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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “an environment recognition section configured to…” and “a setting section configured to…” in claim 1, “a control execution section configured to…” in claims 2 and 10, and “at least one processing section to execute...” in claims 19 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
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 4 and 9 are 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.
In claim 4 line 5, the recited limitation “smoothly “is indefinite. Smoothly is a relative term and it is unclear what the boundaries of smoothly are?
In claim 9, the recited limitation “wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that the larger a size of the parallelly traveling vehicle, the more easily the subject vehicle is immediately away from the parallelly traveling vehicle” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what this limitation is emphasizing what does such that the larger a size of the parallelly vehicle mean? Further, the more easily the subject vehicle is immediately away is unclear and appears to use relative terms, what are the boundaries of this limitation
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-3-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite recognize environment information at an intersection. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “an environment recognition section”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as different environmental data and data around the intersection could recognize environment information at an intersection. The mere nominal recitation of “an environment recognition section” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of setting, using the environment information, an angle of a steering wheel of the subject vehicle in a case where the subject vehicle temporarily stops while making a right or left turn at the intersection, wherein the environment information includes a size of the intersection, and setting the angle of the steering wheel such that, when the size of the intersection is equal to or greater than a preset threshold value, the steering wheel is oriented toward a traveling direction after the right or left turn, relative to an orientation of a vehicle body of the subject vehicle, and setting the angle of the steering wheel such that, when the size of the intersection is smaller than the preset threshold value, the steering wheel is oriented in alignment with the orientation of the vehicle body, a vehicle control device comprising at least one circuit, a processor and memory, a recognition section, a setting section, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The setting steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a vehicle control device comprising at least one circuit, a processor and memory, a recognition section, a setting section, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the setting steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 3-9 and 11-18 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-3-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/293,796. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashitani et al (US 20200079366 A1) in view of Hidaka et al (US 20240034320 A1)
With respect to claim 1, Higashitani discloses a vehicle control device that autonomously controls driving of a subject vehicle (see at least [abstract]), the vehicle control device comprising at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor (see at least [0036]), the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement: an environment recognition section configured to recognize environment information at an intersection (see at least [0043]); and a setting section configured to set, using the environment information, an angle of a steering wheel of the subject vehicle in a case where the subject vehicle temporarily stops while making a right or left turn at the intersection (see at least [0059], [0062], [0066-0068], and [0131]), wherein the environment information includes a size of the intersection (see at least [0066-0068], and [0131]).
However, Higashitani do not specifically disclose wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that, when the size of the intersection is equal to or greater than a preset threshold value, the steering wheel is oriented toward a traveling direction after the right or left turn, relative to an orientation of a vehicle body of the subject vehicle, and the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that, when the size of the intersection is smaller than the preset threshold value, the steering wheel is oriented in alignment with the orientation of the vehicle body.
Hidaka teaches wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that, when the size of the intersection is equal to or greater than a preset threshold value, the steering wheel is oriented toward a traveling direction after the right or left turn, relative to an orientation of a vehicle body of the subject vehicle (see at least [0051], [0057], [0061-0063], [0023], and [Figs. 6-9]), and the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that, when the size of the intersection is smaller than the preset threshold value, the steering wheel is oriented in alignment with the orientation of the vehicle body (see at least [0051], [0057], [0061-0063], [0023], and [Figs. 6-9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashitani, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Hidaka wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that, when the size of the intersection is equal to or greater than a preset threshold value, the steering wheel is oriented toward a traveling direction after the right or left turn, relative to an orientation of a vehicle body of the subject vehicle, and the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that, when the size of the intersection is smaller than the preset threshold value, the steering wheel is oriented in alignment with the orientation of the vehicle body. This would be done to provide steering angle feedback-control so that the deviation amount converges to the target route (deviation amount=0) (see Hidaka para 0003).
With respect to claim 2, Higashitani discloses wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement a control execution section configured to control the subject vehicle from traveling to a temporary stop such that an operation of the temporary stop is completed with the steering wheel at the angle set by the setting section (see at least [0040], [0048-0049], [0059], [0062], [0066-0069], and [0131]).
With respect to claim 3, Higashitani teaches wherein the setting section sets the orientation of the vehicle body at a temporary stop based on a type of the subject vehicle, such that the vehicle body faces a direction opposite to a traveling direction after the right or left turn with respect to a lane in which the subject vehicle travels before the right or left turn (see at least [0079-0082] and [Figs. 13-24]).
With respect to claim 4, Higashitani discloses wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement a control switching section configured to switch a traveling mode of a vehicle to a mode in which the subject vehicle is allowed to smoothly start at a time of a temporary stop (see at least [0059], [0062], [0066-0068], and [0131]).
With respect to claim 12, Higashitani teaches wherein the environment information includes information indicating presence or absence and a posture of an oncoming vehicle that is about to turn right or left at the intersection (see at least [0038], [0043], [0049-0052], [00970099], [0120], and [0125-0129]), and the setting section sets a posture of the subject vehicle according to the posture of the oncoming vehicle in a case where the oncoming vehicle is present (see at least [0038], [0043], [0049-0052], [00970099], [0120], and [0125-0129]).
With respect to claim 13, Higashitani teaches wherein the environment information includes information indicating presence or absence of an oncoming vehicle that is about to turn right or left at the intersection (see at least [0038], [0043], [0049-0052], [00970099], [0120], and [0125-0129]), and the setting section sets an angle such that an angle of an orientation of the vehicle body of the subject vehicle with respect to a subject lane before entering the intersection is inclined to a traveling direction after the vehicle body turns right or left in a case where the oncoming vehicle is present, compared with in a case where the oncoming vehicle is not present (see at least [0038], [0043], [0049-0052], [00970099], [0120], and [0125-0129]).
With respect to claim 14, Higashitani teaches wherein the subject vehicle is configured to execute a driving-mode switch to a driver of the subject vehicle in a case where autonomous control of driving is not allowed to continue (see at least [0037], [0039], [0041], [0105-0112], and [0131]), and the setting section acquires information about the driver (see at least [0037], [0039], [0041], [0105-0112], and [0131]), and sets an angle of the steering wheel at a temporary stop at the intersection according to the information about the driver (see at least [0037], [0039], [0041], [0105-0112], and [0131]).
With respect to claim 15, Higashitani teaches wherein in a case where the driver is a driver whose driving level with respect to accelerator operation is low (see at least [0037], [0039], [0041], [0105-0112], and [0131]), the setting section sets an angle of the steering wheel at a temporary stop at the intersection to an angle aligned with the orientation of the vehicle body of the subject vehicle (see at least [0037], [0039], [0041], [0105-0112], and [0131]).
With respect to claim 16, Higashitani teaches wherein the environment information includes information about a condition of a road (see at least [0038], [0043], and [0069]), and the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel at a temporary stop of the intersection according to the condition (see at least [0038], [0043], and [0069]).
With respect to claim 17, Higashitani teaches wherein the environment information further includes information about an inclination of a road (see at least [0038], [0043], and [0069]), and in a case where the condition includes a situation in which a slip is likely to occur on the road (see at least [0038], [0043], and [0069]), the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that a slip is less likely to occur with respect to the inclination (see at least [0038], [0043], and [0069]).
With respect to claim 18, Higashitani teaches wherein the setting section acquires information about a grip force of the steering wheel (see at least [0038], [0043], and [0069]), estimates a possibility of occurrence of a slip with respect to a temporary angle setting of the steering wheel based on information about the condition and the grip force (see at least [0038], [0043], and [0069]), and sets a final angle of the steering wheel based on the possibility (see at least [0038], [0043], and [0069]).
With respect to claims 19, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective vehicle control device claim 1. As such, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 20, it is a vehicle control method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective vehicle control device claim 1. As such, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashitani et al (US 20200079366 A1) in view of Hidaka et al (US 20240034320 A1) in view of Kumano et al (US 20200168097 A1)
With respect to claim 5, Higashitani as modified by Hidaka do not specifically teach wherein in a case where the intersection is a roundabout, the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel in a case where the subject vehicle temporarily stops upon entering the roundabout, according to a scale of the roundabout.
Kumano teaches wherein in a case where the intersection is a roundabout, the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel in a case where the subject vehicle temporarily stops upon entering the roundabout, according to a scale of the roundabout (see at least [0008], [0010], [0085-0086], [0093], [0099-0106], and [Figs. 8-12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashitani as modified by Hidaka, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kumano wherein in a case where the intersection is a roundabout, the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel in a case where the subject vehicle temporarily stops upon entering the roundabout, according to a scale of the roundabout. This would be done to provide smooth traffic flow when intersection is a roundabout (see Kumano para 0004-0005)
With respect to claim 6, Higashitani as modified by Hidaka do not specifically teach wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that, as the scale of the roundabout decreases, the steering wheel is oriented toward a traveling direction after the right or left turn with respect to an orientation of the vehicle body of the subject vehicle.
Kumano teaches wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that, as the scale of the roundabout decreases, the steering wheel is oriented toward a traveling direction after the right or left turn with respect to an orientation of the vehicle body of the subject vehicle (see at least [0008], [0010], [0085-0086], [0093], [0099-0106], and [Figs. 8-12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashitani as modified by Hidaka, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kumano wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that, as the scale of the roundabout decreases, the steering wheel is oriented toward a traveling direction after the right or left turn with respect to an orientation of the vehicle body of the subject vehicle. This would be done to provide smooth traffic flow when intersection is a roundabout (see Kumano para 0004-0005)
With respect to claim 7, Higashitani as modified by Hidaka do not specifically teach wherein in a case where a road connecting the roundabout and a next intersection has a plurality of lanes, the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel at a time of exiting the roundabout according to a lane corresponding to a traveling direction scheduled for the next intersection among the plurality of lanes.
Kumano teaches wherein in a case where a road connecting the roundabout and a next intersection has a plurality of lanes, the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel at a time of exiting the roundabout according to a lane corresponding to a traveling direction scheduled for the next intersection among the plurality of lanes (see at least [0008], [0010], [0085-0086], [0093], [0099-0106], and [Figs. 8-12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashitani as modified by Hidaka, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kumano wherein in a case where a road connecting the roundabout and a next intersection has a plurality of lanes, the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel at a time of exiting the roundabout according to a lane corresponding to a traveling direction scheduled for the next intersection among the plurality of lanes. This would be done to provide smooth traffic flow when intersection is a roundabout (see Kumano para 0004-0005)
With respect to claim 8, Higashitani as modified by Hidaka do not specifically teach wherein in a case where the intersection is a roundabout having a plurality of lanes, the subject vehicle travels in any of the plurality of lanes, and a parallelly traveling vehicle is traveling in an adjacent lane, the setting section adjusts the angle of the steering wheel so as to be away from the parallelly traveling vehicle.
Kumano teaches wherein in a case where the intersection is a roundabout having a plurality of lanes, the subject vehicle travels in any of the plurality of lanes (see at least [0008], [0010], [0085-0086], [0093], [0099-0106], and [Figs. 8-12]), and a parallelly traveling vehicle is traveling in an adjacent lane, the setting section adjusts the angle of the steering wheel so as to be away from the parallelly traveling vehicle (see at least [0008], [0010], [0085-0086], [0093], [0099-0106], and [Figs. 8-12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashitani as modified by Hidaka, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kumano wherein in a case where the intersection is a roundabout having a plurality of lanes, the subject vehicle travels in any of the plurality of lanes, and a parallelly traveling vehicle is traveling in an adjacent lane, the setting section adjusts the angle of the steering wheel so as to be away from the parallelly traveling vehicle. This would be done to provide smooth traffic flow when intersection is a roundabout (see Kumano para 0004-0005)
With respect to claim 9, Higashitani as modified by Hidaka do not specifically teach wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that the larger a size of the parallelly traveling vehicle, the more easily the subject vehicle is immediately away from the parallelly traveling vehicle.
Kumano teaches wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that the larger a size of the parallelly traveling vehicle, the more easily the subject vehicle is immediately away from the parallelly traveling vehicle (see at least [0008], [0010], [0085-0086], [0093], [0099-0106], and [Figs. 8-12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashitani as modified by Hidaka, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kumano wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel such that the larger a size of the parallelly traveling vehicle, the more easily the subject vehicle is immediately away from the parallelly traveling vehicle. This would be done to provide smooth traffic flow when intersection is a roundabout (see Kumano para 0004-0005).
With respect to claim 10, Higashitani as modified by Hidaka do not specifically teach wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement a control execution section configured to stop the subject vehicle in a space where the subject vehicle is allowed to stop in a case where the intersection is a roundabout, the subject vehicle travels in a lane within the roundabout, and a motorcycle is present near the subject vehicle.
Kumano teaches wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement a control execution section configured to stop the subject vehicle in a space where the subject vehicle is allowed to stop in a case where the intersection is a roundabout, the subject vehicle travels in a lane within the roundabout, and a motorcycle is present near the subject vehicle (see at least [0008], [0010], [0085-0086], [0093], [0099-0106], and [Figs. 8-12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashitani as modified by Hidaka, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kumano wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement a control execution section configured to stop the subject vehicle in a space where the subject vehicle is allowed to stop in a case where the intersection is a roundabout, the subject vehicle travels in a lane within the roundabout, and a motorcycle is present near the subject vehicle. This would be done to provide smooth traffic flow when intersection is a roundabout (see Kumano para 0004-0005).
With respect to claim 11, Higashitani as modified by Hidaka do not specifically teach wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel in preparation for cut-in driving of the motorcycle to the subject vehicle until the subject vehicle is stopped.
Kumano teaches wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel in preparation for cut-in driving of the motorcycle to the subject vehicle until the subject vehicle is stopped (see at least [0008], [0010], [0085-0086], [0093], [0099-0106], and [Figs. 8-12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Higashitani as modified by Hidaka, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kumano wherein the setting section sets the angle of the steering wheel in preparation for cut-in driving of the motorcycle to the subject vehicle until the subject vehicle is stopped. This would be done to provide smooth traffic flow when intersection is a roundabout (see Kumano para 0004-0005).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights