CTNF 19/183,156 CTNF 87242 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2025 and 05/01/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hata (CN 113841190 A) . Regarding claim 1, Hata discloses a driving assistance system configured to notify a driver of a vehicle with a notification of an automatic lane change for automatically changing a lane of the vehicle before executing the automatic lane change (e.g. p.14-19 & Figs. 6-8: provide land change notification to driver by prompting device 5), and to execute the automatic lane change in a case where a preset standby time corresponding to the driver of the vehicle has elapsed after the notification is performed (e.g. p. 19 & Fig. 8: t1-1 issue notification, and lane change starts at t1-3) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata (CN 113841190 A) in view of Raffone et al. (US 2022/0306113 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Hata fails to disclose, but Raffone teaches the preset standby time corresponding to the driver of the vehicle is a time set based on a driving operation time history at the time of a lane change by manual driving of the driver of the vehicle (e.g. [0088]). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hata with the teachings of Raffone to modify lane change durations based on driving habits of the driver so as to enhance driving experience and comfort (e.g. Raffone: [0050]). Regarding claim 3, Raffone teaches the driving operation time history is a history of a time from a pre-operation of the driver of the vehicle before starting a lane change at the time of manual driving to steering of an actual lane change (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0105-0108]). Regarding claim 4, Raffone teaches the driving operation time history is a history of a first time (e.g. [0097-0104]). Raffone teaches the begins and ends time could be any criteria known in the art. Raffone fails to explicitly discloses the first time that is a time from a directional indicator operation by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the manual driving to the steering of the actual lane change. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose timing between starts of a directional indicator till the steering, and there is only a finite number of solutions to determine the lane change duration (e.g. from line-of-sight change of a driver, or turning on a blinker, to start of steering or end of changing lane). Since applicant does not disclose the particular timing solves any stated problem, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art in view of teachings of Raffone (e.g. [0097-0104]: the moment in time of lane change could be any criteria known in the art) to determine driving operation time history in any suitable manner including the condition as recited in the claim. It would have been “obvious to try” to achieve the claimed invention according to KSR with predictable expectation of success. Regarding claim 6, Raffone teaches the standby time is an average value of a plurality of the first times (e.g. [0113]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata (CN 113841190 A) in view of Raffone et al. (US 2022/0306113 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gheorghe (JP 2017062565 A) . Regarding claim 5, Hata and Raffone in combination fails to disclose, but Gheorghe teaches the driving operation time history is a history of a second time that is a time from movement of a line of sight or a face orientation to a door mirror side in a direction of the lane change by the driver of the vehicle to the steering of the actual lane change (e.g. p. 5: setting a time to support lane change for different drivers with different driving skills based on line-of -sight movement time) in a case where the driver of the vehicle operates a directional indicator within a certain time after moving the line of sight or the face orientation to the door mirror side at the time of the manual driving (the time is being recorded after intention of changing lane is detected; thus, the examiner is taking official notice that the detection of lane change intention based on operation a directional indicator is known in the art). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hata and Raffone with the teachings of Gheorghe to modify lane change durations based on line-of-sight time duration so as to provide customized lane change support to different drivers to enhance driving experience and comfort. Regarding claim 7, Gheorghe teaches the standby time is an average value of a plurality of the second times (e.g. p. 2: average value of line-of-sight movement; p. 6: degree of line-of- sight movement corresponds to different time duration to finish the movement; thus, the time determined is an average time) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata (CN 113841190 A) in view of Churay et al. (US 2024/0025450 A1) . Regarding claim 8, Hata fails to disclose, but Churay teaches, in a case where the driver of the vehicle visually checks surroundings of the vehicle after the notification is performed, the standby time is shortened as compared with a case where the driver visually does not check (e.g. [0052, 0061]). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hata with the teachings of Churay to expedite and increase the likelihood of executing the auto lane change (e.g. [0059]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata (CN 113841190 A) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2018/0148060 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Hata fails to disclose, but Hashimoto teaches the standby time in a case where the number of other vehicles present in surroundings of the vehicle is more than or equal to an upper limit threshold is further lengthened than in a case where the number of other vehicles is less than the upper limit threshold, and the standby time in a case where the number of other vehicles is less than or equal to a lower limit threshold is further shortened than in a case where the number of other vehicles is more than the lower limit threshold (e.g. [0013-0018] & Figs 8-12: larger number of surrounding vehicles set larger delay and smaller number of vehicles set smaller delay; the “larger number” is considered as upper limit, the “smaller number” is considered as lower limit, and standard timing is considered as the normal standby time). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hata with the teachings of Hashimoto to adjust standby time based on number of surrounding vehicles so as to ensure safety before changing lane . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata (CN 113841190 A) in view of Gheorghe (JP 2017062565 A) and Lee et al. (US 2015/0332532 A1) . Regarding claim 10, Hata fails to disclose, but Gheorghe teaches standby time is customized for different drivers. Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hata with the teachings of Gheorghe to modify lane change durations based on line-of-sight time duration so as to provide customized lane change support to different drivers to enhance driving experience and comfort. In addition, Lee is further cited to teach the vehicle has a personal authentication function, driver settings at the end of a latest operation of each of a plurality of the drivers is stored as a stored value, and in a case where the driver is personally authenticated by the personal authentication function at a start of driving, at which the driver starts driving the vehicle, the stored value associated with the driver is set as an initial value of the standby time (e.g. [0198, 0210, 0213, 0214, 0287). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hata with the teachings of Lee to store driver customized settings so as to allow driver to more conveniently access all the vehicle functions as desired. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to store the standby time for different drivers in their respective driver profile so as to prepare the vehicle based on settings of the driver. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693 . The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm. 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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. /KAM WAN MA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/183,156 Page 2 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/183,156 Page 3 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/183,156 Page 4 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/183,156 Page 5 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/183,156 Page 6 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/183,156 Page 7 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/183,156 Page 8 Art Unit: 2688
Prosecution Insights