DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 05, 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 05, 2025 and July 25, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 8, 10 – 17, and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0398849 A1 to KANOH (herein after "Kanoh").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
Kanoh’s autonomous vehicle control method and system discloses a computer-implemented method (see at least Fig. 1 ~ illustrates a general control schematic of automated driving controller 100 communicatively coupled to a lane-changing start switch 30a,
PNG
media_image1.png
810
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
see Fig. 4 ~ illustrates a lane changing target position between a plurality of vehicles in an adjacent,
PNG
media_image2.png
660
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
see Fig. 6 ~ outlines a process flowchart of process method step S102 where automated lane changing is performed, and
PNG
media_image3.png
544
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
see ¶0067 ~ “the action plan generator 140 selects any two other vehicles (for example, two vehicles relatively close to the own vehicle M) among one or more other vehicles traveling in the adjacent lane L2 of a lane-changing destination… and sets a space between the selected two other vehicles as a lane-changing target position
TA.”), comprising:
determining a target lane for an autonomous vehicle that is different from a current lane in which the autonomous vehicle (see at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, and ¶0074 ~ "lane-changing target position Ta" determination) is operating;
determining, based on satisfaction of a lane change criterion, a merge point describing a location for the autonomous vehicle between two vehicles in the target lane (see at least Fig. 4 and ¶0067 ~ teaches autonomous vehicle lane changing between two vehicles in the target lane and ¶0074 ~ teaches conditions and/or constraints prescribing when a satisfactory lane change may be performed),
the lane change criterion corresponding to a limit for at least one feature associated with the motion of the autonomous vehicle for entering the target lane (see at least Fig. 4, ¶0067, and ¶0074 ~ teaches lane change criterion with condition / constraint based motion planning);
determining a motion plan for entering the target lane based on the merge point (see at least Figs. 4, 6, ¶0067, and ¶0074); and
controlling the autonomous vehicle to navigate in accordance with the motion plan. (See at least Figs. 4, 6, ¶0075 ~ "The second controller 160 controls the travel driving power output device 200, the brake device 210, and the steering device 220 such that the own vehicle M passes along the target trajectory generated by the action plan generator 140 at scheduled times", and ¶0076 ~ "steering controller 166 controls the steering device 220 in accordance with... the target trajectory").
As to Claim 2,
Kanoh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising:
identifying a lane change region in the target lane (see at least Figs. 4, 6, and ¶0064);
identifying one or more candidate merge points in the target lane based on the lane change region (see at least Figs. 4, 6, and ¶0064); and
selecting the merge point from the one or more candidate merge points. (See at least Figs. 4, 6, ¶0064 ~ "action plan generator 140 generates…. Target trajectory... expressed by arranging spots (trajectory points at which the own vehicle M will arrive in sequence", ¶0067, ¶0073 ~ "action plan generator 140 generates a trajectory so that at least one of the trajectory points K is disposed within the lane-changing target position TA.", and ¶0074).
As to Claim 4,
Kanoh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the at least one feature corresponds to: a respective acceleration, a respective speed, or a respective turning rate. (See at least Fig. 6 ~ process method step S104, ¶0091 ~ "when the lane-changing event or an event followed by the lane changing is performed and the speed V M of the own vehicle M is equal to or less than the predetermined speed V the inhibition controller 190Th, inhibits the automated lane changing", and ¶0095 ~ "When the speed V M of the own vehicle M is determined to be greater than the predetermined speed V Th' the inhibition controller 190 causes the second controller 160 to perform the automated lane changing based on the target trajectory generated in response to the predetermined event by the action plan generator 140 without inhibiting the automated lane changing by the second controller 160 (step S102)").
As to Claim 5,
Kanoh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4,
wherein the respective acceleration corresponds to a maximum acceleration,
wherein the respective acceleration corresponds to a minimum acceleration,
wherein the respective speed corresponds to a maximum speed,
wherein the respective speed corresponds to a minimum speed, wherein the respective turning rate corresponds to a maximum turning rate, wherein the respective speed corresponds to a minimum speed. (See Fig. 6 and ¶0074).
As to Claim 8,
Kanoh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the target lane is adjacent to the current lane. (See at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, and ¶0074 ~ "lane-changing target position Ta" determination into an adjacent lane L2).
As to Claim 10,
Kanoh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising:
determining that entering the target lane at the merge point does not violate one or more constraints,
wherein the more or more constraints corresponds to at least one of:
a stopping location, a velocity target, or a buffer distance. (See at least Figs. 1, 6, ¶0064, ¶0067, and ¶0074).
As to Claim 11,
Kanoh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising:
converting the motion plan into one or more vehicle controls for implementation by the autonomous vehicle. (See at least Figs. 4, 6, ¶0075 ~ "The second controller 160 controls the travel driving power output device 200, the brake device 210, and the steering device 220 such that the own vehicle M passes along the target trajectory generated by the action plan generator 140 at scheduled times", and ¶0076 ~ "steering controller 166 controls the steering device 220 in accordance with... the target trajectory").
As to Claim 12,
Kanoh discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the motion plan is indicative of a path for the autonomous vehicle. (See at least Figs. 1, 6, ¶0064, ¶0067, and ¶0074).
As to Claim 13,
Kanoh discloses a system (see at least Fig. 1 ~ illustrates a general control schematic of automated driving controller 100 communicatively coupled to a lane-changing start switch 30a, Fig. 4 ~ illustrates a lane changing target position between a plurality of vehicles in an adjacent, Fig. 6 ~ outlines a process flowchart of process method step S102 where automated lane changing is performed, and ¶0067 ~ "¶0067 ~ “the action plan generator 140 selects any two other vehicles (for example, two vehicles relatively close to the own vehicle M) among one or more other vehicles traveling in the adjacent lane L2 of a lane-changing destination… and sets a space between the selected two other vehicles as a lane-changing target position TA.”, comprising:
one or more processors (see at least ¶0050 ~ automated driving controller 100 comprises a plurality of controllers 120, 160, and 180 having therein CPUs as denoted herein and again in ¶0134 as CPU 100-2); and
one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the system to perform operations (see at least ¶0134 ~ automated driving controller 100 processors comprise memory 100-3/ 100-4/ 100-5 and claim 11 ~ non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing autonomous vehicle computer operations to perform) comprising:
determining a target lane for an autonomous vehicle that is different from a current lane in which the autonomous vehicle is operating (see at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, and ¶0074 ~ "lane-changing target position Ta" determination);
determining, based on the satisfaction of a lane change criterion, a merge point describing a location for the autonomous vehicle between two vehicles in the target lane (see at least Fig. 4 and ¶0067 ~ teaches autonomous vehicle lane changing between two vehicles in the target lane and ¶0074 ~ teaches conditions and/or constraints prescribing when a satisfactory lane change may be performed),
the lane change criterion corresponding to a limit for at least one feature associated with the motion of the autonomous vehicle for entering the target lane (see at least Fig. 4, ¶0067, and ¶0074 ~ teaches lane change criterion with condition / constraint based motion planning);
determining a path for entering the target lane based on the merge point (see at least Figs. 4, 6, ¶0067, and ¶0074); and
providing one or more signals to instruct the autonomous vehicle to travel based on the path. (See Figs. 4, 6, ¶0075 ~ "The second controller 160 controls the travel driving power output device 200, the brake device 210, and the steering device 220 such that the own vehicle M passes along the target trajectory generated by the action plan generator 140 at scheduled times", ¶0047 ~ "the operation amount detection sensor 90b… a detection result to the automated driving controller 100, the travel driving power output device 200, and one or both of the brake device 210 and the steering device 220., and ¶0076 ~ "steering controller 166 controls the steering device 220 in accordance with... the target trajectory").
As to Claim 14,
Kanoh discloses the system of claim 13,
wherein the operations comprise:
identifying a lane change region in the target lane (see at least Figs. 4, 6, and ¶0064);
identifying one or more candidate merge points in the target lane based on the lane change region (see at least Figs. 4, 6, and ¶0064); and
selecting the merge point from the one or more candidate merge points. (See at least Figs. 4, 6, ¶0064 ~ "action plan generator 140 generates…. Target trajectory... expressed by arranging spots (trajectory points at which the own vehicle M will arrive in sequence", ¶0067, ¶0073 ~ "action plan generator 140 generates a trajectory so that at least one of the trajectory points K is disposed within the lane-changing target position TA.", and ¶0074).
As to Claim 15,
Kanoh discloses the system of claim 14,
wherein the operations comprise:
determining one or more candidate paths, a respective candidate path, of the one or more candidate paths (see at least Figs. 5, 6 - 7, 12 - 13, and ¶0064),
indicating a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle associated with a respective candidate merge point (see at least Figs. 5, 6 - 7, 12 - 13, and ¶0064); and
selecting the merge point from the one or more candidate merge points based on the one or more candidate paths. (See at least Figs. 5, 6 - 7, 12 - 13, ¶0064 ~ "action plan generator 140 generates…. Target trajectory... expressed by arranging spots (trajectory points at which the own vehicle M will arrive in sequence", ¶0067, ¶0073 ~ "action plan generator 140 generates a trajectory so that at least one of the trajectory points K is disposed within the lane-changing target position TA.", and ¶0074).
As to Claim 16,
Kanoh discloses the system of claim 13,
wherein the at least one feature corresponds to: a respective acceleration, a respective speed, or a respective turning rate. (See at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, and ¶0074).
As to Claim 17,
Kanoh discloses the system of claim 16,
wherein the satisfaction of the lane change criterion corresponds to at least one of:
the respective acceleration satisfying an acceleration threshold, the respective speed satisfying a speed threshold, or the respective turning rate satisfying a turning rate threshold. (See at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, and ¶0074).
As to Claim 19,
Kanoh discloses the system of claim 13,
wherein the operations comprise:
determining that entering the target lane based on the merge point does not violate one or more constraints,
wherein the more or more constraints corresponds to at least one of: a stopping location, a velocity target, or a buffer distance. (See at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, and ¶0074 ~ a velocity target prohibition constraint).
As to Claim 20,
Kanoh discloses one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to perform operations (see at least ¶0134 and claim 11 ~ non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing autonomous vehicle computer operations to perform) comprising:
determining a target lane for an autonomous vehicle that is different from a current lane in which the autonomous vehicle is operating (see at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, and ¶0074 ~ "lane-changing target position Ta" determination);
determining, based on the satisfaction of a lane change criterion, a merge point describing a location for the autonomous vehicle between two vehicles in the target lane (see at least Fig. 4 and ¶0067 ~ teaches autonomous vehicle lane changing between two vehicles in the target lane and ¶0074 ~ teaches conditions and/or constraints prescribing when a satisfactory lane change may be performed),
the lane change criterion corresponding to a limit for at least one feature associated with the motion of the autonomous vehicle for entering the target lane (see at least Fig. 4, ¶0067, and ¶0074 ~ teaches lane change criterion with condition / constraint based motion planning);
determining a path for entering the target lane based on the merge point (see at least Figs. 4, 6, ¶0067, and ¶0074); and
controlling the motion of the autonomous vehicle based on the path. (See at least Figs. 4, 6, ¶0075 ~ "The second controller 160 controls the travel driving power output device 200, the brake device 210, and the steering device 220 such that the own vehicle M passes along the target trajectory generated by the action plan generator 140 at scheduled times", and ¶0076 ~ "steering controller 166 controls the steering device 220 in accordance with... the target trajectory").
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0398849 A1 to KANOH (herein after "Kanoh") in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,580,859 B1 to AINE et al. (herein after "Aine").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 9,
As shown above Kanoh’s autonomous vehicle control method and system discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. (See Figs. 1, 4, 6, and ¶ 0067, and ¶ 0074; Kanoh).
Then, Aine’s vehicle lane change system is introduced to combine with Kanoh to disclose wherein the lane change criterion is indicative of a cost to enter the target lane based on the merge point. (See Col. 4, Lines 41 – 52; Kanoh ~ “At the start time 130, the vehicle will begin its transition from the origin lane into the target lane, moving along a path 140… may be incorporated in a cost function of an optimization routine used by trajectory determination component to determine a motion plan for the lane transition”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kanoh’s autonomous vehicle control method with the cost function calculations, as taught by Aine, where the resultant combination would provide more precise trajectory optimization into the lane change destination target, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: safer motion planning and navigation.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0398849 A1 to KANOH (herein after "Kanoh") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2026/0200472 A1 to PARKS et al. (herein after "Parks").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 18,
As shown above Kanoh’s autonomous vehicle control method and system discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. (See Figs. 1, 4, 6, and ¶ 0067, and ¶ 0074; Kanoh).
Then, Parks’ automatic lane change system into stop and go traffic lanes is introduced to combine with Kanoh to disclose wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises a truck. (See ¶0014; Parks ~ autonomous host vehicle and ¶0032; Parks ~ "FIG. 1, a system 10 for maneuver prediction-based speed profile adaptation for behavior-based automated cruise control (ACC) 11… includes… any type of vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanoh’s autonomous vehicle control method with the autonomous vehicle truck configuration, as taught by Parks, to provide a multi-vehicular design platform, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: safer motion planning and navigation for a diversity of vehicle platforms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 – 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In particular, the available prior art appears to be silent in disclosing the computer-implemented method of claim 5,
wherein the satisfaction of the lane change criterion corresponds to at least one of:
the respective acceleration satisfying an acceleration threshold, the respective speed satisfying a speed threshold, the respective turning rate satisfying a turning rate threshold, wherein the acceleration threshold comprises at least one of
a maximum or minimum acceleration, wherein the speed threshold comprises at least one of
a maximum or minimum speed, wherein the turning rate threshold comprises at least one of a maximum or minimum turning rate.
The prior art does not appear to explicitly teach or disclose the above recited claim limitations.
To that end and although further search and consideration would always need to be performed based upon any submitted amendments by the Applicant, it is the Examiner’s position that incorporating these above recited claim limitations into independent claims 1, 13, and 20 may/might possibly advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights