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 application filed on August 10th, 2026. Claim 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to applicant’s amendments filed August 10th, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections; and maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 10th, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claim 1 as put forth on pages 6-7 of applicants’ arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Oniwa fails to disclose an attention attraction controller that performs centering steering control for moving the host vehicle to the center of a traveling lane when it is determined that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle. Oniwa fails to disclose an attention attraction controller that attracts the attention of a driver by controlling steering when an obstacle is present in front. Oniwa discloses driving near the center of the lane using standard Lane Keeping Assist systems (LKAS). However, the LKAS of Oniwa is a lane-keeping control executed during normal operations. In contrast, the centering steering control of the vehicle control device of amended claim 1 is an alert-providing control executed based on an abnormal condition involving the presence of a forward obstacle being determined. The systems are different and not interchangeable with one another. The systems may be complimentary, but they function differently, and function at different times. Consequently, the LKAS of Oniwa does not correspond to the “centering steering control executed when a forward obstacle is present” as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, the LKAS of Oniwa does not teach or suggest a configuration in which centering steering control is executed as an attention attraction control, as recited in claim 1.”
With respect to point (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the arguments not persuasive. Oniwa in Fig. 9 shows a situation of how a host vehicle would react when an obstacle is detected. The host vehicle is controlled to drive in a normal state using the LKAS, for a period of time prior to becoming within a switching point caused by the obstacle, therefore when an obstacle is detected the lane centering is maintained being performed up until the switching point is reached. Additionally, with respect to applicant’s amendments stating that the steering control is used to “attract an attention of a driver of the host vehicle,” this is merely intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, although Oniwa does not specify that the steering control is done with the intention of attracting the attention of the driver since it does control the steering in the manner described in the claims, the intended use does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. Examiner asserts that Applicant arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claims 3, 6, and 7 as put forth on page 7, the applicants’ arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Since Oniwa does not disclose all of the features of claim 1, most notably the centering steering control for moving the host vehicle to the center of a traveling lane when it is determined that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle and attracting the attention of a driver by controlling steering when an obstacle is present in front, Oniwa cannot anticipate claims 1, 3, 6, and 7.”
With respect to point (b), se point (a).
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claims 2 and 4 as put forth on pages 7-8, applicants’ arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Neither Kakeda nor Nehmad teach or suggest a vehicle control device including an attention attraction controller configured to attract an attention of a driver of the host vehicle by controlling at least steering among steering and acceleration/deceleration of the host vehicle when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle on the basis of a recognition result from the recognizer, the attention attraction controller performing at least centering steering control for moving the host vehicle to the center of a traveling lane when it is determined that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle, and the attention attraction controller stops the centering steering control when a degree of recognition of marking lines defining the traveling lane of the host vehicle by the recognizer is less than a threshold value at the time of performing of the centering steering control. Since Oniwa, Kakeda, and Nehmad fail to teach or suggest all of the features of the claimed invention, Oniwa, Kakeda, and Nehmad cannot render any of the claims obvious.
With respect to point (c), see point (a).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US-20180348779 (hereinafter, “Oniwa”).
Regarding claim 1 Oniwa discloses a vehicle control device (see at least [0002]; “The present invention relates to a vehicle control system, a vehicle control method, and a storage medium”) comprising:
a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (see at least [0059]; “The subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 recognizes, for example, a lane (traveling lane) on which the subject vehicle M is traveling and a relative position and posture of the subject vehicle M relative to the traveling lane. The subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122, for example, recognizes lane markers LM of a road in the image captured by the camera 10,” and [0045]; “The object recognition device 16 performs a sensor fusion process on detection results of some or all of the camera 10, the radar 12, and the finder 14 to recognize a position, type, speed, movement direction, and the like of an object.”);
and an attention attraction controller configured to attract an attention of a driver of the host vehicle by controlling at least steering (see at least [0064]; “The steering assistance control unit 142 controls the steering device 220 to perform steering control of the subject vehicle M”) among steering and acceleration/deceleration of the host vehicle (see at least [0063]; “The speed assistance control unit 141 controls the traveling driving force output device 200 and the brake device 210 such that speed control of the subject vehicle M is performed”) when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle on the basis of a recognition result from the recognizer (see at least Fig. 9 and [0100]; “When it becomes necessary to avoid an obstacle OB during execution of each event, an avoidance trajectory is generated as illustrated in FIG. 9”),
wherein the attention attraction controller performs at least centering steering control for moving the host vehicle to the center of a traveling lane when it is determined that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (see at least [0064]; “the steering assistance control unit 142 controls steering of the subject vehicle M to keep the traveling lane center recognized by the subject vehicle position recognition unit 122. For example, the steering assistance control unit 142 controls steering of the subject vehicle M so that each of the two lane markers LM demarcating the traveling lane and the subject vehicle M becomes equidistant,” and fig. 9 as shown by fig. 9 even when an obstacle is present in front of a host vehicle the host vehicle remains centered for a period of time before moving around the detected obstacle, and [0100]; “When the recommended lane is determined, the action plan generation unit 123 activates a lane change event, a branch event, a merging event or the like when the subject vehicle approaches a predetermined distance before a switching point of the recommended lane (which may be determined according to a type of event). When it becomes necessary to avoid an obstacle OB during execution of each event, an avoidance trajectory is generated as illustrated in FIG. 9,” prior to the vehicle reaching a switching point in front of the vehicle, the vehicle is kept centered in the lane as shown on Fig. 9), and
wherein the attention attraction controller stops the centering steering control when a degree of recognition of marking lines defining the traveling lane of the host vehicle by the recognizer is less than a threshold value at the time of performing of the centering steering control (see at least [0065-0066]; “the steering assistance control unit 142 controls the steering device 220 to change the direction of the steerable wheels to the center of the lane and control steering so that the subject vehicle M returns to the center of the lane…When the lane marker LM is not recognized by the subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 or when the reliability of the lane marker LM is equal to or smaller than the threshold value while the lane keeping control or the out-of-road deviation prevention control is being executed, the steering assistance control unit 142 limits (stops) the control that is being executed,” and [0068]; “For example, when the subject vehicle M approaches the point Pl, the subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 cannot recognize a traveling lane. In this case, when the steering assistance control unit 142 has executed the lane keeping control or the out-of-road deviation prevention control in a section before Pl, the steering assistance control unit 142 stops this control and performs the second steering control” the steering control being executed at the time when the recognizer becomes less than the threshold is ended and a new steering control is enacted).
Regarding claim 3 Oniwa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Oniwa discloses wherein the attention attraction controller performs deceleration control for decelerating the host vehicle when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (see at least [0063]; “the speed assistance control unit 141 may accelerate or decelerate the subject vehicle M in a range of predetermined set vehicle speeds such that the subject vehicle M follows a nearby vehicle (a preceding vehicle) present in front of the subject vehicle M among the nearby vehicles recognized by the external world recognition unit 121.”), and
wherein the attention attraction controller continues to perform the deceleration control when the degree of recognition of the marking lines defining the traveling lane of the host vehicle by the recognizer is less than the threshold value at the time of performing of the deceleration control (see at least [fig. 10]; at S200 it is determined whether the lanes are recognized above a threshold if not other determinations are made, which may end up in causing the vehicle to perform alternative control, S214. Alternative control is described as the following at [0115]; “On the other hand, when the passenger does not enter the hands-on state within the predetermined time, the automatic driving controller 160 performs alternative control instead of the second steering control (step S214). For example, when the occupant does not enter the hands-on state within the predetermined time, the action plan generation unit 123 generates a target trajectory for decelerating the subject vehicle M and stopping the vehicle. The automatic driving controller 160 receives the target trajectory and deceleration control. Accordingly, the process of this flowchart ends”).
Regarding claim 6 Oniwa discloses a vehicle control method that is performed by a computer (see at least [0002]; “The present invention relates to a vehicle control system, a vehicle control method, and a storage medium”), the vehicle control method comprising:
recognizing a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (see at least [0059]; “The subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 recognizes, for example, a lane (traveling lane) on which the subject vehicle M is traveling and a relative position and posture of the subject vehicle M relative to the traveling lane. The subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122, for example, recognizes lane markers LM of a road in the image captured by the camera 10,” and [0045]; “The object recognition device 16 performs a sensor fusion process on detection results of some or all of the camera 10, the radar 12, and the finder 14 to recognize a position, type, speed, movement direction, and the like of an object.”); and
performing attention attraction control to attract an attention of a driver of the host vehicle by controlling at least steering (see at least [0064]; “The steering assistance control unit 142 controls the steering device 220 to perform steering control of the subject vehicle M”) among steering and acceleration/deceleration of the host vehicle (see at least [0063]; “The speed assistance control unit 141 controls the traveling driving force output device 200 and the brake device 210 such that speed control of the subject vehicle M is performed”) when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle on the basis of a recognition result (see at least Fig. 9 and [0100]; “When it becomes necessary to avoid an obstacle OB during execution of each event, an avoidance trajectory is generated as illustrated in FIG. 9”),
wherein the attention attraction control includes performing at least centering steering control for moving the host vehicle to the center of a traveling lane when it is determined that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (see at least [0064]; “the steering assistance control unit 142 controls steering of the subject vehicle M to keep the traveling lane center recognized by the subject vehicle position recognition unit 122. For example, the steering assistance control unit 142 controls steering of the subject vehicle M so that each of the two lane markers LM demarcating the traveling lane and the subject vehicle M becomes equidistant,” and fig. 9 as shown by fig. 9 even when an obstacle is present in front of a host vehicle the host vehicle remains centered for a period of time before moving around the detected obstacle, and [0100]; “When the recommended lane is determined, the action plan generation unit 123 activates a lane change event, a branch event, a merging event or the like when the subject vehicle approaches a predetermined distance before a switching point of the recommended lane (which may be determined according to a type of event). When it becomes necessary to avoid an obstacle OB during execution of each event, an avoidance trajectory is generated as illustrated in FIG. 9,” prior to the vehicle reaching a switching point in front of the vehicle, the vehicle is kept centered in the lane as shown on Fig. 9), and
wherein the attention attraction control includes stopping the centering steering control when a degree of recognition of marking lines defining the traveling lane of the host vehicle is less than a threshold value at the time of performing of the steering control (see at least [0065-0066]; “the steering assistance control unit 142 controls the steering device 220 to change the direction of the steerable wheels to the center of the lane and control steering so that the subject vehicle M returns to the center of the lane…When the lane marker LM is not recognized by the subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 or when the reliability of the lane marker LM is equal to or smaller than the threshold value while the lane keeping control or the out-of-road deviation prevention control is being executed, the steering assistance control unit 142 limits (stops) the control that is being executed,” and [0068]; “For example, when the subject vehicle M approaches the point Pl, the subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 cannot recognize a traveling lane. In this case, when the steering assistance control unit 142 has executed the lane keeping control or the out-of-road deviation prevention control in a section before Pl, the steering assistance control unit 142 stops this control and performs the second steering control” the steering control being executed at the time when the recognizer becomes less than the threshold is ended and a new steering control is enacted).
Regarding claim 7 Oniwa discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (see at least [0002]; “The present invention relates to a vehicle control system, a vehicle control method, and a storage medium”), the program causing a computer to perform:
recognizing a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (see at least [0059]; “The subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 recognizes, for example, a lane (traveling lane) on which the subject vehicle M is traveling and a relative position and posture of the subject vehicle M relative to the traveling lane. The subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122, for example, recognizes lane markers LM of a road in the image captured by the camera 10,” and [0045]; “The object recognition device 16 performs a sensor fusion process on detection results of some or all of the camera 10, the radar 12, and the finder 14 to recognize a position, type, speed, movement direction, and the like of an object.”); and
performing attention attraction control to attract an attention of a driver of the host vehicle by at least steering (see at least [0064]; “The steering assistance control unit 142 controls the steering device 220 to perform steering control of the subject vehicle M”) among steering and acceleration/deceleration of the host vehicle (see at least [0063]; “The speed assistance control unit 141 controls the traveling driving force output device 200 and the brake device 210 such that speed control of the subject vehicle M is performed”) when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle on the basis of a recognition result (see at least Fig. 9 and [0100]; “When it becomes necessary to avoid an obstacle OB during execution of each event, an avoidance trajectory is generated as illustrated in FIG. 9”),
wherein the attention attraction control includes performing at least centering steering control for moving the host vehicle to the center of a traveling lane when it is determined that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (see at least [0064]; “the steering assistance control unit 142 controls steering of the subject vehicle M to keep the traveling lane center recognized by the subject vehicle position recognition unit 122. For example, the steering assistance control unit 142 controls steering of the subject vehicle M so that each of the two lane markers LM demarcating the traveling lane and the subject vehicle M becomes equidistant,” and fig. 9 as shown by fig. 9 even when an obstacle is present in front of a host vehicle the host vehicle remains centered for a period of time before moving around the detected obstacle, and [0100]; “When the recommended lane is determined, the action plan generation unit 123 activates a lane change event, a branch event, a merging event or the like when the subject vehicle approaches a predetermined distance before a switching point of the recommended lane (which may be determined according to a type of event). When it becomes necessary to avoid an obstacle OB during execution of each event, an avoidance trajectory is generated as illustrated in FIG. 9,” prior to the vehicle reaching a switching point in front of the vehicle, the vehicle is kept centered in the lane as shown on Fig. 9), and
wherein the attention attraction control includes stopping the centering steering control when a degree of recognition of marking lines defining the traveling lane of the host vehicle is less than a threshold value at the time of performing of the steering control (see at least [0065-0066]; “the steering assistance control unit 142 controls the steering device 220 to change the direction of the steerable wheels to the center of the lane and control steering so that the subject vehicle M returns to the center of the lane…When the lane marker LM is not recognized by the subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 or when the reliability of the lane marker LM is equal to or smaller than the threshold value while the lane keeping control or the out-of-road deviation prevention control is being executed, the steering assistance control unit 142 limits (stops) the control that is being executed,” and [0068]; “For example, when the subject vehicle M approaches the point Pl, the subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 cannot recognize a traveling lane. In this case, when the steering assistance control unit 142 has executed the lane keeping control or the out-of-road deviation prevention control in a section before Pl, the steering assistance control unit 142 stops this control and performs the second steering control” the steering control being executed at the time when the recognizer becomes less than the threshold is ended and a new steering control is enacted).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniwa, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20220161794 (hereinafter, “Kakeda”).
Regarding claim 2 Oniwa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Oniwa does not disclose wherein the attention attraction controller causes the host vehicle to travel along a marking line closer to the host vehicle when a degree of recognition of the marking line closer to the host vehicle out of two marking lines defining the traveling lane is equal to or greater than a threshold value and a degree of recognition of a marking line farther from the host vehicle is less than the threshold value.
Kakeda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the attention attraction controller causes the host vehicle to travel along a marking line closer to the host vehicle when a degree of recognition of the marking line closer to the host vehicle out of two marking lines defining the traveling lane is equal to or greater than a threshold value and a degree of recognition of a marking line farther from the host vehicle is less than the threshold value (see at least [0084]; “when the recognition part 130 recognizes the left and right road marking lines , the support part 146 , when determining that the degree of matching of one of the road marking lines is less than the threshold value , does not execute the support of the side determined to be less than the threshold value ,” and [0060]; “matching failure may include the case where…all or a predetermined road marking line included in the road is not detected,” and Fig. 13 and [0115]; “When not both the left and right road marking lines are recognized , the support part 146 uses the recognized road marking line as a reference target (step S204 ; corresponding to ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) in FIG . 5 and the like). For example, when the road marking line on the left side is recognized, the road marking line on the left side serves as the reference target, and when the road marking line on the right side is recognized, the road marking line on the right side serves as the reference target. The reference target is a reference target when the support processing is executed. When the probability that the vehicle M deviates from the road marking line on the reference target side is high, the support processing is executed. The support part 146 controls the vehicle M for preventing the vehicle M from deviating from the road marking line serving as the reference target.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control device of Oniwa with the lane recognition degree of Kakeda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring proper lane keeping even in cases where only one lane marking is detected (see at least Kakeda [0003-0008]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniwa, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-9580073 (hereinafter, “Nehmad”).
Regarding claim 4 Oniwa discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Oniwa discloses the centering steering control has ended when the degree of recognition of the marking lines defining the traveling lane of the host vehicle by the recognizer becomes less than the threshold value at the time of performing of the centering steering control and thus the centering steering control stops (see at least [0066]; “When the lane marker LM is not recognized by the subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 or when the reliability of the lane marker LM is equal to or smaller than the threshold value while the lane keeping control or the out-of-road deviation prevention control is being executed, the steering assistance control unit 142 limits (stops) the control that is being executed,” and [0068]; “For example, when the subject vehicle M approaches the point Pl, the subject-vehicle position recognition unit 122 cannot recognize a traveling lane. In this case, when the steering assistance control unit 142 has executed the lane keeping control or the out-of-road deviation prevention control in a section before Pl, the steering assistance control unit 142 stops this control and performs the second steering control” the steering control being executed at the time when the recognizer becomes less than the threshold is ended and a new steering control is enacted).
Oniwa does not disclose further comprising a notification controller configured to notify that at least one control of the centering steering control and the deceleration control has ended when the control has been ended by the controller,
wherein the notification controller does not notify that the centering steering control has ended when…the steering control stops but the deceleration control continues to be performed.
Nehmad in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a notification controller configured to notify that at least one control of the centering steering control and the deceleration control has ended when the control has been ended by the controller (see at least Fig. 2B and [Col. 6, lines 13-29]; “The lane keep assist system indicator 204 is illuminated indicating that the lane keeping assist system is ON,” the indicator is not illuminated if determined the assistance feature is off, Examiner asserts that under broadest reasonable interpretation turning off the light would be considered a notification as it lets the operator know that the feature is not on) ,
wherein the notification controller does not notify that the centering steering control has ended when…the steering control stops but the deceleration control continues to be performed (Examiner Note: Applicant defines not providing a notification as the following at applicant’s specification [0078]; “when the control has ended, the HMI controller may delete the image indicating the start which is being displayed from the display instead of displaying an image indicating the end,” Examiner asserts that under broadest reasonable interpretation of a notification, removal of an icon could also be considered a notification as it alerts the user of the change)(see at least [Col. 7, lines 1-12]; “The automatic cruise control system indicator 304 is illuminated indicating that the automatic cruise control system is ON, but is not 10 activated ( e.g., not currently engaged in automatic vehicle control),” the LKAS and automatic cruise control indicators are controlled individually and are illuminated or turned off depending on whether those features are currently on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control device of Oniwa with the feature indicators of Nehmad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing adequate communication to the driver indicating the true engagement of ADAS features (see at least Nehmad; [Col. 1, lines 6-15]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniwa, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of JP2018002068A (hereinafter, “Nakajima”).
Regarding claim 5 Oniwa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Oniwa does not disclose wherein the attraction attention controller stops the centering steering control when a state in which the degree of recognition is less than the threshold value is maintained for a predetermined time or more.
Nakajima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the attraction attention controller stops the centering steering control when a state in which the degree of recognition is less than the threshold value is maintained for a predetermined time or more (see at least [0028]; “In this case, the steering control state determination means 23 should, for example, output a steering control operation instruction as "operate" if the road reliability for both the left and right white lines WL and WLR remains high for a predetermined time or longer, and output a steering control operation instruction as "stop" otherwise,” if the reliability is low for a predetermined time the steering control operation instruction to stop is outputted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control device of Oniwa with the predetermined time period of Nakajima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing the steering assistance from stopping and starting frequently and causing discomfort to vehicle occupants (see at least Nakajima; [0007]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniwa, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US20230057662 (hereinafter, “Choi”).
Regarding claim 8 Oniwa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Oniwa does not disclose wherein the attention attraction controller performs the steering control when it is determined that the driver is in a state of careless driving.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the attention attraction controller performs the steering control when it is determined that the driver is in a state of careless driving (see at least [0018]; “The controlling of the vehicle according to the detected driver's careless driving level includes: performing a smart cruise control function set by the driver when the driver's careless driving level is in a normal level state; controlling steering and braking of the vehicle in addition to a general smart cruise control function when the driver's careless driving level is in a warning level state; and providing warning information by using vibration and sound while controlling the steering and braking of the vehicle in addition to the general smart cruise control function when the driver's careless driving level is in a dangerous level state,” steering control is executed when the driver in a state of carelessness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control device of Oniwa with the careless driving detection of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a more stable smart cruise control for the vehicle (see at least Choi; [0019]).
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 ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/ANSHUL SOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights