determines if the vehicles are in a parallel traveling state, and waits to perform a lane change).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0061766 A1, to Nishiguchi (hereinafter referred to as Nishiguchi; previously of record), in view of WIPO Patent Publication No. 2022/144959 A1, to Komori, et al (hereinafter referred to as Komori; previously of record).
As per Claim 8, Nishiguchi discloses the features of Claim 6, and Nishiguchi further discloses the features of wherein the circuitry is further configured to ‘…’ turn on the turn signal light in a case where the lane change is determined to be possible in the first determination, or in a case where the lane change is determined to be impossible in the first determination and the lane change is determined to be possible in the second determination (e.g. Paragraph [0100]; Figures 4, 7; where a turn signal lever (40) is operated by the occupant, and the turn signal of the host vehicle (M) starts to be activated, and the host vehicle (M) flashes (blinking) of the turn signal while traveling along the host lane until the standby time elapses and the host vehicle (M) has completed a lane change).
Nishiguchi fails to disclose every feature of wherein the circuitry is further configured to not turn on a turn signal light in a case where the operation receiver is merely operated.
However, Komori, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle control apparatus for a vehicle, where the driving controller (80) includes a combination switch (90) which includes a first and second operating lever (90A, 90B), where the first operation lever (90A) is a lever for adjusting the lighting state of the lights which may be controller by based on operation performed by the occupant on the first operation lever (90A) (i.e., an operation on the lever other than for activating the turn lights is conducted), and the further operation lever further functions for operating the lighting state of a turn signal when it is operated to light the turn signal (e.g. Page 8, Paragraphs beginning with “The combination switch 90 …” and “The first operation lever 90A …”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle control system of Nishiguchi, with the feature of operating a lever without turning on the turning lights in the system of Komori, in order to control operation of other components on the lever (see at Page 8, Paragraph beginning with “The first operation lever 90A …” of Komori).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0061766 A1, to Nishiguchi (hereinafter referred to as Nishiguchi; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0255016 A1, to Tsuji, et al (hereinafter referred to as Tsuji; previously of record).
As per Claim 9, Nishiguchi discloses the features of Claim 1, and Nishiguchi further discloses the features of wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
make a suggestion on the lane change to an occupant of the own vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0060]; where the HMI control unit (120) notifies the occupant that the vehicle is likely to deviate from the host lane, and if the occupant does not operate the steering wheel after it is vibrated, the lane keeping support control unit performs steering control so that the host vehicle (M) returns to the lane center), ‘…’
execute the first lane change control in response to an operation on the operation receiver when the suggestion is not made (e.g. Paragraph [0060]; where the HMI control unit (120) notifies the occupant that the vehicle is likely to deviate from the host lane, and if the occupant does not operate the steering wheel after it is vibrated, the lane keeping support control unit performs steering control so that the host vehicle (M) returns to the lane center).
Nishiguchi fails to disclose every feature of wherein the circuitry is further configured to ‘…’ execute a third lane change control to perform the lane change in response to an operation to agree to the suggestion.
However, Tsuji, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle control device which detects input from a user, where when the user is in agreement with the lane change proposal issued by the proposal unit, the user presses a first input unit (70A), and when the user does not agree with the lane change proposal, the user can press a second input button (70B) (e.g. Paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle control system of Nishiguchi, with the feature of obtaining user agreement for a lane change action in the system of Tsuji, in order to control operations of starting, terminating, or suspending a lane keeping function, and improve the user’s understanding of the requested operation (see at Paragraphs [0049], [0083] of Tsuji).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0061766 A1, to Nishiguchi (hereinafter referred to as Nishiguchi; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0118223 A1, to Mori, et al (hereinafter referred to as Mori; newly of record).
As per Claim 10, Nishiguchi discloses the features of Claim 1, but Nishiguchi fails to disclose every feature of wherein the circuitry, in the first lane change control, is further configured to start turning on a blinker after determining in the second determination that the lane change is possible, and perform the lane change.
However, Mori, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a startup suggestion device for assisting a driving operation of a driver, where the adaptive cruise control indicator (ACC, 52a) and the lane keeping assist indicator (LKA, 52b) are changed to indicate a standby state, when a lane change is determined to be impossible, and the vehicle (A) actuates a blinker (direction indicator lamp) and starts moving to the adjacent lane (e.g. Paragraphs [0101]-[0103], [0116], [0148]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle control system of Nishiguchi, with the feature of determining a lane change is possible and then activating the turn signal in the system of Mori, in order to indicate that a lane change can be performed (see at Paragraph [0062] of Mori).
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 MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights