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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The 12.30.2025 Amendments are entered. Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 2-5 and 10-11 are canceled. Claims 1 and 6-9 are pending.
Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 12.30.2025 Remarks have been fully considered but are found unconvincing for at least the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 5 of the Remarks that their application discloses lane markings in FIG. 3.
Applicant alleges that in amended Claims 1 and 9, the vehicle M is controlled to measure a width between the markings and stay completely within these markings when stopping behind the one or more objects on the road. Applicant contends on pp. 6-7 that Ishikawa does not teach this function.
This argument is unconvincing. Because there is no mention of this function in Applicant’s written description, the drawings, or claims as filed, the claims are rejected for containing new matter as discussed below.
Even if the claimed function were not new matter, Applicant’s disclosure does not specify what represents the lane lines for the purposes of the claims. The lane lines of FIG. 3 could be anything from an internal abstraction to a painted lane marking. The concept that a lane line, even if it is a physical line, may be multiple things is further expressed in for example [0043] of Ishikawa:
“In addition, the recognizer 130 is not limited to recognizing road partition lines and may recognize a running lane by recognizing running lane boundaries (road boundaries) including a road partition line, a road shoulder, curbstones, a median strip, a guardrail, and the like.”
Therefore, FIGS. 8 and 9 of Ishikawa read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of lane lines in Claims 1 and 9, i.e., an abstraction or any object that denotes lane boundaries. FIGS. 8 and 9 of Ishikawa at least depict road boundaries or shoulders within which the vehicle stays, though the interpretations of what constitutes a lane line extends beyond that.
Furthermore, Applicant’s disclosure does not specify within which set of lane lines the vehicle must stop. Even if the vehicle stopped outside of one set of lane lines, like depicted in Ishikawa FIGS. 8 and 9, the vehicle is still depicted as stopped between the outermost set of lane lines depicted. These outermost lane lines are understood as the road shoulder, a curb, or even an abstraction of where the road ends.
Because Ishikawa reads on the amended Claims, Applicant’s other argument that modifying Ishikawa to include stopping within lane boundaries is moot.
Therefore, the § 103 Rejections stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 9 claim “deriv[ing] a width between lane markings,” “when a width between lane markings of one section of the travelable road,” “control[ling] the vehicle to stop completely within an area between the lane markings of the travelable road,” and “wherein the controller is configured to derive the width between the lane markings of the travelable road.” However, there is no mention in the application as filed of “lane markings” beyond the unelaborated depiction of lines representing the edge of the road in for example FIG. 3. Therefore, the mentions of “between lane markings” is new matter.
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 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 each claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “lane markings” encompasses both actual, physical markings (including painted lines, road shoulders, curbs, guardrails, and so on) that denote lanes on the roadway and abstractions that represent the limits of a lane or roadway in software or mathematical representations (vectors, rays, occupancy maps, and so on). It is unclear from Applicant’s disclosure to which type of lane markings the claims are referring.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 20190196486 A1) in view of Tateishi (US 20180003505 A1), further in view of Zinner (US 20190375410 A1) and Andersson (WO 2014148975 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ishikawa teaches a vehicle driving system comprising:
a sensor configured to monitor an environment outside a vehicle ([Ishikawa 0028]: “One or a plurality of cameras 10 are installed at arbitrary places on a vehicle in which the vehicle system 1 is mounted... The camera 10, for example, repeatedly images the vicinity of the subject vehicle M periodically.”); and
a controller configured to recognize an oncoming traveling object through the sensor ([Ishikawa 0031]: “The object-recognizing device 16 performs a sensor fusion process on results of detection using some or all of the camera 10… thereby allowing recognition of a position, a type, a speed, and the like of an object. The object-recognizing device 16 outputs a result of recognition to the automated driving control device 100.”), derive a width between lane markings of a travelable road between the traveling object and the vehicle ([Ishikawa 0046]: “… the narrow-road-recognizer 132 determines whether or not a road on which the subject vehicle M runs has no center lane, and a width of the road is less than a predetermined width by referring to information of the number of lanes, the width, and the like…” Based on the interpretation discussed in the Arguments above, any width derived by the system of Ishikawa would have been between lane markings of the road.), determine priority between the traveling object and the vehicle when a width between lane markings of one section of the travelable road (Ishikawa inherently teaches measurements of road sections by teaching the system determining the width of a current lane is too small, and determining the width of an area to pull into is large enough in [0054]. Further, in the combination of prior art presented, Tateishi also teaches finding widths of road sections by teaching measuring the width DP between point sets, taken as road sections, at [0079].) is smaller than a sum of widths of the traveling object and the vehicle ([Ishikawa 0054]: “The stop position-searcher 144 of the action plan-generator 140, for example, in a case in which the width of the own lane is less than a predetermined width, searches for a position or a space at which the subject vehicle can evacuate to the side of the own lane and completely stop until the oncoming vehicle OCV passes… The stop space, for example, is a place at which a road width is larger than at least a sum of the vehicle widths of the subject vehicle M and the oncoming vehicle OCV.” The subject vehicle searching for a place to pull over and stop until the OCV passes taken as determination of priority of the OCV. Ishikawa at least implicitly discloses that this process occurs on a road where the road width is less than the sum of the widths of the subject vehicle and the OCV by disclosing that the stop space is at a place wider than this width. Otherwise, it would be unnecessary to find a stop space.) due to one or more objects among the objects on opposing sides of the road (In the combination of prior art presented, Tateishi teaches points P representing the edges of objects that may protrude into the road and affect its width at [0046] & [0079].), and, when the traveling object is determined to have the priority, control the vehicle to stop completely within an area between the lane markings of the travelable road (Ishikawa FIGS. 8-9: The vehicle depicted as stopping completely between the outer lane markings of the travelable road.) and not to enter the one section of the travelable road before the traveling object such that a space in a lateral direction of the vehicle is provided to allow the traveling object to pass ([Ishikawa 0054]: “The stop position-searcher 144 of the action plan-generator 140, for example, in a case in which the width of the own lane is less than a predetermined width, searches for a position or a space at which the subject vehicle can evacuate to the side of the own lane and completely stop until the oncoming vehicle OCV passes… The stop space, for example, is a place at which a road width is larger than at least a sum of the vehicle widths of the subject vehicle M and the oncoming vehicle OCV.” The disclosed case where the subject vehicle pulls over for the OCV taken as a scenario where the traveling object is determined to have priority. The trigger for the determination of the priority taken as the presence of an oncoming vehicle. Examiner further notes that Ishikawa reads on the additional requirement of controlling the vehicle not to enter the section of the travelable road by teaching the vehicle searching for a stop space in front of the OCV, which is on a part of the lane that is too narrow for both vehicles.).
While Ishikawa teaches searching for a stop space using sensors at for example [0054], and parking in that space when an oncoming vehicle is detected and road width is too narrow, Ishikawa does not appear to expressly teach that the vehicle is controlled to stop behind one of the one or more objects so as not to enter the one section of travelable road such that a space in a direction of both the vehicle and the one of the one or more objects is provided when the road width is too narrow.
However, Zinner teaches a system that detects a narrow stretch of road occupied by parked vehicles, taken as the one or more objects ([Zinner 0054]: “The problem arises that the vehicle 1 and the oncoming vehicle 13 cannot pass through the narrow passage 5 next to each other at the same time . . ..” Zinner at least implicitly teaches that the sum of the width of both vehicles is greater than the road width by teaching that the vehicles cannot pass through the passage at the same time. See also FIG. 2, APOSITA would have understood that in combination with Ishikawa and Tateishi, the objects on the side of the road could be parked cars.). Zinner further teaches that, when it is determined an oncoming vehicle has the priority ([Zinner 0055]: “The vehicle 1 can access a database, in which a right-of-way rule is stored, which the driver assistance system of the vehicle 1 applies to the existing situation . . ..”), controlling the vehicle to stop behind one of the one or more objects so as not to enter the one section of travelable road such that a space in a direction of both the vehicle and the one of the one or more objects is provided ([Zinner 0050, FIG. 2]: “The start 9 of the narrow passage 5 can serve the vehicle 1 as an avoiding position or respectively stopping position, in order to make it possible for potential oncoming traffic to pass through the narrow passage 5. For example, the vehicle 1 can stop or park behind the rearmost of the vehicles 6.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that searches for a stop space on the side of the road using sensors and pulls the vehicle into the space when an oncoming vehicle has the right of way taught by Ishikawa with the system that searches for a stop space among objects on the side of the road behind parked vehicles and stops there when an oncoming vehicle has right of way taught by Zinner. Doing so would have improved the versatility of the system by providing another type of stop space for the vehicle to search for and use when it is determined the oncoming vehicle has right of way.
The above combination of Ishikawa and Zinner does not appear to expressly teach a sensor configured to monitor an environment outside of a vehicle including information about objects on opposing sides of the road.
Nor does this combination appear to expressly teach wherein the controller is configured to derive the width between the lane markings of the travelable road, based on a distance, in a direction crossing a travel direction of the vehicle, from at least the one or more objects among the objects on the opposing sides of the road.
However, Tateishi teaches a sensor configured to monitor an environment outside of a vehicle including information about objects on opposing sides of the road ([Tateishi 0046]: “The feature extracting unit 23 extracts the edge points P of the roadside objects existing around the system-equipped vehicle CS from an image captured by the camera 32.”).
Tateishi further teaches wherein the controller is configured to derive the width between the lane markings of the travelable road, based on a distance, in a direction crossing a travel direction of the vehicle, from at least the one or more objects among the objects on the opposing sides of the road ([Tateishi Fig. 11, par. 0079]: “The ECU 20 determines the width Wi of the road on which the system-equipped vehicle CS is traveling. When roadside objects exist both on the right and left sides of the system-equipped vehicle CS, the ECU 20 calculates the lateral edge-to-edge interval DP between the edge points P extracted from the right and left roadside objects and derives a difference between the road width Wi and the lateral edge-to-edge interval DP.” DP taken as width of road based on a distance between two objects on opposing sides of the road. As shown in FIGS. 9 and 11, the width can be measured based on a lane line.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system configured to derive the width of a road via a sensor taught by the above combination of Ishikawa and Zinner with the system configured to derive the width of a road using the lateral edge-to-edge interval between two opposing objects on either side of the road measured using a sensor taught by Tateishi. Doing so would have “ensur[ed] the accuracy in localizing the system-equipped vehicle CS” on the road when roadside objects are present as taught in Tateishi Par. 0079. Doing so would have also improved the accuracy of the road width measurement by accounting for objects protruding from the side of the road.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the controller is configured to derive an expected collision site of the vehicle and the traveling object, and determine that one of the vehicle and the traveling object, which first passes through one of two sites spaced a predetermined distance apart from the expected collision site and facing each other, has the priority.
However, Andersson teaches the controller is configured to derive an expected collision site of the vehicle and the traveling object, and determine that one of the vehicle and the traveling object, which first passes through one of two sites spaced a predetermined distance apart from the expected collision site and facing each other, has the priority (Andersson p. 11: “If for example two vehicle are each moving towards their respective end of a narrow tunnel and the vehicle which has the lower prioritization from the traffic system’s perspective expects to be able to make its way through the tunnel before the higher-priority vehicle travelling in the opposite direction reaches the tunnel, the lower-priority vehicle will go right ahead . . . In this case the lower-priority vehicle cannot make its way round the obstacle and still reach the tunnel in time, resulting in . . . instructions for it to come to a halt and wait for the vehicle travelling in the opposite direction to pass before it can make its way past the obstacle.” Tunnel broadly interpreted as the expected collision site, derived on merit of being known by the computer system. The tunnel is a predetermined length long, the computer system inherently knows this because it knows how long the vehicle will need to make its way through the tunnel. Tunnel entrance (or “reaching the tunnel”) taken as the sites spaced a predetermined distance apart from the expected collision site.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that determines vehicle priority taught by the above combination of Ishikawa, Zinner, and Tateishi with the system that determines the priority of oncoming vehicles approaching a tunnel by determining whether a vehicle will reach the tunnel first taught by Andersson. Doing so would have improved the versatility of the system by providing it a means to determine vehicle priority in a narrow tunnel situation.
Claim 9 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 1, as applied to a method.
Regarding Claim 6, the above combination of Ishikawa, Zinner, Tateishi, and Andersson further teaches the vehicle driving system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to recognize, when the traveling object does not decelerate, the traveling object as having an intention to travel ([Zinner 0055]: “On the basis of at least the determined speed (and optionally also the acceleration) of the oncoming vehicle 13, the driver assistance system of the vehicle 1 furthermore predicts a reaction of the oncoming vehicle 13, for example in the situation shown by way of example, that the oncoming vehicle 13 is continuing its forward motion in order to pass through the narrow passage 5. Under these conditions, the driver assistance system will instruct the vehicle 1 to adjust its movement through the narrow passage 5 and to stop.” Continuation of forward motion taken as the traveling object is not decelerating. This continuation is also indication of intention to travel, see Claim 5.).
Regarding Claim 7, the above combination of Ishikawa, Zinner, Tateishi, and Andersson further teaches the vehicle driving system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to recognize the traveling object as having an intention to travel, when a rate of change in a forward heading angle of the traveling object is less than a reference value ([Zinner 0055]: “On the basis of at least the determined speed (and optionally also the acceleration) of the oncoming vehicle 13, the driver assistance system of the vehicle 1 furthermore predicts a reaction of the oncoming vehicle 13, for example in the situation shown by way of example, that the oncoming vehicle 13 is continuing its forward motion in order to pass through the narrow passage 5. Under these conditions, the driver assistance system will instruct the vehicle 1 to adjust its movement through the narrow passage 5 and to stop.” Rate of change in a forward heading angle broadly interpreted as acceleration or deceleration in a forward direction. Continuation of forward motion taken as the traveling object is not decelerating. This continuation is also indication of intention to travel, see Claim 5. Zinner also inherently discloses a reference value for this acceleration by disclosing that decisions for vehicle travel may be made on the basis of the determined acceleration of the oncoming vehicle.).
Regarding Claim 8, the above combination of Ishikawa, Zinner, Tateishi, and Andersson teaches the vehicle driving system of claim 1.
The above combination does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to recognize the traveling object as having an intention to travel, when the traveling object does not make way for a predetermined time in a situation in which the vehicle and the traveling object stop.
However, Zinner further teaches wherein the controller is configured to recognize the traveling object as having an intention to travel, when the traveling object does not make way for a predetermined time in a situation in which the vehicle and the traveling object stop ([Zinner 0060-0065, Fig. 7]: If oncoming vehicle (taken as the traveling object) is detected in the passage, the subject vehicle stops. If the oncoming vehicle also stops, the subject vehicle initiates a timer (taken as the predetermined time) that runs down. Once the timer reaches zero, if the determination is made that the oncoming vehicle continues forward (taken as not making way), the subject vehicle looks for somewhere to pull over and stop (taken as recognition that the traveling object has intention to travel.).).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the object-recognition device and action plan generator disclosed in the above combination of Ishikawa, Zinner, Tateishi, and Andersson with the method for solving a scenario where both vehicles stop in a narrow passage taught in Zinner with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the ability of the vehicle to adapt and respond to traffic scenarios where the intentions of the oncoming driver are unknown.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ucar, Seyhan et al.. US 20220089162 A1. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VEHICLES RESOLVING A STANDOFF.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665