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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following claim 1 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite;
“the central processing unit determines whether a new detection result belongs to the past lane marker or a new lane marker, based on a comparison between a new detection result not included in the time series data and the time series data.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori (US 2021/0342603) in view of Lee (US 2015/0353085).
Regarding claim 1, Hori teaches a sensor information processing device comprising: a storage device that stores past detection results as time-series data (see para. 0088, Hori discusses storing lane marking data in memory); and
the central processing unit determines whether a new detection result belongs to the past lane marker or a new lane marker, based on a comparison between a new detection result not included in the time series data and the time series data (see para. 0031, Hori discusses time point when the lane marking information is detected; see para. 0048, 0050-0051, Hori discusses determining that the lane markings are new and normal based on the point sequence data).
Lee teaches a central processing unit that identifies a past lane marker on a basis of the time-series data, wherein the central processing unit identifies the lane marker by processing detection results from a plurality of external-environment sensors that recognize the lane marker (see figure 6, para. 0025, Lee discusses multiple sensors surrounding a vehicle, identifying lane marks; see para. 0016, Lee discusses a map database storing roadway points detected over time), and
the central processing unit calculates an average distance between each of three different inputs and; i) a line obtained by linear approximation of the time-series data, and ii) an arc obtained by circular approximation of the time-series data (see figure 2A, para. 0027, Lee discusses calculating average distance between various points along the right and left edge of a driving lane as the vehicle travels along a path over time; see para. 0050-0051, Lee discusses calculating a linear equation for a straight road; see figure 8, para. 0061-0062, 0065, Lee discusses calculating curvature of a road).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hori with Lee to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform roadway lane marking detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Hori in this manner in order to improve lane markings detection by acquiring multiple points using multiple sensors to properly extract the direction of lane markings. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Hori, while the teaching of Lee continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of detecting a series of points on roadway lane markings using multiple sensors to determine the direction of the lane markings. The Hori and Lee systems perform lane marking detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori (US 2021/0342603) in view of Lee (US 2015/0353085) in view of Douillard et al. (US 2017/0124781).
Regarding claim 2, Hori teaches updates stored lane marking information that is the lane marking information stored by the travel path recognizer (see para. 0046). Hori and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein the central processing unit causes the storage device to store the new detection result after the determination as the time-series data. However, Douillard teaches wherein the central processing unit causes the storage device to store the new detection result after the determination as the time-series data (see figure 14, para. 0146, Douillard discusses updating the map database with new lane markings detected).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hori and Lee with Douillard to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform roadway lane marking detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Hori and Lee in this manner in order to improve lane markings detection by acquiring multiple points to properly extract the direction of lane markings. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Hori and Lee, while the teaching of Douillard continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of detecting a series of points on roadway lane markings to determine the direction of the lane markings. The Hori, Lee, and Douillard systems perform lane marking detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 3, Hori and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein the central processing unit assigns an identifier unique to each of the identified lane markers to the time-series data and the new detection result. However, Douillard teaches wherein the central processing unit assigns an identifier unique to each of the identified lane markers to the time-series data and the new detection result (see figure 14, para. 0146, Douillard discusses updating the map database with new lane markings detected).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hori and Lee with Douillard to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform roadway lane marking detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Hori and Lee in this manner in order to improve lane markings detection by acquiring multiple points to properly extract the direction of lane markings. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Hori and Lee, while the teaching of Douillard continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of detecting a series of points on roadway lane markings to determine the direction of the lane markings. The Hori, Lee, and Douillard systems perform lane marking detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 4, Hori and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein the storage device stores map information including information of the lane marker, and the central processing unit associates the lane marker included in the map information with the lane marker based on the time-series data on a basis of position information input from a positioning sensor. However, Douillard teaches wherein the storage device stores map information including information of the lane marker, and the central processing unit associates the lane marker included in the map information with the lane marker based on the time-series data on a basis of position information input from a positioning sensor (see figure 14, para. 0146, Douillard discusses updating the map database with new lane markings detected based on time series data of the vehicle position).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hori and Lee with Douillard to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform roadway lane marking detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Hori and Lee in this manner in order to improve lane markings detection by acquiring multiple points to properly extract the direction of lane markings. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Hori and Lee, while the teaching of Douillard continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of detecting a series of points on roadway lane markings to determine the direction of the lane markings. The Hori, Lee, and Douillard systems perform lane marking detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori (US 2021/0342603) in view of Lee (US 2015/0353085) in view of Dorum et al. (US 2014/0236482).
Regarding claim 6, Hori and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein the detection result of the plurality of external-environment sensors includes a parameter of an approximate curve. However, Dorum teaches wherein the detection result of the plurality of external-environment sensors includes a parameter of an approximate curve (see figure 8, Dorum discusses assigning confidence factor to detected curves; see para. 0048, Dorum discusses using the position data to retrieve a curve or a section of a curve. The curve approximates one of the paths in the map database. The curve may approximate link geometry of a series of straight line segments).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hori and Lee with Douillard to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform roadway lane marking detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Hori and Lee in this manner in order to improve lane markings detection by acquiring multiple points to properly approximate the curvature of lane markings. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Hori and Lee, while the teaching of Douillard continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of detecting a series of points on roadway lane markings to determine the curvature of lane markings. The Hori, Lee, and Douillard systems perform lane marking detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663