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
The amendment filed January 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 16-18 and 20-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non‐Final Office Action mailed November 4, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Zhang and Nakanishi fail to disclose or suggest the features of the amended independent claims: "when the type of the intersection is a cross intersection, identify the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle and select the at least two control points according to the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle," when the type of the intersection is another intersection different from the cross intersection, select the at least two control points according to the minimum turning radius of the host vehicle," "determine a weight that changes a curvature of the rational Bezier curve so that a first distance value between a path of the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle and a path of the rational Bezier curve or a second distance between a path of a minimum turning radius of a left-turn vehicle in a next lane and the path of the rational Bezier curve is greater than a preset safety distance value," and "generate the rational Bezier curve based on the start point, the end point, the at least two control points selected according to the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle or the host vehicle, and the weight."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the office action, the limitations are rejected citing Fig. 10b and paragraphs [0162], [0179], [0214], [0295], [0053], [0166], [0182], [0183], [0158], [0204], [0205], [0207] –[0209] of Zhang.
Applicant further argued that regarding "identifying the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle," as required in the above-referenced limitations of the amended independent claims, Applicant submits that identifying of the minimum turning radius for a given lane topology in Zhang is based on the host vehicle, and NOT based on an opposite left-turn vehicle.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the office action, paragraphs [0162], [0179] disclose identifying the minimum turning radius for a given lane topology. This disclosure applies whether a vehicle is a host vehicle or an opposite left-turn vehicle. [0214], Fig. 10b and [0295] apply this identification to the opposite left-turn vehicle.
Claim Objection
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “the distance value” should be “the first distance value”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 16-18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20240369376 A1) in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 20200189584 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses:
An apparatus installed within a host vehicle for providing driver assistance for the host vehicle, comprising: a sensor installed in the host vehicle, configured to output data {paragraph [0115]: a system architecture for guiding driving of a vehicle… based on a high-definition map and sensor sensed data. [0119]: applied to an assisted driving};
a memory in which a precision map including intersection information is stored; and at least one processor electrically connected to the memory {[0328]: a processor and a memory… provide the foregoing functions. [0115]: based on a high-definition map},
wherein the at least one processor is configured to use the data output from the sensor to: generate a grid map by connecting lane lines of an intersection on the precision map when the host vehicle makes a left turn at the intersection {[0115]: The boundary constraint generation module is used to generate soft boundary constraints, hard boundary constraints and virtual boundary constraints for each lane topology in the lane-level fully connected topology (construed a grid map by connecting lane lines) based on high-precision maps. Fig. 10b and [0297] disclose the host vehicle making a left turn at the intersection: When a vehicle drives to the left-turn intersection }. Fig. 10b is repeated below. Fig. 10b shows an example of a precision map in which lane lines are connected for possible connected lane-level topologies thereby generating a grid map.
PNG
media_image1.png
1772
1777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
select a start point and an end point required for the left turn on the grid map {[0166]: As shown in FIG. 5 , a curve S3 between the end of the driving-in lane and the start point of the driving-out lane is an optimal curve}. Fig. 5 is repeated below.
PNG
media_image2.png
2413
1388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
select at least two control point according to a minimum turning radius of the host vehicle or an opposite left-turn vehicle identified based on the precision map {[0162] discloses at least two control points: to generate a plurality of groups of intermediate control points, as shown by a point Pi in FIG. 5. [0179] discloses selecting a curve that meets the requirement of the minimum turning radius: a minimum turning radius corresponding to the curvature. [0295] discloses turning of the host vehicle or an opposite left-turn vehicle: FIG. 10A and FIG. 10B show a left-turn intersection scenario},
generate a rational Bezier curve based on the start point, the end point, and the at least two control point {[0158]: The foregoing lane topology curve may be generated by using a sampling algorithm based on a Bessel (Bezier) curve},
determine the rational Bezier curve to be a left-turn path that the host vehicle should follow, control a steering device and an acceleration device of the host vehicle to steer and drive the host vehicle in an autonomous manner through the left-turn path {[0295], [0007]: to provide corresponding navigation guidance information for the vehicle during autonomous driving. Examiner notes that the autonomous driving includes control a steering device and an acceleration device of the host vehicle},
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, as part of the selecting of the at least two control points: determine a type of the intersection based on the intersection information of the precision map {[0006]: parameters need to be manually adjusted to ensure output quality for different intersections… through intersections… many-to-many intersection. [0295]: left-turn intersection};
when the type of the intersection is a cross intersection, identify the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle and select the at least two control points according to the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle {[0162], [0179] discloses identifying the minimum turning radius for a given lane topology. [0214] discloses presence of another vehicle at a cross-intersection: vehicle flow conflicts such as diagonal crossing of lanes, lateral extrusion from another vehicle. Fig. 10b and [0295] discloses that the lane topology is a cross intersection, which implies an opposite left-turn vehicle since on a cross-intersection, a host-vehicle and an opposite vehicle can make left-turn at the same time},
when the type of the intersection is another intersection different from the cross intersection, select the at least two control points according to the minimum turning radius of the host vehicle {[0053] discloses intersections different from the cross intersection: a roundabout, an intersection of a turn waiting area, a small S-bend, an elevated road entrance/exit, a multi-lane road segment without a lane marking line, a continuous turning intersection, and a narrow-lane U-turn intersection. [0179] discloses requirement of minimum turning radius with a topology: When a minimum turning radius corresponding to the curvature is less than a minimum vehicle turning radius obtained based on a vehicle kinematics model, it may be considered that it is difficult for a vehicle to drive along the lane topology curve in a driving process. Examiner notes that this requirement covers a case related to the minimum turning radius of the host vehicle for a given intersection};
determine a weight that changes a curvature of the rational Bezier curve so that a first distance value between a path of the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle and a path of the rational Bezier curve or a second distance between a path of a minimum turning radius of a left-turn vehicle in a next lane and the path of the rational Bezier curve is greater than a preset safety distance value; and generate the rational Bezier curve based on the start point, the end point, the at least two control points selected according to the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle or the host vehicle, and the weight {[0166]discloses to select a position point from the curve based on minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle: a curve evaluation function is constructed by considering factors such as a curvature of the foregoing generated curve, a curvature change rate, collision costs to soft and hard boundaries, passing space… If a collision occurs with a boundary obstacle in a scenario, a collision control point is added based on a collision location and a collision depth, to locally adjust a track form near the collision location. [0182] discloses the preset distance: (4) Collision detection screening principle: When any point on the curve is excessively close (less than a preset collision safety distance). [0183]: when there is a collision, a collision control point is added based on a collision location and a collision depth, to locally adjust a track form near the collision location, and perform local curve adjustment. [0158] discloses that Bezier curve. [0166] and [0162] disclose the start point, the end point and the control points. [0204], [0205], [0207] –[0209] disclose determining weights that changes a curvature of the Bezier curve based on the above-explained factors: a weight of the topology cost; a weight of the smoothness cost; a weight of the vehicle flow intersection cost).
Zhang does not disclose: a sensor including at least one of a camera or a radar.
Nakanishi teaches that it was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control to use camera and radar to detect surrounding status in [0040]: status detection device is configured of a camera, a radar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the camera and radar of Nakanishi with the described invention of Cheng in order to provide sensing device for detecting surrounding status.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 11.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, Zhang discloses: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, as part of the selecting of the at least two control points, select a position point spaced a preset distance from the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle as one of the at least two control points {[0166], [0182], [0183]}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1, Zhang discloses: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, as part of the determining of the first weight: determine that the weight changes the curvature of the rational Bezier curve so that the first distance value between the path of the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle and the path of the rational Bezier curve is greater than the preset safety distance value and a minimum heading angle of the host vehicle is smaller than a preset {[0166], [0182], [0183], [0204], [0205], [0207] –[0209], [0014] discloses the heading angle: starting point pose vector; [0208] discloses the minimum heading angle: The smoothness cost is used to evaluate a curvature and a curvature change rate of the lane topology curve when the lane topology curve includes a driving-in lane track, a virtual lane track, and a driving-out lane track in a current scenario. A smaller curvature and curvature change rate indicates that the lane topology curve is smoother and the smoothness cost C3 is lower; and w3 is a weight of the smoothness cost in the total costs. (which implies the minimum heading angle)}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 16.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Zhang discloses: wherein the another intersection includes any one of a T-type intersection, a Y-type intersection, a five-way intersection, and a six-way intersection {[0162], [0179], [0006]: many-to-many intersection}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 17.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7, Zhang discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to select a position point spaced a preset distance from the minimum turning radius of the host vehicle as one of the at least two control points {[0166], [0182], [0183]}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 18.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 7, Zhang discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to, as part of determining the weight: determine the weight that changes the curvature of the rational Bezier curve so that the second distance value between the path of the minimum turning radius of the left-turn vehicle in the next lane and the path of the rational Bezier curve is greater than the preset safety distance value and a minimum heading angle of the host vehicle is smaller than a preset angle {[0166], [0182], [0183], [0204], [0205], [0207], [0208]: the minimum heading angle, [0209], [0014], [0214], [0300], [0053], [0179]}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, which depends from claim 1, Zhang discloses: wherein the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle is preset according to a size of the cross intersection, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: select the at least two control points spaced a lane width from the minimum turning radius of the opposite left-turn vehicle, and when the type of the intersection is the another intersection different from the cross intersection, identify the minimum turning radius of the host vehicle, which is preset according to a size of the another intersection different from the cross intersection, and select the at least two control point spaced a half lane width from the minimum turning radius of the host vehicle {{[0166], [0182], [0183], [0204], [0205], [0207], [0208], [0209], [0014], [0214], [0300], [0053], [0179]. Fig. 4 and Fig. 10A disclose different size cross-sections and minimum turning radius preset according to the size}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeon et al. (US 20180144635 A1) teaches calculating turning radius at an intersection.
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 CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights