DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention, “DRIVING ASSISTANCE APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME” is not descriptive and could apply to nearly all inventions
submitted to the Examiners’ Art Unit. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the
invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is not required but merely suggested as a possibility: “DRIVING ASSISTANCE IN VIEW OF LANE CURVATURE DETERMINATION”.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
The pending claims contain various conditional limitations which include:
claim 2 and similarly recited in claim 14:
(1) “processor is configured to, when the information about of the current curvature of the travel lane is verified to be valid, output one or more signals for controlling the vehicle based on the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane”
claim 3 and similarly recited in claim 15:
(2) “processor is configured to, when a difference between a current traveling lane curvature value of the current curvature of the traveling lane and a previous traveling lane curvature value of the previous curvature of the traveling lane is smaller than a predetermined first error reference value, verify the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane to be valid”
claim 4 and similarly recited in claim 16:
(3) “wherein the processor is configured to:
when the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane is determined to be invalid, verify validity of information about a current curvature of an opposite traffic lane traveling in an opposite direction to the traveling lane of the vehicle; and
when the information about the current curvature of the opposite traffic lane is verified to be valid, output one or more signals for controlling the vehicle based on the information about the current curvature of the opposite traffic lane.”
claim 5 and similarly recited in claim 17:
(4) “wherein the processor is configured to,
when a difference between a current opposite lane curvature value of the current curvature of the opposite traffic lane and a previous opposite lane curvature value of a previous curvature of the opposite traffic lane is smaller than a predetermined second error reference value, verify the information about the current curvature of the opposite traffic lane to be valid.
claim 6 and similarly recited in claim 18:
(5) “wherein the processor is configured to,
when the information about the current curvature of the opposite traffic lane is verified to be valid, replace the current traveling lane curvature value with the current opposite lane curvature value and output one or more signals for controlling the vehicle based on the current traveling lane curvature value replaced with the current opposite lane curvature value.
claim 8 and similarly recited in claim 20:
(6) “wherein the processor is configured to:
when the information about the current curvature of the opposite traffic lane is verified to be valid, store a curvature value of a curvature of the traveling lane in an image frame acquired immediately before the previous image frames as a reference value in a memory;
determine whether a result value reflecting a predetermined margin value in an average value of the current opposite lane curvature value and the reference value is smaller than or equal to a previous traveling lane curvature value of the previous curvature of the traveling lane; and
when the result value reflecting the predetermined margin value in the average value of the current opposite lane curvature value and the reference value is less than or equal to the previous traveling lane curvature value, revert the replacing of the current traveling lane curvature value with the current opposite lane curvature value and output one or more signals for controlling the vehicle based on the current traveling lane curvature value which is the current traveling lane curvature value before being replaced with the current opposite lane curvature value.
Claim 9
(7) “wherein the processor is configured to delete the margin value stored in the memory in response to the one or more signals based on the current traveling lane curvature value which is the current traveling lane curvature value before being replaced with the current opposite lane curvature value”
Claim 10
(8) “wherein the processor is configured to re-perform an operation of replacing the current traveling lane curvature value with the current opposite lane curvature value when the result value is larger than the previous traveling lane curvature value.
Claim 12
(9) “wherein the processor is configured to stop the executing of the lane keeping assist function when the information about the current curvature of the opposite traffic lane is determined to be invalid.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing the function of the above cited claim limitations (1) – (9) is sufficient to disclose the above cited claim limitations. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). For example, for limitations (1)-(9) a structure, such as a processor capable of performing the functions following the underlined portions above, is sufficient to disclose the above cited claim limitations.
In addition, limitations (1)-(9) recite either computer processing steps carried out by a computing device or method steps that required a first step if a first condition happens and a second step if a second condition happens.
With respect to conditional limitations in such cases, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Accordingly, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to limitations (1) – (9). See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed . . . [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 does not require either “verify validity of information about a current curvature of an opposite traffic lane traveling in an opposite direction to the traveling lane of the vehicle” or “output one or more signals for controlling the vehicle based on the information about the current curvature of the opposite traffic lane” since the claim does not require that the current curve data is valid and does not require that the current curve data is invalid (i.e., “when . . . invalid . . . when . . . invalid”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, or for reciting a limitation that replaces or omits a limitation in a parent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements. See MPEP 608.01(n), section III “test for proper dependency” (“a claim in dependent form shall contain . . . (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed . . . if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.”)
Each of claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, 14-18 and 20 consist entirely of a contingent limitation, wherein the limitations are not required since the claim does not require the condition occurs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, claim 13 and similarly claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
acquiring information about a current curvature of a traveling lane, on which a vehicle is currently traveling, based on sensor data of one or more sensors of the vehicle; and
verifying validity of the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane by comparing the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane and information about a previous curvature of the traveling lane on which the vehicle previously traveled.
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since the above limitations could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
For example, a human could perform the above limitation entirely mentally since the limitations amount to comparing data. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III, A (“claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include . . . a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”). For example, the passenger of a vehicle could visually acquire information about a current curvature of a travel lane, and mentally verify the information about the current curvature by comparing the current curvature information with previous curvature information visually acquired at an earlier time.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). This follows conclusion follows from the claim limitations which:
For claim 13 do not include any additional elements outside of the abstract idea; and
For claim 1 merely recites a generic “one or more sensors”, and “processor” outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation “one or more sensors configured to sense at least a portion of an environment of a vehicle” constitutes insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as “one or more sensors”, and “processor” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “driving assistance apparatus” claim 1).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 20210213930 to Sengupta et al. (Seng)
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Sengupta discloses a driving assistance apparatus comprising:
one or more sensors configured to sense at least a portion of an environment of a vehicle; and
(304, FIG. 3 driving vehicle sensors, i.e., 308-337, 338; ¶¶ 67, 108)
a processor connected to the one or more sensors, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information about a current curvature of a traveling lane, on which the vehicle is currently traveling, based on sensor data of the one or more sensors; and
(¶¶ 67 sensed object information refers to sensed information regarding objects external to the vehicle . . . lane division markers, type, color, spatial locations; 108-120, i.e., 108 “Camera sensors 332 may be used alone or in combination to identify objects or other features and in particular lane markers”)
verify validity of the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane by comparing the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane and information about a previous curvature of the traveling lane on which the vehicle previously traveled.
(¶¶ 114-115 “Process 900 includes steps 808-820 of process 800 described in FIG.
8. After obtaining a circular curvature value . . . process 900 proceeds to decision block 932 where it is determined whether a change in an angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent exceeds a threshold value . . . [Valid >]If the angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent does not exceed the threshold value at decision block 932 (NO), process 900 proceeds to block 946, where a moving average is performed on the current curvature tangent for additional smoothing. Afterwards at block 936, lane marker prediction is propagated along the current curvature tangent and ahead of currently captured lane markers . . . [Invalid >] If the angle between the previous curvature tangent
and the current curvature tangent exceeds the threshold value at decision block 932 (YES), process 900 proceeds to decision block 940 where it is determined if this is the first outlier detected. If this is the first outlier detected a decision block 940 (YES))
(FIG. 8-10 and corresponding description, i.e., ¶¶108 – 120, i.e., 820-832, 932-952, 1032-1048, wherein verified and valid current traveling lane curvature can be propagated for look ahead vehicle navigation control and unvalidated, unverified curvature is not; i.e., 948, v. 946; 135 “Aspects of the above method include further comprising, comparing, by the processor, a change in an angle between a current curvature tangent and a previous curvature
tangent to a threshold value to detect an outlier”)
(vehicle control disclosure ¶¶ 46, 66, 109-110 vehicle control in view of motion planning, sensor capture may fail; claims 1 and 3-5 “steering, by the control system, the vehicle based on the generated predictive lane markers . . . comparing, by the processor, a change in an angle between a current curvature tangent and a previous curvature tangent to a threshold value to detect an outlier . . . selecting, by the processor, the previous curvature tangent when the change in the angle exceeds the threshold value . . . selecting, by the processor, the current curvature tangent when the change in the angle does not exceed the threshold value”)
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Seng discloses wherein the processor is configured to,
when the information about of the current curvature of the travel lane is verified to be valid, output one or more signals for controlling the vehicle based on the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane.
(¶¶ 114-115 “Process 900 includes steps 808-820 of process 800 described in FIG.
8. After obtaining a circular curvature value . . . process 900 proceeds to decision block 932 where it is determined whether a change in an angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent exceeds a threshold value . . . [Valid >]If the angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent does not exceed the threshold value at decision block 932 (NO), process 900 proceeds to block 946, where a moving average is performed on the current curvature tangent for additional smoothing. Afterwards at block 936, lane marker prediction is propagated along the current curvature tangent and ahead of currently captured lane markers . . . [Invalid >] If the angle between the previous curvature tangent
and the current curvature tangent exceeds the threshold value at decision block 932 (YES), process 900 proceeds to decision block 940 where it is determined if this is the first outlier detected. If this is the first outlier detected a decision block 940 (YES))
(FIG. 8-10 and corresponding description, i.e., ¶¶108 – 120, i.e., 820-832, 932-952, 1032-1048, wherein verified and valid current traveling lane curvature can be propagated for look ahead vehicle navigation control and unvalidated, unverified curvature is not; i.e., 948, v. 946; 135 “Aspects of the above method include further comprising, comparing, by the processor, a change in an angle between a current curvature tangent and a previous curvature
tangent to a threshold value to detect an outlier”)
(vehicle control disclosure ¶¶ 46, 66, 109-110 vehicle control in view of motion planning, sensor capture may fail; claims 1 and 3-5 “steering, by the control system, the vehicle based on the generated predictive lane markers . . . comparing, by the processor, a change in an angle between a current curvature tangent and a previous curvature tangent to a threshold value to detect an outlier . . . selecting, by the processor, the previous curvature tangent when the change in the angle exceeds the threshold value . . . selecting, by the processor, the current curvature tangent when the change in the angle does not exceed the threshold value”)
With respect to claims 3 and 15, Seng discloses wherein the processor is configured to,
when a difference between a current traveling lane curvature value of the current curvature of the traveling lane and a previous traveling lane curvature value of the previous curvature of the traveling lane is smaller than a predetermined first error reference value, verify the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane to be valid.
(¶¶ 114-115 “Process 900 includes steps 808-820 of process 800 described in FIG. 8. After obtaining a circular curvature value . . . process 900 proceeds to decision block 932 where it is determined whether a change in an angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent exceeds a threshold value . . . [Valid >]If the angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent does not exceed the threshold value at decision block 932 (NO), process 900 proceeds to block 946, where a moving average is performed on the current curvature tangent for additional smoothing. Afterwards at block 936, lane marker prediction is propagated along the current curvature tangent and ahead of currently captured lane markers . . . [Invalid >] If the angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent exceeds the threshold value at decision block 932 (YES), process 900 proceeds to decision block 940 where it is determined if this is the first outlier detected. If this is the first outlier detected a decision block 940 (YES))
(FIG. 8-10 and corresponding description, i.e., ¶¶108 – 120, i.e., 820-832, 932-952, 1032-1048, wherein verified and valid current traveling lane curvature can be propagated for look ahead vehicle navigation control and unvalidated, unverified curvature is not; i.e., 948, v. 946; 135 “Aspects of the above method include further comprising, comparing, by the processor, a change in an angle between a current curvature tangent and a previous curvature tangent to a threshold value to detect an outlier”)
(vehicle control disclosure ¶¶ 46, 66, 109-110 vehicle control in view of motion planning, sensor capture may fail; claims 1 and 3-5 “steering, by the control system, the vehicle based on the generated predictive lane markers . . . comparing, by the processor, a change in an angle between a current curvature tangent and a previous curvature tangent to a threshold value to detect an outlier . . . selecting, by the processor, the previous curvature tangent when the change in the angle exceeds the threshold value . . . selecting, by the processor, the current curvature tangent when the change in the angle does not exceed the threshold value”)
With respect to claims 4-6, 8-10, 12, 16-18 and 20, no further limitations are required, as noted in the contingent limitation and 112(d) sections above. Accordingly, Seng discloses all limitations. In addition, Seng at least discloses a processor capable of carrying out the limitations recited therein (i.e., FIG. 3A, including control system 348 and corresponding disclosure).
With respect to claims 7 and 19, Seng discloses
the one or more sensors include a camera, the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane includes information about a curvature of the traveling lane in a current image frame at a current time point acquired through the camera, and the information about the previous curvature of the traveling lane includes information about curvatures of the traveling lane in a predetermined number of previous image frames acquired before the current image frame.
(i.e., FIG. 3A, driving vehicle sensors 304, cameras 332; ¶¶ 26 detect markings with camera; 38, 56, 108 cameras 332 identify lane markers)
(¶¶ 114-115 “Process 900 includes steps 808-820 of process 800 described in FIG. 8. After obtaining a circular curvature value . . . process 900 proceeds to decision block 932 where it is determined whether a change in an angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent exceeds a threshold value . . . if the angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent does not exceed the threshold value at decision block 932 (NO), process 900 proceeds to block 946, where a moving average is performed on the current curvature tangent for additional smoothing. Afterwards at block 936, lane marker prediction is propagated along the current curvature tangent and ahead of currently captured lane markers . . . if the angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent exceeds the threshold value at decision block 932 (YES), process 900 proceeds to decision block 940 where it is determined if this is the first outlier detected. If this is the first outlier detected a decision block 940 (YES))
(FIG. 8-10 and corresponding description, i.e., ¶¶108 – 120, i.e., 820-832, 932-952, 1032-1048, wherein verified and valid current traveling lane curvature can be propagated for look ahead vehicle navigation control and unvalidated, unverified curvature is not; i.e., 948, v. 946; 135 “Aspects of the above method include further comprising, comparing, by the processor, a change in an angle between a current curvature tangent and a previous curvature tangent to a threshold value to detect an outlier”)
(vehicle control disclosure ¶¶ 46, 66, 109-110 vehicle control in view of motion planning, sensor capture may fail; claims 1 and 3-5 “steering, by the control system, the vehicle based on the generated predictive lane markers . . . comparing, by the processor, a change in an angle between a current curvature tangent and a previous curvature tangent to a threshold value to detect an outlier . . . selecting, by the processor, the previous curvature tangent when the change in the angle exceeds the threshold value . . . selecting, by the processor, the current curvature tangent when the change in the angle does not exceed the threshold value”)
With respect to claim 11, Seng discloses the one or more signals for controlling the vehicle include a signal for controlling a lane keeping assist function of the vehicle, and the processor is configured to verify the validity of the information about the current curvature of the traveling lane while executing the lane keeping assist function.
(Claims 1 and 3-5, i.e., claim 1, lane marker prediction, determine lane marker curvature tangent, steering, by the control system, the vehicle based on the generated predictive lane markers; ¶¶ 20-22 level 0-5 autonomy driver assist including environment based steering; 109 “Autonomous, semi-autonomous or automatic steering control features (e.g., automated lane centering, adaptive lane centering, etc.) may maintain or control the position of a vehicle with respect to the road . . . with respect to lane markers)
(¶¶ 114-115 “Process 900 includes steps 808-820 of process 800 described in FIG. 8. After obtaining a circular curvature value . . . process 900 proceeds to decision block 932 where it is determined whether a change in an angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent exceeds a threshold value . . . if the angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent does not exceed the threshold value at decision block 932 (NO), process 900 proceeds to block 946, where a moving average is performed on the current curvature tangent for additional smoothing. Afterwards at block 936, lane marker prediction is propagated along the current curvature tangent and ahead of currently captured lane markers . . . if the angle between the previous curvature tangent and the current curvature tangent exceeds the threshold value at decision block 932 (YES), process 900 proceeds to decision block 940 where it is determined if this is the first outlier detected. If this is the first outlier detected a decision block 940 (YES))
(FIG. 8-10 and corresponding description, i.e., ¶¶108 – 120, i.e., 820-832, 932-952, 1032-1048, wherein verified and valid current traveling lane curvature can be propagated for look ahead vehicle navigation control and unvalidated, unverified curvature is not; i.e., 948, v. 946; 135 “Aspects of the above method include further comprising, comparing, by the processor, a change in an angle between a current curvature tangent and a previous curvature tangent to a threshold value to detect an outlier”; vehicle control disclosure ¶¶ 46, 66, 109-110 vehicle control in view of motion planning)
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. 20210322550 to Choi et al. is cited to disclose using image data to create lane detection (FIG. 4) behind and ahead of the vehicle (FIG. 5) generate multiple lane curvature determinations for comparison (FIG. 8) in furtherance of lane keep assistance (¶4) and calculation of an amount of change in curvature of a lane based on different image frames (¶ 124 “Referring to FIG. 8, the controller 140 calculates a curvature and an amount of change in the curvature of a front virtual lane (801). In this case, the amount of change in the curvature of the front virtual lane may be calculated by the curvature of the front virtual lane.”;
US 20010053955 to Shirai is cited to disclose calculation of lane curvature for lane keeping with multiple curve values used to provide guidance (abstract, FIG. 3)
US 20200064855 is cited to disclose altering lines on a road used for lane keeping depending on determined validty / detectability (i.e., FIG. 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667