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
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on October 03, 2025. Claims 1-4 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the phrase "determining, by the autonomous driving controller, whether the driver selects a first option or a second option". The specification does not explicitly recite what a "first option" or a "second option" entails. The specification does state in 1 [0134] "First, when changing from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode, the driver may directly select whether to switch to the manual driving mode while driving, or whether to switch to the manual driving mode after stopping by moving to a safe place. Thus, it is possible to expand options of the driver for switching to the manual driving mode, and to more safely switch to the manual driving mode. Based on this and Figs. 5 and 6, the examiner will interpret the first and second options to be switched to the manual driving mode while driving, (first option) and switch to the manual driving mode after stopping (second option) to promote compact prosecution. However, the examiner recommends amending the claim to clarify the claim. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the phrase "determining whether the autonomous vehicle is capable of arriving at the agreed lane within a predetermined time period". The claim 1 recites an autonomous driving controller performing method steps. Here, the autonomous vehicle controller is not recited but 1 [0074] states "the autonomous driving controller 100 may receive a relative distance and a relative speed of the nearby vehicle, which is present at the side of or behind the autonomous vehicle, from the detection unit for autonomous driving including the camera 11, the navigation system 12, the RADAR 13, or the LiDAR 14, and determine whether the autonomous vehicle can arrive at the agreed lane within the predetermined time period based thereon." Thus, the examiner recommends reciting "determining, by the autonomous driving controller, whether the autonomous vehicle is capable of arriving at the agreed lane within a predetermined time period based on nearby vehicle information from one or more sensors" and will interpret the claim as such for purposes of compact prosecution. Similarly, the subsequent steps will be interpreted as "by the autonomous driving controller,". Therefore, the claim as presently drafted does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Deborne, US 12,128,896, teaches a method that secures a host vehicle circulating on a traffic lane of a road infrastructure including at least one lane adjacent to the traffic lane. The securing method includes, for each adjacent lane: detecting a plurality of vehicles present on the adjacent lane, including an estimate of at least one information item relating to each detected vehicle, including the speed; determining, with the detected vehicles forming a flow of vehicles, a value representing the speed of the flow on the adjacent lane, for example, the average speed; comparing the speed of the host vehicle with the value representing the speed of the flow of vehicles on the adjacent lane; and, if the speed of the host vehicle is greater than a predetermined threshold at the value representing the speed of the flow of vehicles on the adjacent lane, detecting a hazardous situation for the host vehicle.
Kislovisky et al., US 2018/0339712 A1, teaches an on-trip monitoring system for an on-demand transportation service can receive log data from autonomous vehicles operating throughout a given region. Based on a set of triggering conditions, the on-trip monitoring system can transmit switching commands to cause the AVs to switch between software versions and/or operative modes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights