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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 08/22/2025 (claimed foreign priority date: 11/14/2018):
Claims 2-21 newly added and have been examined.
Claim 1 has been canceled by Applicant.
Claims 17 and 19-21 have been allowed.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claim 5 and 18 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.
1.1.1 The term “farther before” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “farther before” (particularly the “farther”) is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is unclear how much father or how little farther the claimed “lane change is before the host vehicle reaches the traffic condition for changing from an offside lane to a nearside lane,” which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the term “farther” is not given a patentable weight, and hence claim 5 will be interpreted as the following: “5. The control system of Claim 4, wherein the lane change is before the host vehicle reaches the traffic condition for changing from an offside lane to a nearside lane, compared to changing from a nearside lane to an offside lane.”
1.1.2 Claim 18 recites the following limitations/features: “a host vehicle operable in an autonomous mode,” which is unclear whether the same host vehicle operable in autonomous mode is claimed in claims 18 and 17, wherein claim 18 depends on claim 17, OR different host vehicles operable in autonomous mode is claimed in claims 18 and 17, wherein claim 18 depends on claim 17, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret that the same host vehicle operable in autonomous mode is claimed in claims 18 and 17, wherein claim 18 depends on claim 17, and hence claim 18 will be interpreted as the following: “18. A control system for [[a]] the host vehicle operable in [[an]] the autonomous mode, the control system comprising one or more controllers, the control system configured to perform the method of Claim 17.”
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.
1.1 Claims 2-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUBOTA (US20170341653) in view of SUGAWARA (US20170116854).
As per claims 2 and 15, KUBOTA discloses through the invention (see entire document) a control system/method for controlling for a host vehicle operable in an autonomous mode (Para [0012, 0014, 0038, 0080] – teaching vehicle in automated driving mode), the control system comprising one or more controllers (fig. 1-2, 4, Para [0071] – teaching travelling support ECU 138 for controlling the entire travelling support apparatus 14 and that has an input/output part 150, an arithmetic part 152 and a storage part 154) , the control system/method for controlling configured to:
determine a traffic condition, beyond a first sensing range of the host vehicle (fig. 1, 5, Para [0082, 0130] – teaching traffic information server 300 that transmits traffic information to the vehicle 10 based on a request from the vehicle 10; route guidance apparatus 12 that obtains the traffic congestion information I-jam from the traffic information server 300 through the communication part 82 in step S33);
the traffic condition (Para [0023, 0130-0132, 0173] – teaching obtaining traffic congestion, a first lane of a multi-lane highway comprising a plurality of lanes in a first direction including the first lane); and
cause control of a direction of the host vehicle before the host vehicle reaches the traffic condition to change lane from one of the plurality of lanes to another of the plurality of lanes of the multi-lane highway, in dependence on the traffic condition being associated with the first lane (Para [0019, 0023, 0146-0148, 0173] – teaching counting the number of lane changes after entering the first road based on the direction on which the vehicle crosses the lane mark and the number of times the vehicle crosses the lane mark; performing the lane change to the target lane in accordance with the traffic congestion, even there is traffic congestion at the planned course change point).
KUBOTA does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing associating the traffic condition with a first lane of a multi-lane highway comprising a plurality of lanes in a first direction including the first lane.
However, SUGAWARA discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, 11, Para [0029, 0096, 0101-0104] – teaching traffic situation detection unit 11 that acquires surrounding situations as traffic situation information, such as … traffic jam state information, … information of other vehicles existing near the vehicle mounted with the driving assistance device 100, and outputs the acquired information to the travel pattern generation unit 16; a traffic situation detection unit 11a of a driving assistance device 100 that acquires lane information indicating a lane where an own vehicle travels in addition to signal state information representing indication schedule of a traffic signal, traffic jam state information, and the like; request transmitted while the lane information indicating a desired lane is correlated to a travel section, a traveling position, and the traveling lane where the own vehicle exists; making correction to correlated the reference travel pattern of the own vehicle to the lane information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of KUBOTA by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by SUGAWARA, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enable driving assistance in accordance with situations of surrounding vehicles, and improve fuel consumption (see entire SUGAWARA document, particularly Para [0009]); to enable the driving assistance device in the following vehicle to change the lane beforehand so as to avoid the stopped vehicle or the traffic jam (see entire SUGAWARA document, particularly Para [0126]).
As per claim 3, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) at least one electronic processor having an electrical input for receiving information; and at least one electronic memory device electrically coupled to the at least one electronic processor and having instructions stored therein; wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions thereon so as to cause the host vehicle to perform the determining, the associating and the causing the control (fig. 1-2, 4, Para [0071]).
As per claim 4, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) lane change performed at a greater time and/or distance from the traffic condition than a lane change associated with a vehicle overtaking function of the host vehicle (Para [0024, 0098-0099, 0127, 0182, 0185-0187]).
As per claim 5, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) lane change before the host vehicle reaches the traffic condition for changing from an offside lane to a nearside lane, compared to changing from a nearside lane to an offside lane (Para [0013-0014, 0019, 0023, 0025, 0090, 0095, 0146-0148, 0173]).
As per claim 6, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) control performed in dependence on confirmation of the traffic condition using information from one or more sensors of the host vehicle having the first sensing range and/or from communication with another road user proximal to the traffic condition (fig. 1, 5, Para [0082, 0130]).
As per claim 7, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) traffic condition that comprises a slower moving or stationary traffic queue in the first lane (Para [0082, 0130]).
As per claim 8, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) traffic condition associated with a junction and wherein the control system is configured to determine in dependence on navigation information whether the host vehicle is to exit the multi-lane highway at the junction, wherein if the host vehicle is to exit the multi-lane highway at the junction and the one lane is a second lane different from the first lane, the another lane is the first lane (Para [0021-0022, 0058, 0112, 0172]).
As per claim 9, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) traffic condition that comprises a closure of at least one of the plurality of lanes, wherein the associating comprises determining that the closure is of at least the first lane, and wherein if the one lane is the first lane, the another lane is a second lane different from the first lane (Para [0016, 0108-0109, 0165, 0191] – teaching possibility to travel with relatively a few restrictions compared to the case where the vehicle is guided to travel on the target lane from the beginning, wherein the Examiner finds that the “traveling with relatively a few restrictions compared to the case where the vehicle is guided to travel on the target lane from the beginning” in the KUBOTA reference, teaches on a lane closure, because it is well known in the art that a closure of one lane is typically of a fewer driving restrictions than a closure of the entire roadway that may be of a lot more driving restrictions).
As per claim 10, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining and/or the associating that utilizes dynamic information received from a remote information source (fig. 1, 5, Para [0082, 0130] – teaching traffic information server 300 that transmits traffic information to the vehicle 10 based on a request from the vehicle 10).
As per claim 11, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining and/or the associating that utilizes at least one of: map data comprising information on junctions; road sign information comprising information on junctions; dynamic map data comprising information on lane closures; or dynamic traffic data comprising information on traffic conditions (Para [0018, 0061-0062, 0108, 0136]).
As per claim 12, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) selecting the another lane from the plurality of lanes, in dependence on one or more of: a determination that traffic speed in the another lane is faster than traffic speed in a different one or more of the plurality of lanes; or a navigation constraint (Para [0041, 0085, 0117, 0119, 0133-0135, 0140-0143, 0152-0160]).
As per claim 13, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) control of the direction that comprises causing a steering subsystem of the host vehicle to control steering of the host vehicle to follow a planned path of the host vehicle determined in dependence on the determining (Para [0037, 0044-0046, 0080, 0091-0093, 0125]).
As per claim 14, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) a vehicle comprising the control system of claim 2 (fig. 1, Para [0014-0024]).
As per claim 16, KUBOTA further discloses through the invention (see entire document) a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, that when executed by one or more electronic processors, causes the one or more electronic processors to carry out the method of claim 15 (fig. 1-2, 4, Para [0071] – teaching travelling support ECU 138 for controlling the entire travelling support apparatus 14 and that has an input/output part 150, an arithmetic part 152 and a storage part 154).
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
1. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance in regards to claims 17 and 19-21 only.
In performing initial search, the Examiner was able to find the closest prior art of record, which is HÖRNLEIN (DE102018000276A1) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of FILEV (DE102017102605A1) and SCHRODER (ES2299739T3), who describe method for distinguishing objects as a flat pattern or raised obstacle on the surface of a roadway by means of a camera and a classification of the object, characterized in that after a classification of the object as a raised obstacle a driving maneuver for lateral displacement of the vehicle takes place, after which the before and after the lateral offset of the camera captured image data of the object are evaluated comparatively.
In regards to claims 17 and 19-21, HÖRNLEIN (DE102018000276A1) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fail to teach or render obvious the following features/ limitations: causing control of a direction of the host vehicle to cause the host vehicle to increase a lateral offset of the host vehicle from a centre of a current lane of the host vehicle adjacent to the first lane, wherein the lateral offset is in a direction away from the first lane, while remaining within the current lane, in dependence on the associating the traffic disruption with a first lane.
2. Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Deng (US20080091318) - (see entire Deng document, particularly abstract – teaching, under BRI, a system for lane centering control for a vehicle having a user-operable steering device; the system that includes a set of sensors for sensing the vehicle speed, yaw rate, and steering device angle, a target path tracker configured for tracking the target path of the vehicle, a processor responsive to the set of sensors for predicting the path of the vehicle, a controller responsive to the set of sensors, the target path tracker, and the processor, and productive of a lane centering control signal, and an active front steering actuator responsive to the control signal and productive of steering assistance to the steering device; the controller that includes a processing circuit responsive to executable instructions for producing the steering assistance to the steering device to reduce a difference between the predicted path and the target path, thereby serving to maintain lane centering of the vehicle);
Broxmeyer (US5369591) – (see entire Broxmeyer document, particularly abstract – teaching, under BRI, automatic longitudinal control of vehicles on highways, including speed control and protection against collision; for lane changing, following highway directional changes, route control, and transitions between the operator-controlled and the automatically controlled states; employed jointly and cooperatively with previously developed means of automatic lateral control; groups of permanent magnets embedded in the highway surface at regular intervals; permanent magnet sensors installed in vehicles so that proximity and polarity indications of embedded magnets are obtained as a vehicle proceeds along the highway; each group of magnets that encodes a pseudo-random number that is sensed by the vehicle equipment and transmitted, via a radio link, to wayside computing equipment which determines vehicle longitudinal position and vehicle separation distances that are used as the basis of safety commands which are transmitted to the vehicles from the wayside; the system configured to provide the highest possible reliability and fail-safe operation through employment of triply redundant communication and computation elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights