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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/5/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues against the Yamagiwa reference stating first that it fails to disclose “determining, by the controller, whether the real lane width increases, based on the changed amount of the real lane width and the increased amount of the expected lane width” due to Yamagiwa instead allegedly disclosing only “comparing the measured first lane width and the measured second lane width, which does not correspond to an expected lane width of the presently claimed invention.” However, after further search the Yamagiwa reference is no longer relied upon as a basis for rejection in the present office action. See the updated rejection below under the Watanabe, Sato, and Varnier references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 20200070826), herein after referred to as Watanabe, in view of Sato (US 20190256092 ), herein after referred to as Sato, and Varnier (US 20230311868), herein after referred to as Varnier.
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe discloses:
recognizing, by a controller, a driving lane ahead of a vehicle (see at least [0036] “ examples of the front-traveling-environment information acquired by the front-traveling-environment recognizer 21d may include: data on a road shape of the traveling lane along which the own vehicle M travels”)
by utilizing a camera included in the vehicle, (see at least [0035] “ The camera unit 21 may be fixed at an upper middle region, located at a front part, in the interior of the own vehicle M.”)
determining, by the controller, whether a real lane width of the driving lane increases at a time point at which the determined expected lane width increases; (see at least [0056] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may compare the lane variation width ΔW with a preset first widening determination threshold ΔWH. If the lane keep control calculator 22c determines that the lane variation width ΔW is equal to or greater than the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, or ΔW≥ΔWH (step S25: YES), the flow may proceed to step S26. If the lane keep control calculator 22c determines that the lane variation width ΔW is less than the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, or ΔW<ΔWH (step S25: NO), the flow may proceed to step S31.”)
and controlling driving of the vehicle, by the controller (see at least [0041] “ The steering controller 31 may cause the own vehicle M to travel along the target traveling course. ”)
and in response to the determination that the real lane width is increasing, (see at least [0060] “The flow may proceed to step S27 after detecting the widening lane line at step S26. ”)
based on information on a line, wherein the line is one among two lines of the driving lane (see at least [0060] “ calculate the target traveling course, on the basis of the lane line (or the lane line boundary)”)
and positioned opposite a side of the driving lane in which a lane width increases’ (see at least [0060] “that is positioned on the opposite side of the widening lane line as a reference.”)
wherein the determining of whether the real lane width increases comprises: determining, by the controller, an increased amount of the expected lane width (see at least [0054] “ the lane keep control calculator 22c may calculate a lane variation width ΔW”)
and determining, by the controller, whether the real lane width increases, (see at least [0056] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may compare the lane variation width ΔW with a preset first widening determination threshold ΔWH. If the lane keep control calculator 22c determines that the lane variation width ΔW is equal to or greater than the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, or ΔW≥ΔWH (step S25: YES), the flow may proceed to step S26. If the lane keep control calculator 22c determines that the lane variation width ΔW is less than the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, or ΔW<ΔWH (step S25: NO), the flow may proceed to step S31.” 0059] “an example embodiment may determine that a line of proposed points, arranged in time series, as the widening lane line when the line of proposed points widens toward the outer side.”)
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose:
determining, by the controller, a changed amount of the real lane width of the driving lane in the time interval;
based on the changed amount of the real lane width and the increased amount of the expected lane width.
In the same field of endeavor, Sato discloses:
determining, by the controller, a changed amount of the real lane width of the driving lane in the time interval; (see at least [0025] “The boundary-line recognition unit 110 determines whether or not the lane width of the lane in which the host vehicle is traveling has increased" [0032] "In step S117, the travel control unit 130 determines whether or not the predetermined time has elapsed, in order to determine whether or not the host vehicle has passed the section A in FIG. 3. The lane width increases until the host vehicle passes the section A. Thus, if the predetermined time has not passed, the travel control unit 130 returns to step S115"”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to determine a changed amount of the real lane width of the driving lane in the time interval, as disclosed by Sato as to return to normal operation after passing a diverging lane [0032].
In the same field of endeavor, Varnier discloses:
based on the changed amount of the real lane width and the increased amount of the expected lane width. (see at least [0038] “The lane width on which the vehicle travels over a horizon is determined" [0086] Advantageously, the combination of measurements coming from different environmental perception means and location means (GPS associated with mapping for example) makes detection more robust." [0088] "In another embodiment, the widened area 204 is entirely determined from the beginning of the entry of this area using the location device associated with maps, or geometric data, of the lane.”
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to determine whether the lane width increases based on the changed amount of the real lane width and the increased amount of the expected lane width, as taught by Varnier to ensure a vehicle is capable of maintaining lane guidance in an environment of a lane split [0013]. To this end, Varnier discloses the combination of environmental perception used to determine lane widening, and expected data of an upcoming lane widening area to determine information regarding the lane.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses:
recognizing, by the controller, the driving lane ahead of the vehicle by utilizing image information obtained by the camera; (see at least [0036] “ examples of the front-traveling-environment information acquired by the front-traveling-environment recognizer 21d may include: data on a road shape of the traveling lane along which the own vehicle M travels”)
and determining, by the controller, the expected lane width of the driving lane, based on information included in the recognized driving lane. (see at least [0039] “a method such as a least-square method may be applied to a line of proposed points, arranged in time series, of each of the proposed points Pr and Pl to thereby determine a straight-line-approximating expression or a curve-approximating expression that is equal to or higher than the first order. On the basis of the approximating expression, the lane line boundaries br and bl may be set to respective inner sides of the right and the left lane lines Lr and Ll." [0043] "The lane keep control calculator 22c calculates a lane width W on the basis of a distance between the right and the left lane line boundaries br and bl.")
Regarding Claim 6, modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses:
determining, by the controller, that the vehicle has entered a stretch in which the driving lane includes at least one lane among a diverged lane and an expanded lane in response to the determination that the real lane width is increasing (see at least [0058] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may determine the lane as being branched in a case in which the lane variation width ΔW exceeds the first widening determination threshold ΔWH,”)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 6, and Watanabe further discloses:
in response to the vehicle entering the stretch, (see at least [0060] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may determine the lane as being branched in a case in which the lane variation width ΔW exceeds the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, following which the flow may proceed to step S26.”)
generating, by the controller, driving control information of the vehicle, based on information of the line; and reflecting, by the controller, a pre-configured correction value on the generated driving control information (see at least [0060] “At step S27, the lane keep control calculator 22c may calculate the target traveling course, on the basis of the lane line (or the lane line boundary) that is positioned on the opposite side of the widening lane line as a reference.”)
and outputting the driving control information. (see at least [0041] “ The steering controller 31 may cause the own vehicle M to travel along the target traveling course.”)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 7, and Watanabe further discloses:
generating, by the controller, driving control information of the vehicle (see at least [0060] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may calculate the target traveling course”)
based on at least one information among an offset, a heading angle, a curvature, and a curvature derivative value of the line. (see at least [Fig. 10] [0060] “In an example embodiment, as the target traveling course, the middle W/2 of the lane determined at step S12 may be set on the basis of, as a reference, the lane line boundary of the lane line that is positioned on the opposite side of the widening lane line") (*Examiner interprets the travel course, and therefore driving control information, as offset from the lane)
Regarding Claim 11, Watanabe discloses:
a camera configured to be in a vehicle (see at least [0035] “ The camera unit 21 may be fixed at an upper middle region, located at a front part, in the interior of the own vehicle M.”)
and to capture an image of a foreground of the vehicle; (see at least [0026] “The camera unit 21 acquires information on a traveling environment ahead of the own vehicle M”)
and a controller (see at least [0025] “a lane keep controller 22.”)
configured to: recognize a driving lane, based on an image captured by the camera, (see at least [0036] “ examples of the front-traveling-environment information acquired by the front-traveling-environment recognizer 21d may include: data on a road shape of the traveling lane along which the own vehicle M travels”)
determine whether a real lane width of the driving lane increases at a time point at which the determined expected lane width increases; (see at least [0056] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may compare the lane variation width ΔW with a preset first widening determination threshold ΔWH. If the lane keep control calculator 22c determines that the lane variation width ΔW is equal to or greater than the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, or ΔW≥ΔWH (step S25: YES), the flow may proceed to step S26. If the lane keep control calculator 22c determines that the lane variation width ΔW is less than the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, or ΔW<ΔWH (step S25: NO), the flow may proceed to step S31.”)
and control driving, (see at least [0041] “The steering controller 31 may cause the own vehicle M to travel along the target traveling course.”)
based on information on a line, (see at least [0060] “calculate the target traveling course, on the basis of the lane line”)
when it is determined that the real lane width increases, (see at least [0060] “The flow may proceed to step S27 after detecting the widening lane line at step S26. ”)
wherein the line is one among two lines of the driving lane (see at least [0060] “calculate the target traveling course, on the basis of the lane line”)
and positioned opposite a side of the driving lane in which the lane width increases, (see at least [0060] “that is positioned on the opposite side of the widening lane line as a reference.”)
wherein the controller is further configured to: determine an increased amount of the expected lane width (see at least [0054] “ the lane keep control calculator 22c may calculate a lane variation width ΔW”)
in a time interval in which the expected lane width increases, (see at least [0059] “an example embodiment may determine that a line of proposed points, arranged in time series, as the widening lane line when the line of proposed points widens toward the outer side.”)
and determine whether the real lane width increases, (see at least [0056] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may compare the lane variation width ΔW with a preset first widening determination threshold ΔWH. If the lane keep control calculator 22c determines that the lane variation width ΔW is equal to or greater than the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, or ΔW≥ΔWH (step S25: YES), the flow may proceed to step S26. If the lane keep control calculator 22c determines that the lane variation width ΔW is less than the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, or ΔW<ΔWH (step S25: NO), the flow may proceed to step S31.”)
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose:
determine a changed amount of the real lane width of the driving lane in the time interval;
based on the changed amount of the real lane width and the increased amount of the expected lane width.
In the same field of endeavor, Sato discloses:
determine a changed amount of the real lane width of the driving lane in the time interval; (see at least [0025] “The boundary-line recognition unit 110 determines whether or not the lane width of the lane in which the host vehicle is traveling has increased" [0032] "In step S117, the travel control unit 130 determines whether or not the predetermined time has elapsed, in order to determine whether or not the host vehicle has passed the section A in FIG. 3. The lane width increases until the host vehicle passes the section A. Thus, if the predetermined time has not passed, the travel control unit 130 returns to step S115"”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to determine a changed amount of the real lane width of the driving lane in the time interval, as disclosed by Sato as to return to normal operation after passing a diverging lane [0032].
In the same field of endeavor, Varnier discloses:
based on the changed amount of the real lane width and the increased amount of the expected lane width. (see at least [0038] “The lane width on which the vehicle travels over a horizon is determined" [0086] Advantageously, the combination of measurements coming from different environmental perception means and location means (GPS associated with mapping for example) makes detection more robust." [0088] "In another embodiment, the widened area 204 is entirely determined from the beginning of the entry of this area using the location device associated with maps, or geometric data, of the lane.”
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to determine whether the lane width increases based on the changed amount of the real lane width and the increased amount of the expected lane width, as taught by Varnier to ensure a vehicle is capable of maintaining lane guidance in an environment of a lane split [0013]. To this end, Varnier discloses the combination of environmental perception used to determine lane widening, and expected data of an upcoming lane widening area to determine information regarding the lane.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Watanabe further discloses:
wherein the camera is configured to collect image information obtained by capturing the image of the foreground of the vehicle, (see at least [Fig. 5] [0035] “The camera unit 21 may cause the main camera 21a to perform imaging to thereby obtain reference image data,”)
and determining, by the controller, an expected lane width of the driving lane, based on information included in the recognized driving lane. (see at least [0039] “a method such as a least-square method may be applied to a line of proposed points, arranged in time series, of each of the proposed points Pr and Pl to thereby determine a straight-line-approximating expression or a curve-approximating expression that is equal to or higher than the first order. On the basis of the approximating expression, the lane line boundaries br and bl may be set to respective inner sides of the right and the left lane lines Lr and Ll." [0043] "The lane keep control calculator 22c calculates a lane width W on the basis of a distance between the right and the left lane line boundaries br and bl.")
Regarding Claim 16, modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Watanabe further discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the vehicle has entered a stretch in which the driving lane includes at least one lane among a diverged lane and an expanded lane in response to the determination that the real lane width is increasing (see at least [0058] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may determine the lane as being branched in a case in which the lane variation width ΔW exceeds the first widening determination threshold ΔWH,”)
Regarding Claim 17 modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 16, and Watanabe further discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to, when the vehicle enters the stretch, (see at least [0060] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may determine the lane as being branched in a case in which the lane variation width ΔW exceeds the first widening determination threshold ΔWH, following which the flow may proceed to step S26.”)
generate driving control information of the vehicle, based on information of the line; and reflect a pre-configured correction value on the generated driving control information (see at least [0060] “At step S27, the lane keep control calculator 22c may calculate the target traveling course, on the basis of the lane line (or the lane line boundary) that is positioned on the opposite side of the widening lane line as a reference.”)
and output the driving control information. (see at least [0041] “ The steering controller 31 may cause the own vehicle M to travel along the target traveling course. ”)
Regarding Claim 18 modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 17, and Watanabe further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to, when the vehicle enters the stretch, (see at least [0060] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may calculate the target traveling course”)
generate driving control information of the vehicle, based on at least one information among an offset, a heading angle, a curvature, and a curvature derivative value of the line. (see at least [Fig. 10] [0060] “In an example embodiment, as the target traveling course, the middle W/2 of the lane determined at step S12 may be set on the basis of, as a reference, the lane line boundary of the lane line that is positioned on the opposite side of the widening lane line") (*Examiner interprets the travel course, and therefore driving control information, as offset from the lane)”
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 20200070826), herein after referred to as Watanabe, in view of Sato (US 20190256092 ), herein after referred to as Sato, Varnier (US 20230311868), herein after referred to as Varnier, and Mizoguchi (US 20210089843), herein after referred to as Mizoguchi,
Regarding Claim 3 modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 2, and Watanabe further discloses:
determining, by the controller, an expected lane width of a driving lane recognized by the camera, (see at least [0056] “The lane width W may be calculated on the basis of the distance between the right and the left lane line boundaries br and bl.”)
based on a longitudinal distance of the vehicle (see at least [Fig. 5] [0059] “in an example case of the straight road, the proposed points Pr and Pl shift toward the middle when those proposed points Pr and Pl are searched from the search-starting horizontal line js to the search-ending horizontal line je as illustrated in FIG. 5. However, in such an example case, the proposed points Pl shifts outwardly when the left lane line Ll is drawn along the branch road. Hence, as one of example techniques to detect the widening lane line, an example embodiment may determine that a line of proposed points, arranged in time series, as the widening lane line when the line of proposed points widens toward the outer side.”)
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose:
and at least one information among an offset, a heading angle, a curvature, and a curvature derivative value of the line.
In the same field of endeavor, Mizoguchi discloses:
and at least one information among an offset, a heading angle, a curvature, and a curvature derivative value of the line. (see at least [0026] “the traveling environment recognizer 21d further calculates the lane width based on the difference between the curvature of the left lane marker and the curvature of the right lane marker.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to base driving lane width off of at least one information among an offset, a heading angle, a curvature, and a curvature derivative value of the line as taught by Mizoguchi to center the vehicle in the lane [0027].
Regarding Claim 13 modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 12, and Watanabe further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to determine an expected lane width of a driving lane recognized by the camera, (see at least [0056] “The lane width W may be calculated on the basis of the distance between the right and the left lane line boundaries br and bl.”)
based on a longitudinal distance of the vehicle (see at least [Fig. 5] [0059] “in an example case of the straight road, the proposed points Pr and Pl shift toward the middle when those proposed points Pr and Pl are searched from the search-starting horizontal line js to the search-ending horizontal line je as illustrated in FIG. 5. However, in such an example case, the proposed points Pl shifts outwardly when the left lane line Ll is drawn along the branch road. Hence, as one of example techniques to detect the widening lane line, an example embodiment may determine that a line of proposed points, arranged in time series, as the widening lane line when the line of proposed points widens toward the outer side.”)
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose:
and at least one information among an offset, a heading angle, a curvature, and a curvature derivative value of the line.
In the same field of endeavor, Mizoguchi discloses:
and at least one information among an offset, a heading angle, a curvature, and a curvature derivative value of the line. (see at least [0026] “the traveling environment recognizer 21d further calculates the lane width based on the difference between the curvature of the left lane marker and the curvature of the right lane marker.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to base driving lane width off of at least one information among an offset, a heading angle, a curvature, and a curvature derivative value of the line as taught by Mizoguchi to center the vehicle in the lane [0027].
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 20200070826), herein after referred to as Watanabe, in view of Sato (US 20190256092 ), herein after referred to as Sato, Varnier (US 20230311868) herein after referred to as Varnier and Choi (US 20200189586), herein after referred to as Choi.
Regarding Claim 9 modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses:
determining, by the controller and in response to the determination that the real lane width is increasing, [road information] (see at least [0060] “The flow may proceed to step S27 after detecting the widening lane line at step S26.”)
and determining, by the … that the vehicle has entered a stretch in which the driving lane includes at least one lane among a diverged lane and an expanded lane. (see at least [0058] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may determine the lane as being branched in a case in which the lane variation width ΔW exceeds the first widening determination threshold ΔWH,”)
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose:
[determining] whether the driving lane is an outermost lane;
and in response to the driving lane being the outermost lane,
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses:
[determining] whether the driving lane is an outermost lane; (see at least [0061] “The processor 150 may determine whether the vehicle is located on the outermost lane of the main road, based on the travel lane determination result.”)
[and determining, by the controller] and in response to the driving lane being the outermost lane, [that the vehicle has entered a stretch in which the driving lane includes at least one lane among a diverged lane and an expanded lane.] (see at least [0062] “When it is determined that the vehicle travels on the outermost lane of the main road, the processor 150 determines whether an exit ramp is present in front of the vehicle on the guide route. The processor 150 determines whether an exit ramp is present within a predetermined distance (a distance of interest)”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to determine the vehicle is in the outermost lane, and in response to this determine that the vehicle has entered a stretch with a diverged or expanded lane, as taught by Choi to determine whether or not to perform deceleration control [0028].
Regarding Claim 10 modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Watanabe further discloses:
collecting, by the controller (see at least [0040] “The lane keep controller 22 includes a preceding vehicle information extractor 22a, a right and left lane line information extractor 22b,”)
and in response to the determination that the real lane width is increasing, (see at least [0060] “The flow may proceed to step S27 after detecting the widening lane line at step S26.”)
at least one piece of information among information on the two lines of the driving lane, and information relating to existence or absence of a road edge with respect to both sides of the driving lane; (see at least [0058] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may determine the lane as being branched in a case in which the lane variation width ΔW exceeds the first widening determination threshold ΔWH,”)
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose:
and determining, by the controller, whether the driving lane is an outermost lane, by utilizing the collected at least one piece of information.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses:
and determining, by the controller, whether the driving lane is an outermost lane, by utilizing the collected at least one piece of information. (see at least [0060] “The processor 150 may determine the lane on which the vehicle travels, based on the road information and the sensing data”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to determine the vehicle is in the outermost lane, as taught by Choi to determine whether or not to perform deceleration control [0028].
Regarding Claim 19 modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Watanabe further discloses:
determine [road information] when it is determined that the real lane width increases, (see at least [0060] “The flow may proceed to step S27 after detecting the widening lane line at step S26.”)
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose:
determine whether the driving lane is an outermost lane
and determine that the vehicle has entered a stretch in which the driving lane includes at least one lane among a diverged lane and an expanded lane when the driving lane is the outermost lane.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses:
determine whether the driving lane is an outermost lane (see at least [0061] “The processor 150 may determine whether the vehicle is located on the outermost lane of the main road, based on the travel lane determination result.”)
and determine that the vehicle has entered a stretch in which the driving lane includes at least one lane among a diverged lane and an expanded lane when the driving lane is the outermost lane. (see at least [0062] “When it is determined that the vehicle travels on the outermost lane of the main road, the processor 150 determines whether an exit ramp is present in front of the vehicle on the guide route. The processor 150 determines whether an exit ramp is present within a predetermined distance (a distance of interest)”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to determine the vehicle is in the outermost lane, and in response to this determine that the vehicle has entered a stretch with a diverged or expanded lane, as taught by Choi to determine whether or not to perform deceleration control [0028].
Regarding Claim 20 modified Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 19, and Watanabe further discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to, when it is determined that the real lane width increases, (see at least [0060] “The flow may proceed to step S27 after detecting the widening lane line at step S26.”)
collect at least one piece of information among information on the two lines of the driving lane, and information relating to existence or absence of a road edge with respect to both sides of the driving lane, (see at least [0058] “the lane keep control calculator 22c may determine the lane as being branched in a case in which the lane variation width ΔW exceeds the first widening determination threshold ΔWH,”)
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose:
and determine whether the driving lane is an outermost lane, by utilizing the collected at least one piece of information.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses:
and determine whether the driving lane is an outermost lane, by utilizing the collected at least one piece of information. (see at least [0060] “The processor 150 may determine the lane on which the vehicle travels, based on the road information and the sensing data”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Watanabe to determine the vehicle is in the outermost lane, as taught by Choi to determine whether or not to perform deceleration control [0028].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662