DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 5/2/2024.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al (2023/0192190).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As to claim 1 Takahashi discloses a vehicle control device comprising:
a determination unit that determines, based on the detection results of sensor (paragraphs 008 and 0079 disclosing a camera 11 and a radar 12) that acquire the surrounding environment of a host vehicle, whether or not an obstacle and a traveling other vehicle exists in the adjacent lane adjacent to one side in the vehicle-width direction of an own lane in which the host vehicle travels (see paragraph 0057 and 0077 describing the objects being moving vehicles or stationary objects. The limitation does not place the objects next to each other so both object and vehicle can exist in the adjacent lane next to each other or at a distance from each other.); and
a travel control unit (figure 1 #1) that, when it is determined by the determination unit (figure 1) that the obstacle and the traveling other vehicle exists in the adjacent lane (paragraph 0057 and 0077), offsets a lateral position (See figure 2 the host vehicle #1 moves from position T1 to T’1) of the host vehicle in the own lane to the other side in the vehicle width direction (paragraph 0057, 0077 0093),
wherein the travel control unit adjusts an amount of offset to offset the lateral position of the host vehicle to the other side in the vehicle-width direction according to the road structure on the opposite side of the adjacent lane side (paragraph 0062 and 0077).
As to claim 2 Takahashi discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel control unit offsets the lateral position of the host vehicle to the other side in the vehicle-width direction in the own lane regardless of whether traveling the other vehicle exists in the adjacent lane if there is a blind spot of the sensor in the adjacent lane (paragraph 0077).
By moving when seeing an obstacle, the vehicle will avoid a blind spot behind the obstacle.
As to claim 3 Takahashi discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel control unit reduces or sets to zero the amount of offset to offset the lateral position of the host vehicle to the other side in the vehicle-width direction if a pedestrian or an another traveling other vehicle exists on the opposite side of the adjacent lane side. (paragraph 0077).
The target travel trajectory T1 may be corrected, as appropriate, so as not to interfere with the positions of other targets, obstacles, road division lines, etc. based on the information obtained from the external field sensor 11, the map database 13, and the GPS unit 14
As to claim 4 Takahashi discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel control unit reduces or sets to zero the amount of offset if the road structure on the opposite side of the adjacent lane side is or a lane facing the entrance and exit of a building (paragraph 0013).
As to claim 5 Takahashi discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel control unit does not reduce the amount of offset if the road structure on the opposite side of the adjacent lane side is a sidewalk with curbs. (paragraph 0113)
The system will not adjust for a sidewalk unless there is a pedestrian present as the system senses for pedestrians and not sidewalks.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (US 2017/0269602).
As to claim 1 Nakamura discloses a vehicle control device comprising:
a determination unit (figure 1) that determines, based on the detection results of sensor (Paragraph 0027 and 0037) that acquire the surrounding environment of a host vehicle, whether or not an obstacle and a traveling other vehicle exists in the adjacent lane (see paragraph 0034 and 35 describing the objects being moving vehicles or stationary objects. The limitation does not place the objects next to each other so both object and vehicle can exist in the adjacent lane next to each other or at a distance from each other.) adjacent to one side in the vehicle-width direction of an own lane (figure 2 Ln1) in which the host vehicle travels; and
a travel control unit (figure 1) that, when it is determined by the determination unit that the obstacle and the traveling other vehicle exists (paragraph 0035) in the adjacent lane, offsets a lateral position of the host vehicle in the own lane to the other side in the vehicle-width direction (shown in figure 2 and 3),
wherein the travel control unit adjusts an amount of offset to offset the lateral position of the host vehicle to the other side in the vehicle-width direction according to the road structure on the opposite side of the adjacent lane side (shown in the figures 2 the vehicle V1 moving in the width direction to avoid the obstacle on both sides of the vehicle) (paragraph 0036).
As to claim 2 Nakamura discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel control unit offsets the lateral position of the host vehicle to the other side in the vehicle-width direction in the own lane regardless of whether traveling the other vehicle exists in the adjacent lane if there is a blind spot of the sensor in the adjacent lane. (Shown below is the blind spot that is not detected but the system compensates for it by moving over because of the objects in front of the blind spot)
As to claim 3 Nakamura discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel control unit reduces or sets to zero the amount of offset to offset the lateral position of the host vehicle to the other side in the vehicle-width direction if a pedestrian or an another traveling other vehicle exists on the opposite side of the adjacent lane side. (shown in figure 7)
As to claim 4 Nakamura discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel control unit reduces or sets to zero the amount of offset if the road structure on the opposite side of the adjacent lane side is a pedestrian strip with only lane lines or a lane facing the entrance and exit of a building. (Paragraph 0035)
Avoidance objects in one or more embodiments of the present invention include a stationary object and moving object. Examples of an avoidance object that is stationary include other vehicles that are parked or stopped, road structures, such as walkways; center dividers and guardrails; road equipment, such as road signs and power or telephone poles; temporary objects on a road, such as falling objects; and removed snow, which may be obstacles for a vehicle traveling. Examples of an avoidance object that is moving include other vehicles and pedestrians.
As to claim 5 Nakamura discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel control unit does not reduce the amount of offset if the road structure on the opposite side of the adjacent lane side is a sidewalk with curbs. (Paragraph 0035)
Avoidance objects in one or more embodiments of the present invention include a stationary object and moving object. Examples of an avoidance object that is stationary include other vehicles that are parked or stopped, road structures, such as walkways; center dividers and guardrails; road equipment, such as road signs and power or telephone poles; temporary objects on a road, such as falling objects; and removed snow, which may be obstacles for a vehicle traveling. Examples of an avoidance object that is moving include other vehicles and pedestrians.
The walkway is a known avoidance object it is matter of simple programming how the sidewalk is handled by the computer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument against Takahashi is as follows.
“Nothing in Takahashi teaches or suggests, first determining whether both an obstacle and another vehicle are in the adjacent lane, and then offsetting the lateral position of the own vehicle if there are both an obstacle and another vehicle in the adjacent lane.” The limitation does not place the objects next to each other so both object and vehicle can exist in the adjacent lane next to each other or at a distance from each other. The current prior arts both disclose being able to detect a travelling vehicle and a stationary object and avoiding them, see the arguments above.
The other argument is” nothing in Takahashi teaches or suggests adjusting the amount of the lateral offset according to the road structure on the opposite side of the own vehicle from the adjacent lane” Lateral offices in the width direction is moving the vehicle side to side to avoid obstacles. Paragraph 0062 avoids the obstacles according to the road structures just as described in the claims.
The arguments against Nakamura are as follows;
The description at [0024] relied on by the examiner merely descries different types of lane markers.
[0024] The travel control device 100 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention has a lane departure prevention function (lane keep support function) to recognize a lane in which the subject vehicle is traveling and control the moving behavior of the subject vehicle so as to maintain a certain relationship between the position of a lane marker of the lane and the position of the subject vehicle. The travel control device 100 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention controls the moving behavior of the subject vehicle so that the subject vehicle travels along the center of a lane. The travel control device 100 may control the moving behavior of the subject vehicle so that the distance from the lane marker of a lane to the subject vehicle along the road width direction falls within a predetermined range. The lane marker according to one or more embodiments of the present invention is not limited, provided that it has a function to define a lane. The lane marker may be a line drawn on a road surface, a planting that exists between lanes, or a road structure that exists at the side of a road shoulder of a lane, such as a guardrail, curbstone, sidewalk, and exclusive road for two wheels. The lane marker may also be a fixed structure that exists at the side of a road shoulder of a lane, such as an advertising display, traffic sign, store, and roadside tree. The scheme of detecting such lane markers is not limited and various schemes, such as pattern matching can be used which are known at the time of filing of the present application.
The above paragraph 0024 discloses that the lane marker can also be defined as a road structure to meet the claim limitations. The figure 2 shows the vehicle moving to the side in the width direction (adjusting the amount of lateral offset) in over to avoid the obstacle/vehicle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747