DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 10/07/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-4 have been amended and claims 6-7 have been added. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “You fails to teach ‘perform a vehicle control based on the received driving signal without performing the preventive safety function, which is activated when the first operating condition is satisfied, in a case where the one or more processors determines that the second operating condition is not satisfied’ as recited in claim 1 and thus fails to remedy the deficiency in the teachings of Zhu” in page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. You teaches that after a turn signal has been turned on, a time to collision for a rear vehicle can be determined (second operating condition). If the time to collision is less than a threshold value (second operating condition is satisfied), then a warning or a prevention of lane change takes place (preventive safety function). However, if the time to collision is greater than a threshold value (second operating condition is not satisfied), then the vehicle is controlled to change lanes which is equivalent to a control that is not the preventive safety function. Therefore, the combination of Zhu and You would still read on the limitation recited above.
Applicant has added new claims which have necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objection. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §112 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent -Application Publication No. 2019/0071091 A1; hereinafter Zhu) in view of You (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0108869 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses:
A preventive safety device having a preventive safety function to control preventive safety of a vehicle (lane assistant system of autonomous driving vehicle, see at least [0014]), the preventive safety device comprising:
one or more processors (all components implemented by processor, see at least [0059]); and
a memory configured to store corresponding information on specific driving signals and specific vehicle controls of an autonomous driving device (processing module/unit/logic which embody the functions may also reside in memory, see at least [0069]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive an input of a driving signal from the autonomous driving device for performing autonomous driving of the vehicle (determine whether turn signal of vehicle has been turned on, see at least [0046]),
determine whether a first operating condition for activating the preventive safety function is satisfied (detected that autonomous driving vehicle is drifting toward an edge or side of the current lane, see at least [0015]; vehicle is drifting off the center line moving toward the right side, see at least [0045]-[0046]),
the specific vehicle controls of the autonomous driving device include i) a vehicle control that causes the first operating condition (detect vehicle is drifting to side of lane, see at least [0044]), ii) a vehicle control that eliminates the first operating condition (modifying a moving direction of vehicle to move away from edge and remain within the lane, see at least [0054]), and iii) a vehicle control that stops the preventive safety function (user indication such as a turn signal that has been turned on, drifting is intentional, see at least [0046], allow vehicle to change lanes, see at least [0054]); and
in a case where the first operating condition is satisfied, the one or more processors are further configured to, acquire the corresponding information from the memory (processing logic allows vehicle to either move away from edge or leave lane, see at least [0054]),
determine, based on the received driving signal and the corresponding information, whether the received driving signal is one of the specific driving signals related to one of the specific vehicle controls (user intention of driver is determined based on user actions to determine that user intention is to leave current lane, see at least [0015]; one indication of intentional leaving of current lane is whether a turn signal of the vehicle has been turned on that is consistent with the drifting direction of the vehicle, see at least [0046]), wherein the one or more processors are further configured to
activate the preventive safety function in response to satisfaction of the first operating condition in a case where the received driving signal is not one of the specific driving signals (if user intention is not to leave the current lane, lane assistance can be provided for automatically providing warning and correcting of the moving direction of the vehicle to keep the vehicle remained in the lane, see at least [0014]-[0015] and [0052]),
Zhu does not explicitly disclose:
an autonomous driving intention
activate the preventive safety function in response to satisfaction of the second operating condition in a case where the one or more processors determines that the second operating condition is satisfied
determine whether a second operating condition is satisfied in a case where the received driving signal is one of the specific driving signals, wherein, in response to the determination of whether the second operating condition is satisfied, the one or more processors are further configured to
perform a vehicle a control based on the received driving signal without performing the preventive safety function, which is activated when the first operating condition is satisfied, in a case where the one or more processors determines that the second operating condition is not satisfied
Although Zhu does not explicitly disclose that the intention is from an autonomous driving device, the autonomous vehicle of Zhu is controlled using a control system 111 and can be driven fully autonomously, manually, or in a partial autonomous mode (see at least [0018]-[0019] and [0023]). Therefore, the activation of a turn signal by a user is still a signal from the autonomous vehicle because the signals are being activated and interpreted within the autonomous vehicle system. Furthermore, the activation of a turn signal could be interpreted as a manual activity. The courts have held that broadly providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 III).
However, You teaches:
activate the preventive safety function in response to satisfaction of the second operating condition in a case where the one or more processors determines that the second operating condition is satisfied (when driver indicates an intention to change lanes by turning on a turn signal and moves over the lane to change lanes, Lane-Changing Assistance System (LCAS) performs control of steering device to prevent the lane change if there is a risk of collision with another vehicle being driven in the lane to which host vehicle moves to change lanes, see at least [0004]-[0005]) *Examiner sets forth a “second operating condition” would be the risk of collision
determine whether a second operating condition is satisfied in a case where the received driving signal is one of the specific driving signals (driver indicates lane change by turning on a turn signal and moving over to a different lane, see at least [0005]; determine whether collision prediction time with a rear vehicle is larger than or equal to a threshold value, see at least [0021]), wherein, in response to the determination of whether the second operating condition is satisfied, the one or more processors are further configured to
perform a vehicle a control based on the received driving signal without performing the preventive safety function, which is activated when the first operating condition is satisfied, in a case where the one or more processors determines that the second operating condition is not satisfied (after turn signal has been turned on, determine collision prediction time is larger than or equal to threshold value and performs the lane change, see at least [0132] and Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistance disclosed by Zhu by adding the lane-changing assistance system taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for preventing a collision with another vehicle and warning of danger when a lane is changed” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhu and You teaches the elements above and Zhu further discloses:
the preventive safety function is a lane departure suppression control that controls steering of the vehicle to suppress departures of the vehicle from a lane travel (correction action to prevent ADV from drifting further away from the center line of the lane, see at least [0044]), and
Zhu does not explicitly disclose:
an intention of steering for lane change
However, You teaches:
in the determination of whether the received driving signal is one of the specific driving signals, i) the vehicle control that causes the first operating condition is a vehicle control of steering for lane change (determine driver continuously applies a steering force to change lanes, see at least [0106])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistance disclosed by Zhu by adding the steering control device taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for preventing a collision with another vehicle and warning of danger when a lane is changed” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhu and You teaches the elements above and Zhu further discloses:
A vehicle (autonomous vehicle 101, see at least [0019]) comprising: the preventive safety device according to claim 1 (autonomous vehicle includes vehicle control system 110, perception and planning system 110, etc., see at least [0019]); and an interface for receiving an input of the driving signal from the autonomous driving device (components 110-115 are communicatively coupled to each other via an interconnect, a bus, a network, or a combination thereof, see at least [0020]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of You as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0239265 A1; hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhu and You teaches the elements above
in the determination of whether the received driving signal one of the specific driving signals, ii) the vehicle control that eliminates the first operating condition is a vehicle control of steering or deceleration for avoiding an obstacle (if there is an object in front of the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle likely intends to change lanes, see at least [0016]) *Examiner sets forth a lane change requires steering
The combination of Zhu and You does not teach:
the preventive safety function decelerates the vehicle to avoid collision of the vehicle
However, Kato teaches:
the preventive safety function decelerates the vehicle to avoid collision of the vehicle (perform automatic braking intervention to stop vehicle in front of obstacle, see at least [0058])
the intention of the autonomous driving device to perform the vehicle control to eliminate the satisfaction of the first operating condition is an intention of steering or deceleration for avoiding an obstacle (determine whether driver has depressed brake pedal, see at least [0047]; warning braking control is executed when driver does not perform operation such as steering or braking, see at least [0037])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistant system of an autonomous driving vehicle disclosed by Zhu and the steering control device taught by You by adding the braking support apparatus taught by Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide a vehicle driving support apparatus that effectively performs a collision prevention control, while giving priority to an intention of the driver” (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhu, You, and Kato teaches the elements above but Zhu and You do not teach:
the first operating condition is satisfied when a time to collision of the vehicle is below a first threshold value, the second operating condition is satisfied when the time to collision is below a second threshold value, and the second threshold value is below the first threshold value
However, Kato teaches:
the first operating condition is satisfied when a time to collision of the vehicle is below a first threshold value (examine whether or not time to collision TTC is shorter than or equal to threshold T0 (for example, 2 seconds) to determine a possibility of a collision, see at least [0044], [0046], and Fig. 3), the second operating condition is satisfied when the time to collision is below a second threshold value, and the second threshold value is below the first threshold value (determine whether TTC is shorter than threshold T2 (for example 1 second) to perform strong automatic braking intervention, see at least [0058] and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistant system of an autonomous driving vehicle disclosed by Zhu and the steering control device taught by You by adding the braking support apparatus taught by Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide a vehicle driving support apparatus that effectively performs a collision prevention control, while giving priority to an intention of the driver” (see [0010]).
Claim 6 us rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of You as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kaufmann et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0183342 A1; hereinafter Kaufmann).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhu and You teaches the elements above but does not teach:
in the determination of whether the received driving signal is one of the specific driving signals, ii) the vehicle control that eliminates the first operating condition is a driving control to steer in a direction of returning to a center of a lane
However, Kaufmann teaches:
in the determination of whether the received driving signal is one of the specific driving signals, ii) the vehicle control that eliminates the first operating condition is a driving control to steer in a direction of returning to a center of a lane (if vehicle starts to return toward center of lane, output drops to zero, see at least [0037])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistant system of an autonomous driving vehicle disclosed by Zhu and the steering control device taught by You by adding zero output once vehicle returns toward the center of a lane taught by Kaufmann with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “it is undesirable for them to be assisted toward the center once the vehicle is on its way back” (see [0037]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of You as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rentschler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0096767 A1; hereinafter Rentschler).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhu and You teaches the elements above but Zhu does not disclose:
the first operating condition is satisfied when a deviation allowance time of the vehicle is below a third threshold value, and
the second operating condition is satisfied when the deviation allowance time is below the third threshold value and a collision risk is above a fourth threshold value.
However, You teaches:
the second operating condition is satisfied when a collision risk is above a fourth threshold value (determining whether lane change is possible using collision prediction time of rear vehicle compared to a predetermined threshold level, see at least [0097] and Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistance disclosed by Zhu by adding the time to a collision threshold taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for preventing a collision with another vehicle and warning of danger when a lane is changed” (see [0004]).
Furthermore, Rentschler teaches:
the first operating condition is satisfied when a deviation allowance time of the vehicle is below a third threshold value (driving dynamics intervention begins when a time to line crossing falls below a threshold value, see at least [0039]), and
the second operating condition is satisfied when the deviation allowance time is below the third threshold value (driving dynamics intervention begins when a time to line crossing falls below a threshold value, see at least [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistance disclosed by Zhu and the time to a collision threshold taught by You by adding the determination of lane departure using a time to line crossing threshold taught by Rentschler with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “it permits, for instance, approaching at a small angle right up to close to the lane line, without already initiating an activation, when the driver deliberately wants to have a view of the preceding traffic space” (see [0016]) and to ensure the vehicle is going to actually depart the lane before activating an intervention.
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights