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 .
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 3-4 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “inter” in claim 3 l 3 is used by the claim to mean “inner?,” while the accepted meaning is “to deposit (a dead body) in the earth or in a tomb.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The specification does not include the term “inter”. Inter is a prefix with possible meanings including in between. However, believes inter is a typographical error, further examiner finds the term “inner” in the instant specification and believes applicants intent was to use the term inner. The metes and bounds cannot be determined and are therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examining “inter will be taken as “inner.” Claim 4 rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
Examiners Note
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are adopted to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing 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. SEE MPEP 2149.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e. as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. WL Gore & Associates, inc. v. Garlock, inc., 721 F.2d 1540,220 USPQ303 (Fed, Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 489 US 851 (1984). See also MPEP 2123.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al US 10,486,741.
In Re 1-6, Kobayashi teaches:
1. A driving assistance system for assisting driving (title) of a host vehicle (100 figs 3-5), the system comprising a processor (fig 1) configured to:
plan a lane change (“lane change” col 2 ll 25-35) in the host vehicle traveling on a curved (“curve” col 13) traveling road including a plurality of traveling lanes (L1,L) in parallel (figs 4-5); and
control the host vehicle to have a specific turning posture (14R “detection distance” and or “detection range” is increased or reduced dependent on different road users relative speed and relative length as compared to host vehicle, see fig 2 steps s1-s9, note that detection distance is dependent on host vehicles pose/position/posture on road see figs 4-5) that keeps a different road user (200) predicted to interact with the host vehicle within a sensing area (22A) behind the host vehicle before lane change. (at least all figs and cols).
2. The driving assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of traveling lanes include a lane change start traveling lane (L1) and a lane change destination traveling lane (L2), and control of the host vehicle includes a setting of a control instruction in the host vehicle to specify, in the lane change start traveling lane, the specific turning posture at a traveling position toward (14R and 22A are towards the destination lane, further the host vehicle is controlled to move into the destination lane) the lane change destination traveling lane.
3. The driving assistance system according to claim 1, wherein a plan of the lane change includes a plan of the lane change from, among the plurality of lane changes, an inter (taken as “inner” see 35 USC 112b rejection above, in American road ways with divided highways as per fig 4 a, L1 lane is the inner lane closest to the median) traveling lane to an outer traveling lane (L2) on the curved traveling road, and control of the host vehicle includes a setting, in the host vehicle, of a control instruction for restricting (S10, without turn signal operation during LCA(BSW) lane change maneuver the lane is deemed unchangeable) a change in the specific turning posture when the host vehicle enters a lane change destination traveling lane among the plurality of traveling lanes.
4. The driving assistance system according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of traveling lanes include a lane change start traveling lane and the lane change destination traveling lane, the control of the host vehicle includes a setting a control instruction in the host vehicle to restrict a change in the specific turning posture defined by a steering angle adjustment (col 6 ll 20-30) in the lane change start traveling lane, and the steering angle adjustment is performed toward the lane change destination traveling lane.
5. The driving assistance system according to claim 1, wherein control of the host vehicle includes a setting of, in the host vehicle, a control instruction to control the specific turning posture by coordination of acceleration (col 6 l 48 – col 7 l 45, the relative speed or needed acceleration when passing is taken into account), steering (col 6 ll 20-30), and braking (“braking” col 12 ll 24-45).
6. The driving assistance system according to claim 1, wherein a plan of the lane change includes a plan of the lane change in the host vehicle traveling on a straight road (figs 4-5 are shown as straight roads) including the plurality of traveling lanes in parallel, the plurality of traveling lanes include a lane change start traveling lane (L1) and a lane change destination traveling lane (L2), and control of the host vehicle includes control of the host vehicle to, in the lane change start traveling lane, a specific traveling position toward (item 100 diagrammed with dashed lines) the lane change destination traveling lane in response to the different road user within the sensing area behind the host vehicle.
In Re 7, the method of claim 7 rejected over in re 1-6 as taught by Kobayashi as described above.
In Re 8, the non transitory computer readable medium (figs 1-3) of claim 8 rejected over in re 1-6 as taught by Kobayashi as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 – Duplicate Rejection
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang US 2022/0185287.
In Re 1-8 Kang teaches a driving assistance system method and non transitory computer readable medium that control lane change with a specific turning posture to keep a different predicted interacting road user within a sensing area per title abstract figs 1-7 paras 1-79.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The system plans a lane change on a curved road with multiple parallel lanes and then controls the host vehicle to adopt a specific turning posture that keeps the relevant rear road user inside the rear sensing area before the lane change begins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights