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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-22, and 24-29 are currently pending and are being examined herein. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 21, and 26 are amended. Claims 3, 10, 15-20, and 23 are cancelled. Claims 27-29 are new.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Non-Final Rejection dated 17 March 2026.
All claim objections from the prior office action are withdrawn.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) from the prior office action are withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments resulted in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see below).
Applicant's arguments, filed 12 June 2026, regarding the prior art rejections from the prior office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (specifically, the examiner did not teach “a straight line” in the rejection of Claim 3 from the prior office action in the way argued by Applicant / taught Claim 3 from the prior office action using the combination of references). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Due to the amendments to the claims, the Examiner has further clarified the combination below.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-22, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 27 are directed to a method. Claims 8-9, 11-14, and 28 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 21-22, 24-26, and 29 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, all claims are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims are directed to abstract ideas. The abstract ideas in Claim 1 (the independent method claim) are listed below. The other independent claims (Claims 8 and 21) are similar in scope to Claim 1 and recite similar abstract ideas.
A method for improving a vehicle operation based on detecting a lane line
establishing…a road edge coordinate system based on the road edge information
extracting…lane line reflection points from the lane line candidate reflection points based on coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system, wherein a distance between each of the lane line reflection points and a straight line is less than a first threshold, the straight line is obtained by performing feature detection through Hough transform based on the coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system, and the road edge coordinate system is based on road edge information using road edge line as reference line
transforming…the lane line reflection points based on the road edge coordinate system that uses the road edge line as the reference line into an ego-vehicle coordinate system that is based on a current position and direction of the vehicle, and fitting the lane line in the ego-vehicle coordinate system
performing…at least one of path planning or steering control of the vehicle based on the fitted lane line
These are mental and/or mathematical processes (i.e., abstract ideas) because they can be completed in the human mind and/or use known mathematical processes and algorithms. Performing path planning for a vehicle is a mental process that human drivers routinely complete mentally; for example, when a human driver sees a lane line curves ahead they will plan (think) that they will need to turn the vehicle in the future (performing steering control would not be a mental process, but due to the “or”, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require any steering control). The dependent claims recite additional abstract ideas.
The additional elements in all claims are grouped as follows:
scanning, by a LIDAR, a surrounding environment of a vehicle, to obtain lane line candidate reflection points and road edge information (Claim 1) / obtaining lane line candidate reflection points and road edge information based on scanning information of a surrounding environment of a vehicle from a LIDAR (Claim 8) / obtaining lane line candidate reflection points and road edge information based on scanning information of a surrounding environment of a vehicle from a LIDAR (Claim 21)
by a processor (Claim 1) / An apparatus for detecting a lane line, comprising: at least one processor; and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to perform operations (Claim 8) / One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer instructions, that when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform operations (Claim 21)
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in grouping a are merely insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements in grouping b merely apply the abstract idea to one or more generic computing components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: the additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to amount to significantly more because the Office takes Official Notice that they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), or else they are insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (additional elements in grouping a) (see numerous court decisions pertaining to observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, such as the findings from Electric Power Group where it was found that collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis was not significantly more than the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
The Examiner recommends amending each independent claim as follows to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101: change “performing…at least one of path planning or steering control of the vehicle based on the fitted lane line” to “performing…
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.
Claims 4, 11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations of these claims are disclosed as an alternative to subject matter now included in the independent claims (in the disclosure there are multiple options for step S430, selecting points within a threshold distance of a straight line is one and selecting points by clustering is an alternative) / there is not support for both sets of limitations together in the original disclosure (see at least specification paragraph [0090], FIG. 8, FIG. 9, and FIG. 10: “There may be a plurality of implementations of step S430. For example, features of the lane line candidate reflection points may be first determined based on the coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system; and then the lane line reflection points are extracted from the lane line candidate reflection points based on the features of the lane line candidate reflection points. The features of the lane line candidate reflection points include one or more of the following features: orientations of the lane line candidate reflection points, distances between the lane line candidate reflection points and the road edge line, spacings between the lane line candidate reflection points, whether the lane line candidate reflection points can form a straight line, and the like. Alternatively, the lane line candidate reflection points may be clustered in the road edge coordinate system, and then the lane line reflection points are extracted from the lane line candidate reflection points based on a clustering result. FIG. 8 to FIG. 10 in the following provide several possible implementations of step S430” – emphasis added). Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 4, 11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. These claims include limitations directed to two alternatives of step S430 from the disclosure (clustering is described as an alternative to distance thresholds). One of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of the claim because one of ordinary skill in the art would not know, in view of the specification, if the limitations of Claims 4, 11, and 24 are claiming an alternative to the independent claims, are not further limiting the independent claims, or something else (see also related rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d)). For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will assume the broadest reasonable interpretation is at least any of the interpretations provided here. Appropriate corrections are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. These claims include limitations directed to two alternatives of step S430 from the disclosure (clustering is described as an alternative to distance thresholds). Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification (see also rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) these claims may be missing a limitation of the independent claims or fail to further limit the independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-22, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0247029 (hereinafter, Watanabe) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0276599 (hereinafter, Ogawa).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe discloses A method for improving a vehicle operation based on detecting a lane line (see at least [0037] and [0043]: “The travel control apparatus 1 has a function of performing a coordinate transformation such that a position of an object and a position of lane boundary line indicated in the usual plane coordinate system are indicated on a coordinate system (lane coordinate system) different from the usual plane coordinate system, and a function of generating the target travel trajectory”; “The LIDAR detects the object around the vehicle 2 and the environment on the road such as the lane boundary lines 100 to 103 using light”), comprising:
scanning, by a LIDAR, a surrounding environment of a vehicle, to obtain lane line candidate reflection points and road edge information (see at least [0040], [0043], and [0057]: “The LIDAR detects the object around the vehicle 2 and the environment on the road such as the lane boundary lines 100 to 103 using light”);
establishing, by a processor, a road edge coordinate system based on the road edge information (see at least [0037]-[0038], [0046]-[0047], [0051], [0058], Fig. 3, and Fig. 4: “The lane coordinate system is a coordinate system associated with a shape of the lane. Specifically, the lane coordinate system is a coordinate system in which a center line of the lane is a first coordinate axis and an axis orthogonal to the first coordinate axis is a second coordinate axis”; “The lane position recognition unit 11 recognizes the positions of the lane boundary lines 101 and 103 based on the result of detection using the external sensor 31. As a specific example, the lane position recognition unit 11 recognizes the positions of the lane boundary lines 101 and 103 on the XY plane using a function (so-called a sensor fusion function) of combining the image information from the camera, the object information from the radar, and the object information from the LIDAR. The lane position recognition unit 11 may acquire the coordinate positions of the entire of the detection points detected as the lane boundary lines 101 and 103, or may sample a representative point”; “FIG. 4 is a diagram describing the lane boundary line 101 and 103, the object 200, and a first travelable area R1 indicated on the transformed lane coordinate system based on FIG. 3. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the lane coordinate system has a coordinate of an origin where the lateral position of the vehicle 2 is 0. A direction of a first coordinate axis X′ is a direction of the lane direction extending along the center point line in the lane 104. A positive value means the front direction of the vehicle 2 and a negative value means the rear direction of the vehicle 2. A direction of a second coordinate axis Y′ is a direction orthogonal to the first coordinate axis X′, that is, the lane width. A positive value means the left side of the vehicle 2 and a negative value means the right side of the vehicle 2. Since the width of the lane 104 is a constant, the lane boundary line 101 has a constant positive value (a straight line parallel to the first coordinate axis X′). The lane boundary line 103 has a constant negative value (a straight line parallel to the first coordinate axis X′). In this case, in the lane coordinate system, the lane 104 has a belt shape demarcated on the lane boundary lines 101 and 103. The object 200 having a rectangle shape in the XY plane coordinate system becomes a trapezoid in the lane coordinate system. As described above, in the lane coordinate system, it is possible to transform the complicated road shape to a shape of a straight line or a combination of the straight lines”);
extracting, by the processor, a calculated result from scanned data in the road edge coordinate system, wherein…a straight line…is obtained…in the road edge coordinate system, and the road edge coordinate system is based on road edge information using road edge line as reference line (see at least [0006]-[0007], [0047], [0050]-[0053], Fig. 2, and Fig. 4: “The lane position recognition unit 11 also recognizes a position of a lane center line K, a lane width, a curvature (a shape of the lane) by recognizing the positions of the lane boundary lines 101 and 103”; “The transformation unit 14 projects the lane boundary lines 101 and 103 and the object 200 recognized in the XY plane coordinate system on the lane coordinate system by performing the coordinate transformation”; “As illustrated in FIG. 4, the first area calculation unit 15 calculates the first travelable area R1 by excluding the shape of the object 200 from the area surrounded by the lane boundary lines 101 and 103 (that is, the lane 104). The first area calculation unit 15 may provide with a predetermined portion of a margin inside of the lane from the lane boundary lines 101 and 103, or may provide with a predetermined portion of a margin from the outer edge of the object 200”; FIG. 4 shows straight lines X’, 101, and 103);
transforming, by the processor, the lane line reflection points based on the road edge coordinate system that uses the road edge line as the reference line into an ego-vehicle coordinate system that is based on a current position and direction of the vehicle (see at least [0037], [0053], [0073], and Fig. 4: “The plane coordinate system may be a coordinate system that is fixed to the vehicle 2 while the travelling direction of the vehicle 2 is Y axis and the lateral direction of the vehicle 2 is X axis”; “the travel trajectory generation unit 16 inversely transforms the first travelable area R1 in the lane coordinate system to that in the XY plane coordinate system, and then, generates a second travelable area”; area R1 is bounded on two sides by lane line reflection points), and fitting the lane line in the ego-vehicle coordinate system (see at least [0006] and Fig. 2: “a lane position recognition unit configured to recognize positions of lane boundary lines of a lane in which a vehicle travels in front of a vehicle in a plane coordinate system”); and
performing, by the processor, at least one of path planning or steering control of the vehicle based on the fitted lane line (see at least [0006], [0054]-[0055], and [0058]: “a travel trajectory generation unit configured to generate a travel trajectory of the vehicle in the plane coordinate system based on the travelable area and the travelling position; and a control unit configured to perform a steering control on the vehicle based on the travel trajectory”; the lane boundary lines 101 and 103 are part of the travelable area calculation which is used to control the steering).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose how certain portions of the scanned data are confirmed to be lane boundary lines (e.g., any specific filters, criteria, etc.); however, one of ordinary skill in the art understands Watanabe includes some combination of criteria when the “sensor fusion function” occurs. Furthermore, Watanabe determines a shape of the lane in order to complete the coordinate transformations, but the processing for determining the lane shape is only briefly discussed (see at least [0046]-[0047] and [0050]-[0051]). In summary, regarding the specific language of Claim 1, Watanabe does not explicitly disclose the following:
extracting, by the processor, lane line reflection points from the lane line candidate reflection points based on coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system.
wherein a distance between each of the lane line reflection points and a straight line is less than a first threshold, the straight line is obtained by performing feature detection through Hough transform based on the coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system.
Ogawa, in the same field of vehicles controls, and therefore analogous art, teaches accurately determining lane lines based on projecting a centerline curve from a past cycle to the present cycle (see at least [0007], [0022], and [0034]-[0035]).
Combining the known technique of Ogawa (determining lane markers with an iterative process, including projecting centerline curves) with Watanabe (which requires a curve based on the lane lines to create the transformed lane coordinate system) would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of accurately extracting lane markers on more types of roads (including curved roads) by combining data from multiple cycles while being able to transform the road shape into a straight line coordinate system to improve processing (see at least Ogawa [0005]-[0007] and Watanabe [0051]).
In the combination described above (the combination is creating the lane coordinate system of Watanabe off of the projected centerline of Ogawa) there are a finite number of types of coordinate systems used for processing (including, the transformed lane coordinate system based on straight-lines of Watanabe), and, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try each of the finite number of types of coordinate systems known between Ogawa and Watanabe for any of the finite number of processing steps with the motivation of determining a coordinate system that makes calculations most simple (see at least Watanabe [0007]) and to meet the market demand of a cost effective and responsive system for driver assistance (since one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that more processing / less simple calculations would add cost, and would try different combinations to minimize the amount of processing required to reduce costs).
In view of the combinations / motivations described above, the processing of Ogawa, including processing related to the diagrams in at least FIG. 6 and/or FIG. 7, would have been obvious to complete in the straight line / transformed coordinate system of Watanabe (e.g., data shown in FIG. 6 of Ogawa is in the straight-line / transformed coordinate system). In view of the Watanabe and Ogawa combination, the following limitations that, as noted above, are not explicitly disclosed by Watanabe, are obvious:
extracting, by the processor, lane line reflection points from the lane line candidate reflection points based on coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system (see at least Ogawa [0023]-[0024], [0033]-[0035], FIG. 5, and FIG. 6: lidar instrument 10 scans to find possible lane markers; “the data on a lane marker are extracted from a combination of the measurement values of the present cycle and the past cycle”; “The extraction unit 21 calculates a projected position and projected range of the lane marker relative to the present cycle based on a projected result, which is projected by the parameter follow-up unit 25 at the previous cycle for use in the present cycle”; points that are not in the expected range based on the road edge information from the last cycle projected to the current cycle are considered disturbances and not extracted as can be seen in FIG. 6; as noted above, per the current combination, the processing of FIG. 6 of Ogawa may be completed in the straight-line / transformed coordinate system of Watanabe).
wherein a distance between each of the lane line reflection points and a straight line is less than a first threshold, the straight line is obtained by performing feature detection through Hough transform based on the coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system (see at least Ogawa [0043]-[0045], [0060], and FIG. 6: “the generated data on the lane centerline are subjected to the Hough's transformation to calculate a centerline position and centerline shape of the lane”; when the centerline of Ogawa is transformed into the straight-line / transformed lane coordinate system of Watanabe, the curve is no longer a curve but is a straight line; in the next cycle, data outside the projected error range is considered a disturbance and not used; Ogawa does not directly teach the straight line, but the straight line is a feature of the combination).
Regarding Claim 2, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination further teaches (with the same motivations to combine as Claim 1) wherein the extracting lane line reflection points from the lane line candidate reflection points based on coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system comprises: determining features of the lane line candidate reflection points based on the coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system (see discussion above about how processing relating to Ogawa FIG. 6 may be completed in the straight line / transformed lane coordinate system of Watanabe); and extracting the lane line reflection points from the lane line candidate reflection points based on the features of the lane line candidate reflection points (see at least Ogawa FIG. 6: some points are extracted as lane marker and some are considered disturbances).
Regarding Claim 4, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination further teaches (with the same motivations to combine as Claim 1) wherein the extracting lane line reflection points from the lane line candidate reflection points based on coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system comprises: clustering the lane line candidate reflection points based on the coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system; and determining the lane line reflection points based on a clustering result (see a least Ogawa FIG. 6: points within the projected error cluster are extracted a lane marker and points outside are considered disturbances / see also discussion above about how processing relating to Ogawa FIG. 6 may be completed in the straight line / transformed lane coordinate system of Watanabe).
Regarding Claim 5, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination further teaches (with the same motivations to combine as Claim 1) wherein before the extracting lane line reflection points from the lane line candidate reflection points based on coordinates of the lane line candidate reflection points in the road edge coordinate system, the method further comprises: filtering out, from the lane line candidate reflection points, reflection points whose distances from a road edge are greater than a threshold based on the road edge information (see at least Ogawa [0058] and FIG. 6: “At Step S3, a certain detection range not targeting at road surfaces (e.g., a vertical detection range 6a in FIG. 2B) is designated based on the setting conditions of the beam direction of the lidar instrument 10. A measurement value P measured in the certain detection range is eliminated. Further, when a certain condition is predetermined in respects (e.g., distance from the vehicle (y-axis coordinate value), a position in the axle (x-axis coordinate value), a reflection strength), a measurement value P not satisfying the certain condition is regarded as not corresponding to a lane marker and thereby eliminated”; in FIG. 6, disturbances are removed based on their relative location).
Regarding Claim 6, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination further teaches (with the same motivations to combine as Claim 1) wherein the road edge information comprises information about two road edge lines (see at least Ogawa FIG. 2A and FIG. 7: left lane marker and right lane markers are used for determining center lines in Ogawa; therefore, in the combination, both of these are used to make the straight line / transformed coordinate system of Watanabe), and the establishing a road edge coordinate system based on the road edge information comprises: establishing the road edge coordinate system by using a longer edge line in the two road edge lines or a central line of the two road edge lines as the reference line (see at least Ogawa FIG. 7: both road lines are used, therefore, the longer edge line is used).
Regarding Claim 7, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination further teaches (with the same motivations to combine as Claim 1) wherein the road edge information comprises information about two road edge lines (see at least Ogawa FIG. 2A and FIG. 7: left lane marker and right lane markers are used for determining center lines in Ogawa; therefore, in the combination, both of these are used to make the straight line / transformed coordinate system of Watanabe), there is a difference between the two road edge lines (see at least Ogawa FIG. 7: Ogawa is directed to curving lines), and the road edge coordinate system comprises two coordinate systems that are established respectively by using the two road edge lines as reference lines (both Watanabe and Ogawa are directed to iterative processes, there are many coordinate systems including at least a first at an earlier time step and a second at a later time step and both lines are used to create the many coordinate systems).
Regarding Claim 27, the Watanabe and Ogawa combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, wherein the first threshold is 0.1 meter would have been obvious as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / considering the motivation to combine from Claim 1 and because Ogawa teaches formulas to determine the projected range (i.e., threshold) (see at least [0035]-[0037]). Formula 1 and Formula 2 of Ogawa indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art is able to determine the threshold dynamically. One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered that this equation would, at times, equal 0.1 meter and, additionally, would have found replacing the equation with a fixed value to be obvious (as a design choice to simplify of the equation), determining the exact threshold value for a fixed value threshold would have been obvious, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Applicant has not disclosed an unexpected result from the claimed value; Applicant instead disclosed that the claimed value is merely an example of one possible threshold value.
Regarding Claim 8, most limitations are similar to Claim 1, and accordingly Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1. Furthermore, Watanabe discloses An apparatus for detecting a lane line (see at least [0037] and [0039]: “The travel control apparatus 1 has a function of performing a coordinate transformation such that a position of an object and a position of lane boundary line indicated in the usual plane coordinate system are indicated on a coordinate system (lane coordinate system) different from the usual plane coordinate system”), comprising:
at least one processor (see at least [0039] and Fig. 1: “The ECU 3 is an electronic control unit including a central processing unit (CPU), read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), and the like”); and
one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to perform operations (see at least [0039] and Fig. 1: “The ECU 3 is an electronic control unit including a central processing unit (CPU), read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), and the like”) comprising:
obtaining lane line candidate reflection points and road edge information based on scanning information of a surrounding environment of a vehicle from a LIDAR (see at least [0039]-[0040], [0043], and Fig. 1: “The external sensor 31 is a detection device that detects a situation around the vehicle 2. The external sensor 31 includes a camera, radar, and a laser imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR)”; “The LIDAR detects the object around the vehicle 2 and the environment on the road such as the lane boundary lines 100 to 103 using light”).
Regarding Claim 9, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 2, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 5, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 7, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 28, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 7, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 21, most limitations are similar to Claims 1 and 8, and accordingly Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as Claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, Watanabe discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer instructions, that when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform operations (see at least [0039]).
Regarding Claim 22, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 2, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 24, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 25, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 5, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 26, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 29, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6, and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 27.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights