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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2024 and 07/10/2025 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner would like to point out that method claims 12, 14, 16 and 19 are method claims which include the following contingent limitations:
“and determining the occupancy state of the lane only if the estimated clutter is valid” (claim 12)
“determining comprises determining a lane occupied by the estimated clutter as an occupied lane if the difference in the lateral size is less than a specific size” (claim 14)
“if the estimated clutter occupies a plurality of lanes, determining comprises generating a track for each lane,” (claim 16)
“ if a lateral size of the estimated clutter occupied in one lane is greater than a width of the host vehicle, determining comprises determining that the corresponding lane is occupied,” (claim 19)
For example, regarding claim 12, the feature of “determining the occupancy state of the lane only if the estimated clutter is valid” indicates that the determining of the occupancy state feature is contingent on the step of the estimated clutter being valid. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this method claim, if the estimated clutter is not valid, the step of “determining the occupancy state” does not need to be performed. Therefore, this method claim is being interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation where “determining the occupancy state” feature is not performed. (SEE MPEP 2111.04, II. Continent Limitations). The same analysis is performed for claims 14, 16 and 19.
For purposes of examination, a prior art rejection for the contingent method claims has been provided below.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 9 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the determiner calculates a validity level by performing data-driven on the estimated clutter”. This limitation is grammatically incorrect as it is appears the limitation “performing data-driven” is incomplete. The same objection applies to claim 15.
Claim 9 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6,9-16,19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by UEDA (US 20160257342 A1).
Regarding claim 1, UEDA discloses
A radar control device (see Fig. 2, drive support unit 1 is a radar control device) comprising:
a receiver configured to receive reception information for detecting objects around a host vehicle at predetermined periods (see Fig. 2, further see paragraph 0050, “The transmission processor 23 transmits the information including the vehicle state of the own vehicle identified by the own vehicle state identifier 21, and the front situation detected by the front situation detector 22 of the own vehicle from the communicator 10 one by one (i.e., at preset intervals).”, where the “font situation detected by the front situation detector 22” is “reception information for detecting objects around a host vehicle”);
a detector configured to detect a clutter based on the reception information (see Fig. 5, step S21, further see paragraph 0082, “First, in Step S1, the front situation detector 22 detects the front situation of the own vehicle.”, where the data detected from “the front situation detector” is “a clutter”); and
a determiner configured to estimate an estimated clutter in a second period based on a relative speed between a first clutter detected in a first period and the host vehicle (see paragraph 0046, “The front situation detector 22 detects a relative speed of the obstacle relative to the own vehicle by using a publicly-known method based on a doppler shift between the scanning wave and the reflected wave. The relative speed of the obstacle may also be detected based on a per-unit-time change of the relative position of the obstacle relative to the own vehicle.”), and determine an occupancy state of a lane around the host vehicle based on the estimated clutter (see paragraph 0047, “Further, the front situation detector 22 detects a range of on-road obstacles (i.e., an on-road obstacle occupancy range), for example, a parked vehicle on a road shoulder etc., relative to the position of the own vehicle and an on-coming vehicle, based on the position of the traffic lane boundary detected by the front camera 8, and the relative position/speed of the obstacle detected by the radar 9”).
Regarding claim 2, UEDA further discloses
The radar control device of claim 1, wherein the determiner further determines validity of the estimated clutter, and determines the occupancy state of the lane only if the estimated clutter is valid (see paragraph 0060, “assured detection determiner 28” determines validity of the estimated clutter, further see paragraphs 0060-0061, “In the drive support apparatus 2, when it is determined by the assured detection determiner 28 that the front situation is detected, the traffic lane keep instructor 26 performs the lane keep travel control, and the follow travel instructor 27 does not perform the lead vehicle follow control…On the other hand, when it is determined by the assured detection determiner 28 that the front situation is not detected (i.e., there is a lack of assured detection of the front situation), the traffic lane keep instructor 26 does not perform the lane keep travel control, and the follow travel instructor 27 instead performs the lead vehicle follow control.”, further see for support paragraph 0083, “In Step S2, the assured detection determiner 28 determines whether the front situation of the own vehicle is detected in S1 for performing the lane keep travel control. In other words, for example, it is determined in Step S2 whether the front situation is sufficiently or unambiguously detected for performing the lane keep travel control of the own vehicle (i.e., “DUE DETECTION” in S2 of FIG. 4)”).
Regarding claim 3, UEDA further discloses
The radar control device of claim 2, wherein the determiner determines validity of the estimated clutter based on a difference in lateral size between the estimated clutter and a second clutter detected in the second period (see paragraph 0057, “The follow travel instructor 27 controls the vehicle control ECU 13 to perform the lead vehicle follow control by the auto-steering the own vehicle to follow the lead vehicle. More practically, based on a center position of the lead vehicle in the vehicle width direction, and the amount of change of such center position that are identified by using the front camera 8 and the radar 9, the travel path of the lead vehicle is identified. The instructor 27 then controls the own vehicle to travel along such a travel path of the lead vehicle, by sending instructions to the vehicle control ECU 13, to change/adjust the steering angle, the brake pressure, the suction air amount, the gear ratio, and the like”).
Regarding claim 4, UEDA further discloses
The radar control device of claim 3, wherein the determiner determines a lane occupied by the estimated clutter as an occupied lane if the difference in the lateral size is less than a specific size (see paragraphs 0066-0068, “Then, based on the determined range and the traffic lane width in the transmitted information of the lead vehicle, a travelable range of the lead vehicle within the traveling lane of the lead vehicle is determined as a range along the vehicle width direction, which may also be designated as a travelable width…Then, in case that a margin-subtracted travelable range, which is derived by subtracting a preset margin of 1 meter from the determined travelable range for example, is smaller than the vehicle width of the lead vehicle in the transmitted information of the lead vehicle, it is determined that the lead vehicle may possibly cross the traffic lane boundary across to the opposite traffic lane…On the other hand, when the margin-subtracted travelable range derived by subtracting the preset margin from the determined travelable range is equal to or greater than the vehicle width of the lead vehicle, it is determined that the lead vehicle is unlikely to (i.e., improbable to) cross the traffic lane boundary across to the opposite traffic lane.”).
Regarding claim 5, UEDA further discloses
The radar control device of claim 2, wherein the determiner calculates a validity level by performing data-driven on the estimated clutter, and determines the validity of the estimated clutter based on the validity level (see paragraph 0060, “The assured detection determiner 28 determines whether the front situation of the own vehicle is assuredly detected by the front camera 8 and/or the radar 9 for performing the lane keep travel control mentioned above. More practically, when a length of the traffic lane boundary line recognized from the image captured by the front camera 8 and detected by the front situation detector 22 is less than a threshold value, the assured detection determiner 28 determines that the front situation is not detected. When the length of the traffic lane boundary line is equal to or greater than the threshold value, the assured detection determiner 28 determines that the front situation is detected. The threshold value in the above may be defined as a value that enables an accurate calculation (i.e., detection/recognition) of the traffic lane center line, for example.”).
Regarding claim 6, UEDA further discloses
The radar control device of claim 1, wherein, if the estimated clutter occupies a plurality of lanes, the determiner generates a track for each lane, and determines the occupancy state of a lane corresponding to the track based on a position of the generated track (see paragraph 0063, “The across-boundary move determiner 29 determines whether it is likely, or probable, for the lead vehicle of the own vehicle to cross the traffic lane boundary to the opposite traffic lane (i.e., whether the lead vehicle may be, or possibly run across the traffic lane boundary to the opposite traffic lane), based on the transmitted information of the lead vehicle that is obtained by the other vehicle information obtainer 24 and stored in the other vehicle information storage 25.”, further see paragraph 0149, “Further, without determining whether the on-coming vehicle exists or whether the own vehicle and the on-coming vehicle come close to each other, the lead vehicle follow control may be stopped according to a determination of whether the lead vehicle has run across the traffic lane boundary to the opposite traffic lane, as shown in the present modification.”, where the detecting the lead vehicle’s position to be crossing the traffic lane boundary indicates that it is occupying two lanes (i.e. “clutter occupies a plurality of lanes”).
Regarding claim 9, UEDA further discloses
The radar control device of claim 1, wherein, if a lateral size of the estimated clutter occupied in one lane is greater than a width of the host vehicle, the determiner determines that the corresponding lane is occupied (see paragraph 0068, “On the other hand, when the margin-subtracted travelable range derived by subtracting the preset margin from the determined travelable range is equal to or greater than the vehicle width of the lead vehicle, it is determined that the lead vehicle is unlikely to (i.e., improbable to) cross the traffic lane boundary across to the opposite traffic lane.”, where “the lead vehicle is unlikely to (i.e., improbable to) cross the traffic lane boundary across to the opposite traffic lane” means that “the corresponding lane is occupied”).
Regarding claim 10, UEDA further discloses
The radar control device of claim 3, wherein the second period is a period in which the second clutter is detected within a specific distance from the host vehicle (see paragraph 0029, “The radar 9 is a laser radar and/or a millimeter wave radar, for example, and transmits a scanning wave to a preset range in front of the own vehicle, for scanning an object in the front field. The radar 9 is used for detecting an object which exists in the preset range in front of the own vehicle. Although the present embodiment shows a configuration in which the radar 9 is used as a sensor that transmits the scanning wave to the preset range in front of the own vehicle, the configuration of using such sensor may be modified. For example, in other configurations, a sensor such as a sonar or the like may be used to transmit the scanning wave to the preset range in front of the own vehicle.”, where all data detected by the radar is “within a specific distance from the host vehicle” as that is the range detectable by the radar ).
Regarding claim 11, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claim 10 is applied.
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.
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(s) 7 ,8, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UEDA (US 20160257342 A1) in view of SONG et al. (US 20240351615 A1), hereinafter SONG.
Regarding claim 7, UEDA discloses [Note: what UEDA fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The radar control device of claim 1, wherein the detector determines at least one measurement based on the reception information (see Fig. 5, step S21, further see paragraph 0082, “First, in Step S1, the front situation detector 22 detects the front situation of the own vehicle.”),
SONG discloses,
and detects the clutter through a density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) for the measurements (see paragraph 0152, “In some embodiments, the processor 110 may classify the feature value of each vehicle driving data using a clustering algorithm to determine a count of occurrences of each vehicle driving style. The clustering algorithm may include, but are not limited to, K-means, Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN), Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), or the like. For example, the processor may determine the vehicle driving style as aggressive if the driving speed, acceleration, braking frequency, etc., exceed their respective thresholds, and determine the vehicle driving style as non-aggressive if the driving speed, acceleration, braking frequency, etc., are below their respective thresholds.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by SONG into the invention of UEDA. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of a radar sensor on a vehicle to determine lane-changing behaviors. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to remove measurement outliers and lead to a more accurate data set.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of UEDA and SONG discloses [Note: what UEDA fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The radar control device of claim 7,
SONG discloses,
wherein the relative speed is determined as an average of relative speeds between the host vehicle and a plurality of measurements included in the first clutter (see paragraph 0243, “In some embodiments, the processor may determine the average relative speed change rate based on the driving speeds of the specified vehicle and the rear vehicle in the target lane at a plurality of time points. For example, the processor may determine the relative speed of the two vehicles at each of the plurality of time points, and then determine an average of relative speeds of the two vehicles at the plurality of time points to obtain the average relative speed change rate.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by SONG into the invention of UEDA. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of a radar sensor on a vehicle to determine lane-changing behaviors. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to mitigate measurement outliers and lead to a more accurate data set.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 8 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fasola et al. (US 20240017731 A1) discloses the use of DBSCA to correlate radar clusters to use for lane control.
Lawson et a. (US 20240077617 A1) discloses the tracking of a forward vehicle using “clutter” point data (see Fig. 6B).
KISHIGAMI et al. (US 20150369912 A1) discloses a radar device on a vehicle to determine average relative speed (see paragraphs 0239 and 0248).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648