DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 1/23/2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 3 and 4. Claims 1-15 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/23/2026 obviate the claim objections – accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the limitation of “wherein the perceived centerline is a center line perceived by the driver of the ego-vehicle and starts at a front end of the ego-vehicle and extends at least to a back end of a preceding target vehicle.” Applicant asserts that Chase’s ad hoc center line, generated by detecting thermal energy of a preceding vehicle, does not correspond to the claimed perceived center line that is perceived by the driver of the ego-vehicle and starts at a front end of the ego-vehicle and extends at least to a back end of a preceding target vehicle. Similarly, Applicant argues that Kim ’492’s traveling center line 501, which is acquired through a camera, does not analogize to the claimed perceived center line with the claimed geometry. Applicant further submits that Kim ’492 does not teach or suggest determining a virtual lane based on a perceived center line because Kim ’492 estimates lane information based on the first front vehicle. Finally, Applicant argues that even arguendo that the claimed invention can be arrived by the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to supply the missing elements without using Applicant’s disclosure as a guide.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of prior art arrives at the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitation at issue – namely, the added limitation merely restates in geometry terms what the combination of prior art already discloses.
First, Kobayashi discloses: determining a virtual lane based on a center of a back end of a preceding target vehicle (“The virtual lane marking setting section 58 is configured to set virtual lane markings 94′ in cases in which no lane markings 94 were recognized by the lane marking recognition section 56. For example, a lateral direction average position of the leading vehicle 92 within a specific time or a specific driving distance may be found, and virtual lane markings 94′ may be set at positions separated from the average position by a fixed distance in the left-right direction. When finding the average position of the leading vehicle 92, a specific portion of the leading vehicle 92, such as a rear face center or both side faces (edges), may be detected.” Emphasis added; ¶ 43.). In this regard, Kobayashi provides the foundation that a virtual lane is established in reference to a center of the rear of a vehicle – what is not explicitly set forth is the language pertaining to a perceived centerline.
Now, recall that Chase teaches: transmitting instructions to a human machine interface of the ego-vehicle vehicle to prompt a driver of the ego-vehicle to drive to a perceived center line of a lane, wherein the perceived centerline is a center line perceived by the driver of the ego-vehicle and starts at a front end of the ego-vehicle (“The system 10 of the present disclosure … can create an ad hoc centerline …. In the case of a driven vehicle 100, guidance information can be provided on a Heads-Up display 122 to assist the driver, such as a calculated and/or suggested ad hoc centerline projected on the windshield or left/right guidance arrows.” ¶ 39.). Here, Examiner submits that Chase’s centerline is a perceived centerline because a driver necessarily perceives the centerline via the windshield projection. In other words, the fact that Chase’s centerline is initially generated by thermal energy detection does not preclude Chase’s centerline from being a perceived centerline per the BRI of the claim because a driver would necessarily have to perceive the centerline to travel along it. Additionally, as the centerline is displayed on a HUD, the centerline necessarily originates from the driver’s vantage point at the front of the vehicle.
From the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed geometry required by the claim limitation at issue. That is, Kobayashi establishes that a vehicle travels on a virtual lane generated based on at least a center of a rear of a preceding vehicle, and Chase teaches generating a user-perceived centerline which generates from the front end of an ego vehicle – this centerline would necessarily have the claimed geometry as in this scenario the centerline would pass begin from the driver’s vehicle and through a preceding vehicle.
As penned in the Non-Final Office Action (NFOA), one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kobayashi with Chase with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for assisting “in the safe and efficient operation of vehicles in response to unexpected and unpredicted situations or conditions on a roadway.” (Chase, ¶ 8.)
Turning to Kim ’492, recall that Kim ’492 teaches: determining a virtual lane based on a center line to which the driver has driven (First, “Herein, the lane information 103 means lines that divide the road on which the vehicle 110 is traveling into lanes.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 1. Now, “The electronic device 100 may estimate lane information of a road based on a first front vehicle 502 located on a traveling center line 501 of a vehicle 500.” ¶ 74, see also ¶ 75; also refer to FIG. 5 to which the foregoing and following paragraphs refer to. Continuing, “The electronic device 100 may estimate a sum of the vehicle width of the first front vehicle 502 and a first value as the first lane width 503 of the first lane.” ¶ 79. Finally, “The electronic device 100 may extend straight lines passing the vanishing point of the image based on the first lane width 503 estimated by using the traveling center line 501 of the image or the first front vehicle 502, thereby estimating the lane information 505.” ¶ 80. Note: Summarizing, based on at least a center line to which a driver has driven, lane information (i.e., a virtual lane) may be determined. Critically, lane information constitutes a virtual lane because it provides a virtual representation of a lane.). As explained and in contrast to Applicant’s assertion, Kim ’492 ultimately does determine a virtual lane based on a center line to which the driver has driven because ¶ 80 explicitly states that the estimating of lane information 505 is estimated by using the traveling center line 501. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the combination Kobayashi and Chase with Kobayashi’s teaching with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “providing information about a lane on which a vehicle is located to assist a driver with driving operations or for an ADS to safely control the vehicle in an environment where obstructions exist.” (Kim ’492, ¶ 7.)
Kim ’492’s FIG. 5 further teaches the claimed geometry of a centerline extending at least to a back end of a preceding target vehicle. (See FIG. 5 and associated discussion.) Critically, Kim ’492’s centerline geometry reflects the centerline that the combination of Kobayashi and Chase would yield as discussed above – namely, that Kobayashi-Chase would necessarily yield a centerline from a front of a vehicle to a rear of leading vehicle. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kim ’492’s explicit centerline geometry aligns with what Kobayashi and Chase put forth.
Lastly, Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s argument that undue hindsight bias would be required to arrive at the claimed invention through the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’402 is merely conclusory and is contradicted by the accompanying analysis and motivations put forth in the above remarks and in the rejection below.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 12-15 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US20170068248A1; “Kobayashi”) in view of Chase (US20190346857A1 “Chase”) and in view of Kim et al. (US20190318492A1; “Kim ’492”).
As to claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a method for operating an ego-vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving sensor data of a sensor system of the ego-vehicle (“camera 12 captures an image of the surroundings of the vehicle 90.” ¶ 67 and FIG. 6; see also FIG. 1.),
detecting an absence of lane markings based on the sensor data (“At step S4, determination is made as to whether or not the positions of the lane markings 94 could be detected …. the lane marking recognition section 56 is not able to detect the positions of the lane markings 94 in cases in which no lane markings 94 are present on the road, or in cases in which the lane markings 94 have faded.” ¶ 69 and FIG. 6.),
determining a virtual lane based on a center of a back end of a preceding target vehicle (“The virtual lane marking setting section 58 is configured to set virtual lane markings 94′ in cases in which no lane markings 94 were recognized by the lane marking recognition section 56. For example, a lateral direction average position of the leading vehicle 92 within a specific time or a specific driving distance may be found, and virtual lane markings 94′ may be set at positions separated from the average position by a fixed distance in the left-right direction. When finding the average position of the leading vehicle 92, a specific portion of the leading vehicle 92, such as a rear face center or both side faces (edges), may be detected.” Emphasis added; ¶ 43.), and
performing a lane keeping assistant function to keep the ego-vehicle on the virtual lane (“The vehicle controller 50 performs course tracking control within the movement range demarcated by the restriction positions 96.” ¶ 75 and FIG. 6; see also FIG. 2B.).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose: transmitting instructions to a human machine interface of the ego-vehicle vehicle to prompt a driver of the ego-vehicle to drive to a perceived center line of a lane, wherein the perceived center line is a center line perceived by the driver of the ego-vehicle and starts at a front-end of the ego-vehicle.
Nevertheless, Chase teaches: transmitting instructions to a human machine interface of the ego-vehicle vehicle to prompt a driver of the ego-vehicle to drive to a perceived center line of a lane (“The system 10 of the present disclosure … can create an ad hoc centerline …. In the case of a driven vehicle 100, guidance information can be provided on a Heads-Up display 122 to assist the driver, such as a calculated and/or suggested ad hoc centerline projected on the windshield or left/right guidance arrows.” ¶ 39. Note: Chase’s centerline is a perceived centerline because a driver necessarily perceives the centerline via the windshield projection. Additionally, as the centerline is displayed on a HUD, the centerline necessarily originates from the driver’s vantage point at the front of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kobayashi to include the feature of: transmitting instructions to a human machine interface of the ego-vehicle vehicle to prompt a driver of the ego-vehicle to drive to a perceived center line of a lane, as taught by Chase, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for assisting “in the safe and efficient operation of vehicles in response to unexpected and unpredicted situations or conditions on a roadway.” (Chase, ¶ 8.)
The combination of Kobayashi and Chase fails to explicitly disclose: determining a virtual lane based on the perceived center line to which the driver has driven, wherein the perceived centerline extends at least to a back end of a preceding target vehicle.
Nevertheless, Kim ’492 teaches: determining a virtual lane based on a center line to which the driver has driven, wherein the centerline extends at least to a back end of a preceding target vehicle (First, “Herein, the lane information 103 means lines that divide the road on which the vehicle 110 is traveling into lanes.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 1. Now, “The electronic device 100 may estimate lane information of a road based on a first front vehicle 502 located on a traveling center line 501 of a vehicle 500.” ¶ 74, see also ¶ 75; also refer to FIG. 5 to which the foregoing and following paragraphs refer to. Continuing, “The electronic device 100 may estimate a sum of the vehicle width of the first front vehicle 502 and a first value as the first lane width 503 of the first lane.” ¶ 79. Finally, “The electronic device 100 may extend straight lines passing the vanishing point of the image based on the first lane width 503 estimated by using the traveling center line 501 of the image or the first front vehicle 502, thereby estimating the lane information 505.” ¶ 80. Note: Summarizing, based on at least a center line to which a driver has driven, lane information (i.e., a virtual lane) may be determined. Critically, lane information constitutes a virtual lane because it provides a virtual representation of a lane. Furthermore, FIG. 5 explicitly illustrates the claimed geometry of a centerline extending at least to a back end of a preceding target vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi and Chase to include the feature of: determining a virtual lane based on a center line to which the driver has driven, wherein the centerline extends at least to a back end of a preceding target vehicle, as taught by Kim ’492, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “providing information about a lane on which a vehicle is located to assist a driver with driving operations or for an ADS to safely control the vehicle in an environment where obstructions exist.” (Kim ’492, ¶ 7.) Moreover, Kim ’492’s centerline geometry reflects the centerline that the combination of Kobayashi and Chase would yield as discussed above – namely, that Kobayashi-Chase would necessarily yield a centerline from a front of a vehicle to a rear of leading vehicle. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kim ’492’s explicit centerline geometry aligns with what Kobayashi and Chase put forth.
As to claim 2, Kobayashi discloses:
further comprising detecting a presence of one or more other vehicles in a region of interest based on the sensor data (“The inter-vehicle distance detection section 44 is configured to detect an inter-vehicle distance D between the vehicle 90 and the leading vehicle 92 based on a detection result of the radar 14.” ¶ 44.),
wherein the virtual lane is determined based on positional information of the one or more other vehicles with respect to the ego-vehicle (“The map illustrated in FIG. 5A is used to identify the restriction variability A used to derive the restriction positions 96 according to the inter-vehicle distance D.” ¶ 59 and FIG. 5A. See also ¶ 50 which ties the restriction positions 96 to virtual lane markings 94’, and see FIG. 2B illustrating that the restriction positions 96 define a virtual lane within a vehicle may travel; hence, the restriction positions 96 – determined based on at least positional information of one or more other vehicles – represent a virtual lane.),
wherein the positional information is determined based on the sensor data (“The inter-vehicle distance detection section 44 is configured to detect an inter-vehicle distance D between the vehicle 90 and the leading vehicle 92 based on a detection result of the radar 14.” ¶ 44.).
As to claim 12, Kobayashi discloses: performing an adaptive cruise control based on a detected preceding target vehicle such that a longitudinal distance between the ego-vehicle and the preceding target vehicle is controlled to have a predetermined distance value (“The longitudinal direction control amount calculation section 68 calculates a target inter-vehicle distance Dtr based on the vehicle speed, and the acceleration control amount or deceleration control amount is calculated to bring the inter-vehicle distance D detected by the inter-vehicle distance detection section 44 to the target inter-vehicle distance Dtr.” ¶ 53.)
As to claim 13, Kobayashi discloses: a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1 (control device 30 configured by an ECU - ¶ 40 and FIG. 1.).
As to claim 14, Kobayashi discloses: a control system for a vehicle which is configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (Driving control device 10 - ¶ 34 and FIG. 1.).
As to claim 15, Kobayashi discloses: a vehicle comprising a control system according to claim 14 (Driving control device 10 - ¶ 34 and FIG. 1.).
Claim 3 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Chase and in view of Kim ’492 as applied to claim 2 – further in view of Kim (US20190337513A1; “Kim ’513”).
As to claim 3, Kobayashi discloses:
determining, after the driver has driven to a perceived center line, a driving channel of the ego-vehicle based on the sensor data (“The virtual lane marking setting section 58 is configured to set virtual lane markings 94′ in cases in which no lane markings 94 were recognized by the lane marking recognition section 56. For example, a lateral direction average position of the leading vehicle 92 within a specific time or a specific driving distance may be found, and virtual lane markings 94′ may be set at positions separated from the average position by a fixed distance in the left-right direction. When finding the average position of the leading vehicle 92, a specific portion of the leading vehicle 92, such as a rear face center …, may be detected.” ¶ 43 and FIG. 6.),
wherein a length of the driving channel corresponds to a driving distance of the ego-vehicle in a predetermined time span (“The longitudinal direction control amount calculation section 68 is configured to calculate a longitudinal direction (overall length direction) movement amount of the vehicle 90 …. The longitudinal direction control amount calculation section 68 calculates a target inter-vehicle distance Dtr based on the vehicle speed, and the acceleration control amount or deceleration control amount is calculated to bring the inter-vehicle distance D detected by the inter-vehicle distance detection section 44 to the target inter-vehicle distance Dtr, and an acceleration instruction or a deceleration instruction is output.” ¶ 53. See also ¶ 59 and FIGS. 2B, 5A as to discussion on how the restriction positions 96 – representative of a virtual lane – are determined based on at least inter-vehicle distance (i.e., a length) and have a corresponding length.), and
the region of interest includes the driving region at least partly (“The inter-vehicle distance detection section 44 is configured to detect an inter-vehicle distance D between the vehicle 90 and the leading vehicle 92 based on a detection result of the radar 14.” ¶ 44.), and
determining the virtual lane based on the positional information of the preceding target vehicle (“The map illustrated in FIG. 5A is used to identify the restriction variability A used to derive the restriction positions 96 according to the inter-vehicle distance D.” ¶ 59 and FIG. 5A. See also ¶ 50 which ties the restriction positions 96 to virtual lane markings 94’, and see FIG. 2B illustrating that the restriction positions 96 define a virtual lane within a vehicle may travel; hence, the restriction positions 96 – determined based on at least positional information of one or more other vehicles – represent a virtual lane.).
The combination of Kobayashi and Chase fails to explicitly disclose: wherein a width of the driving channel corresponds to a predetermined vehicle width.
Nevertheless, Kim ’492 teaches: wherein a width of the driving channel corresponds to a predetermined vehicle width (“The electronic device 100 may estimate a first lane width 503 of a first lane on which the vehicle 500 is traveling, based on a distance between the first front vehicle 502 and the vehicle 500 and a vehicle width of the first front vehicle 502.” ¶ 77 and FIG. 5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi and Chase to include the feature of: wherein a width of the driving channel corresponds to a predetermined vehicle width, as taught by Kim ’492, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately estimating a lane on which the own vehicle is traveling.
The combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 fails to explicitly disclose:
determining a percentage of an overlap between the determined driving channel and a vehicle detected in the region of interest and preceding the ego-vehicle, and
determining that the preceding vehicle is driving on the same lane as the ego-vehicle and is a preceding target vehicle when the determined percentage of the overlap is above a predetermined value.
Nevertheless, Kim ’513 teaches:
determining a percentage of an overlap between the determined driving channel and a vehicle detected in the region of interest and preceding the ego-vehicle (“The route generation module 22 may generate a virtual lane formed by extension of a conventional lane (as shown in FIG. 4) …, and may generate a virtual route in a manner that the host vehicle can travel in the center of the virtual lane. Thereafter, the ECU 20 may calculate the position of a host vehicle in a virtual route and a direction angle of the host vehicle …, and may calculate a horizontal position about a virtual route of the preceding vehicle …. The ECU 20 may determine whether the preceding vehicle is traveling on the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range of a virtual route through a horizontal position about the calculated virtual route of the preceding vehicle. If the preceding vehicle travels in the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range, the ECU 20 may continuously perform the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control. During the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control process, if the preceding vehicle deviates from the generated virtual route by a predetermined horizontal distance (i.e., if the preceding vehicle deviates from the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range), the ECU 20 may deactivate the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control. In this case, a reference value of the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range may be set to the width of the last lane centering around a virtual route generated by the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range shown in FIG. 3.” ¶ 42 and FIGS. 3, 4.), and
determining that the preceding vehicle is driving on the same lane as the ego-vehicle and is a preceding target vehicle when the determined percentage of the overlap is above a predetermined value (See at least ¶ 42 and FIGS. 3, 4.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 to include the features of: determining a percentage of an overlap between the determined driving channel and a vehicle detected in the region of interest and preceding the ego-vehicle; and determining that the preceding vehicle is driving on the same lane as the ego-vehicle and is a preceding target vehicle when the determined percentage of the overlap is above a predetermined value, as taught by Kim ’513, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for improving upon a lane keeping assist system which incorporates preceding vehicle follower control, thereby improving vehicle safety. (See Kim ‘513, ¶ 2.)
Claim 4 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Chase, in view of Kim ’492 and in view of Kim ’513 as applied to claim 3 – further in view of Larsson (US20220306100A1; “Larsson”).
As to claim 4, Kobayashi discloses: wherein when it is determined that a preceding vehicle is still within a lane, repeating at least the steps of determining that a preceding vehicle is driving in the same lane as the ego-vehicle and determining a virtual lane (See at least FIG. 6 which illustrates that normal processing – including determination of a virtual lane – is repeated at the “RETURN” step. Examiner notes that the successful operation of Kobayashi requires that FIG. 6 is only functional when it is determined that a preceding vehicle is still within a lane as otherwise Kobayashi would not be functional.).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose: repeating the step of transmitting the instructions.
Nevertheless, Chase teaches: transmitting instructions to a human machine interface of the ego-vehicle vehicle to prompt a driver of the ego-vehicle to drive to a perceived center line of a lane (“The system 10 of the present disclosure … can create an ad hoc centerline …. In the case of a driven vehicle 100, guidance information can be provided on a Heads-Up display 122 to assist the driver, such as a calculated and/or suggested ad hoc centerline projected on the windshield or left/right guidance arrows.” ¶ 39.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kobayashi to include the feature of: transmitting instructions to a human machine interface of the ego-vehicle vehicle to prompt a driver of the ego-vehicle to drive to a perceived center line of a lane, as taught by Chase, to arrive at the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for assisting “in the safe and efficient operation of vehicles in response to unexpected and unpredicted situations or conditions on a roadway.” (Chase, ¶ 8.) Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to also repeat this step during Kobayashi’s repetition as Chase’s step would be part of normal processing of the combination of Kobayashi and Chase.
The combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 fails to explicitly disclose:
determining a percentage of overlap relationship to a predetermined value;
repeating the step of determining a percentage of overlap between the determined driving channel and the vehicle; and
wherein, when it is determined that the percentage of the overlap is equal to or below the further predetermined value, it is determined that the preceding vehicle is unsuitable for determining the virtual lane .
Nevertheless, Kim ’513 teaches: determining a percentage of overlap relationship to a predetermined value; and wherein, when it is determined that the percentage of the overlap is equal to or below the further predetermined value, it is determined that the preceding vehicle is unsuitable for determining the virtual lane (“The route generation module 22 may generate a virtual lane formed by extension of a conventional lane (as shown in FIG. 4) …, and may generate a virtual route in a manner that the host vehicle can travel in the center of the virtual lane. Thereafter, the ECU 20 may calculate the position of a host vehicle in a virtual route and a direction angle of the host vehicle …, and may calculate a horizontal position about a virtual route of the preceding vehicle …. The ECU 20 may determine whether the preceding vehicle is traveling on the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range of a virtual route through a horizontal position about the calculated virtual route of the preceding vehicle. If the preceding vehicle travels in the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range, the ECU 20 may continuously perform the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control. During the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control process, if the preceding vehicle deviates from the generated virtual route by a predetermined horizontal distance (i.e., if the preceding vehicle deviates from the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range), the ECU 20 may deactivate the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control. In this case, a reference value of the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range may be set to the width of the last lane centering around a virtual route generated by the preceding vehicle follower longitudinal control range shown in FIG. 3.” ¶ 42 and FIGS. 3, 4. Note: That is, when the preceding vehicle leaves the lane by a predetermined value, then the preceding vehicle itself is not used to generate a virtual lane anymore.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 to include the features of: determining a percentage of an overlap between the determined driving channel and a vehicle detected in the region of interest and preceding the ego-vehicle; and determining that the preceding vehicle is driving on the same lane as the ego-vehicle and is a preceding target vehicle when the determined percentage of the overlap is above a predetermined value, as taught by Kim ’513, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for improving upon a lane keeping assist system which incorporates preceding vehicle follower control, thereby improving vehicle safety. (See Kim ‘513, ¶ 2.) Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to also repeat this step during Kobayashi’s repetition as Kim ’513’s step would be part of normal processing of the combination of Kobayashi and Kim ’513.
The combination of Kobayashi, Chase, Kim ’492 and Kim ’513 fails to explicitly disclose:
determining that the percentage of the overlap is equal to or below the predetermined value and above a further predetermined value, and
repeating the claimed steps upon this determination,
wherein the further predetermined value is smaller than the predetermined value.
Nevertheless, Larsson teaches: determining that a percentage of the overlap is equal to or below the predetermined value and above a further predetermined value, wherein the further predetermined value is smaller than the predetermined value, and the vehicle is determined to still be in the lane upon said determination (“A respective bias region may, as in the example of FIG. 2B, extend along each of the lanes 21A, 21B, 21C in the longitudinal direction (x-axis). Each bias region may, as in the example shown in FIG. 2B, be defined by a lateral offset Δybias from the centre of the corresponding lane in the lateral direction (y-axis) such that the bias region of lane 21A is the region of the lane between edges 23A and 23B, the bias region of lane 21B is the region of the lane between edges 23C and 23D, the bias region of lane 21C is the region of the lane between edges 23E and 23F.” ¶ 74 and FIG. 2B. “The value of the lateral offset Δybias may be selected so as to represent an acceptable deviation from the lane centre (bias leeway) that a vehicle may have while still being considered to remain fully (safely) within the lane. In particular, in order to ensure safety, the host vehicle 1 should stay near the centre of a lane in which it is travelling unless the host vehicle 1 is switching lanes, and the lateral offset Δybias may be selected so as to represent the maximal lateral deviation from a centre of the lane the host vehicle 1 may appropriately have when not switching lanes.” ¶ 75 and FIG. 2B. Note: Here, the offsets representing the bias region are smaller than the lateral distance representing the lane boundaries.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase, Kim ’492 and Kim ’513 to include the features of: determining that a percentage of the overlap is equal to or below the predetermined value and above a further predetermined value, wherein the further predetermined value is smaller than the predetermined value, and the vehicle is determined to still be in the lane upon said determination, as taught by Larsson, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for more accurately determining a vehicle’s disposition within a lane, thereby enhancing lane keeping assist. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Larsson’s teaching would serve as a useful trigger for repeating the claimed steps because Larsson’s bias region serves the same purpose as the claimed invention’s further predetermined value in the sense that it indicates that a vehicle may still be in a lane although it has laterally moved. In addition, it would have been further obvious to recognize that determining a vehicle being within the bias region would analogize to Kobayashi’s determination that a preceding vehicle is within a lane, therefore providing further motivation to perform Kobayashi’s repetition of steps upon Larsson’s determination.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Chase and in view of Kim ’492 as applied to claim 2 – further in view of Han et al. (US20240265811A1; “Han”).
As to claim 5, the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 fails to explicitly disclose:
determining a lateral distance between each of the one or more other vehicles detected in the region of interest and the ego-vehicle based on the sensor data,
wherein the lateral distance includes a left lateral distance with respect to a left side of the ego-vehicle and a right lateral distance with respect to a right side of the ego-vehicle,
determining that a respective other vehicle is driving on a left neighboring lane with respect to the ego-vehicle and is a left target vehicle, when the determined left lateral distance thereof is above a predetermined threshold, and determining that a respective other vehicle is driving on a right neighboring lane with respect to the ego-vehicle and is a right target vehicle, when the determined right lateral distance thereof is above the predetermined threshold; and
determining the virtual lane based on the positional information of the left or right target vehicles on the left or right neighboring lanes respectively.
Nevertheless, Han teaches:
determining a lateral distance between each of the one or more other vehicles detected in the region of interest and the ego-vehicle based on the sensor data (“When the surrounding vehicle information is that moving vehicle is identified on the left side, it means that the moving vehicle is on the left side of the vehicle. When the identified lateral distance h between the moving vehicle in the left side and the current vehicle is greater than the second preset value, it means that the moving vehicle in the left side and the current vehicle are not in the same lane.” ¶ 76 and FIG. 5. See also ¶ 80 and FIG. 8 discussing the same processing for the right lane. See also ¶ 81 and FIG. 9 discussing performing the processing for both left and right lanes.),
wherein the lateral distance includes a left lateral distance with respect to a left side of the ego-vehicle and a right lateral distance with respect to a right side of the ego-vehicle (See at least ¶¶ 76, 80, 81 and FIGS. 8, 9.),
determining that a respective other vehicle is driving on a left neighboring lane with respect to the ego-vehicle and is a left target vehicle, when the determined left lateral distance thereof is above a predetermined threshold, and determining that a respective other vehicle is driving on a right neighboring lane with respect to the ego-vehicle and is a right target vehicle, when the determined right lateral distance thereof is above the predetermined threshold (See at least ¶¶ 76, 80, 81 and FIGS. 8, 9.); and
determining the virtual lane based on the positional information of the left or right target vehicles on the left or right neighboring lanes respectively (See at least ¶¶ 76, 80, 81 and FIGS. 8, 9. Examiner Note: Determining which lane the vehicle is in analogizes to determining a virtual lane because said determination is representative of a virtual representation of the current lane that the vehicle is traveling in.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 to include the above features as taught by Han with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for enhancing positioning of a vehicle and determining the position of surrounding vehicles, thereby enhancing lane keeping and virtual lane determination. (See at least Han, ¶¶ 3–4.)
As to claim 6, Kobayashi discloses: wherein determining the virtual lane includes determining a left or right delineation of the virtual lane (“The virtual lane marking setting section 58 is configured to set virtual lane markings 94′ in cases in which no lane markings 94 were recognized by the lane marking recognition section 56. For example, a lateral direction average position of the leading vehicle 92 within a specific time or a specific driving distance may be found, and virtual lane markings 94′ may be set at positions separated from the average position by a fixed distance in the left-right direction. When finding the average position of the leading vehicle 92, a specific portion of the leading vehicle 92, such as a rear face center …, may be detected.” ¶ 43 and FIG. 6; see also FIG. 2B.).
The combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 fails to explicitly disclose: performing the above determination based on the positional information of the left target vehicle or right target vehicle respectively.
Nevertheless, Han teaches: wherein determining the virtual lane includes determining a left or right delineation of the virtual lane based on the positional information of the left target vehicle or right target vehicle respectively (A “real lane” is determined based on lateral distance from left/right target vehicles.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 to include the feature of: determining the virtual lane includes determining a left or right delineation of the virtual lane based on the positional information of the left target vehicle or right target vehicle respectively, as taught by Han with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for enhancing positioning of a vehicle and determining the position of surrounding vehicles, thereby enhancing lane keeping and virtual lane determination. (See at least Han, ¶¶ 3–4.)
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Chase and in view of Kim ’492 as applied to claim 2 – further in view of Xiong et al. (WO2021042856A1; “Xiong”)
As to claim 7, Kobayashi discloses: wherein a center line of the virtual lane is determined based on a first preliminary center line, wherein the first preliminary center line is derived based on a detected preceding target vehicle (“The virtual lane marking setting section 58 is configured to set virtual lane markings 94′ in cases in which no lane markings 94 were recognized by the lane marking recognition section 56. For example, a lateral direction average position of the leading vehicle 92 within a specific time or a specific driving distance may be found, and virtual lane markings 94′ may be set at positions separated from the average position by a fixed distance in the left-right direction. When finding the average position of the leading vehicle 92, a specific portion of the leading vehicle 92, such as a rear face center …, may be detected.” ¶ 43 and FIG. 6; see also FIG. 2B. Note: Here, determining a virtual lane based on a center of a preceding vehicle analogizes to determining a center line based on a preceding target vehicle as the center necessarily represents a center line of the virtual lane.).
The combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the second preliminary center line is derived based on detected left or right target vehicles.
Nevertheless, Xiong teaches: wherein the second preliminary center line is derived based on detected left or right target vehicles (The “center line” of a road can be determined based on “surrounding vehicles” of which include vehicles on the left and/or right of the host vehicle. See ¶ 8 and FIG. 3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 to include the feature of: wherein the second preliminary center line is derived based on detected left or right target vehicles, as taught by Xiong, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining a center line of a road based on surrounding vehicles.
As to claim 9, Kobayashi discloses: wherein, when a preceding target vehicle is detected, the first preliminary center line of the virtual lane is determined based on a lateral distance between the preceding target vehicle and the ego-vehicle (“The virtual lane marking setting section 58 is configured to set virtual lane markings 94′ in cases in which no lane markings 94 were recognized by the lane marking recognition section 56. For example, a lateral direction average position of the leading vehicle 92 within a specific time or a specific driving distance may be found, and virtual lane markings 94′ may be set at positions separated from the average position by a fixed distance in the left-right direction. When finding the average position of the leading vehicle 92, a specific portion of the leading vehicle 92, such as a rear face center …, may be detected.” ¶ 43 and FIG. 6; see also FIG. 2B. Note: Here, determining a virtual lane based on a center of a preceding vehicle analogizes to determining a center line based on a preceding target vehicle as the center necessarily represents a center line of the virtual lane.).
The combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 fails to explicitly disclose: wherein, when a left target vehicle and a right target vehicle are detected, the second preliminary center line of the virtual lane is determined such that a lateral distance between the second preliminary center line and the left target vehicle equals a lateral distance between the second preliminary center line and the right target vehicle.
Nevertheless, Xiong teaches: wherein, when a left target vehicle and a right target vehicle are detected, the second preliminary center line of the virtual lane is determined such that a lateral distance between the second preliminary center line and the left target vehicle equals a lateral distance between the second preliminary center line and the right target vehicle (The “center line” of a road can be determined based on “surrounding vehicles” of which include vehicles on the left and/or right of the host vehicle. See ¶ 8 and FIG. 3. Note: FIG. 3 suggests that the center line of the host vehicle’s lane would be equidistant from the left and right vehicles.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 to include the feature of: wherein, when a left target vehicle and a right target vehicle are detected, the second preliminary center line of the virtual lane is determined such that a lateral distance between the second preliminary center line and the left target vehicle equals a lateral distance between the second preliminary center line and the right target vehicle, as taught by Xiong, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining a center line of a road based on surrounding vehicles.
Claim 8 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Chase, in view of Kim ’492 and in view of Xiong as applied to claim 7 – further in view of Nomura (US20200240795A1; “Nomura”).
As to claim 8, the combination of Kobayashi, Chase, Kim ’492 and Xiong fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the center line of the virtual lane is determined based on a mean or weighted mean value of the first preliminary center line and the second preliminary center line.
Nevertheless, Nomura teaches: wherein a center line is determined based on a mean of a first and a second center line (An “average centerline” may be obtained – see at least claim 5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase, Kim ’492 and Xiong to include the feature of: wherein a center line is determined based on a mean of a first and a second center line, as taught by Nomura, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining a center line of a road based on surrounding vehicles. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there would be a reasonable expectation of success to average Kobayashi’s and Xiong’s trajectories with Nomura’s averaging as (1) taking an average of trajectories to arrive at a final trajectory is well-known in the vehicle control arts; and (2) such would be useful for yielding the predictable result of determining an accurate center line.
Claim 10 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Chase, in view of Kim ’492 and in view of Xiong as applied to claim 7 – further in view of Kim ’513.
As to claim 10, The combination of Kobayashi, Chase, Kim ’492 and Xiong fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein a lane width of the virtual lane is determined such that the lane width equals a sum of the predetermined vehicle width, a left offset value and a right offset value, and
wherein the left offset value is determined based on the determined lateral distance between the ego-vehicle and the left target vehicle, or the left offset value is set equal to a predetermined value, or
wherein the right offset value is determined based on the determined lateral distance between the ego-vehicle and the right target vehicle, or
wherein the right offset value is set equal to a predetermined value.
Nevertheless, Kim ’513 teaches:
wherein a lane width of the virtual lane is determined such that the lane width equals a sum of the predetermined vehicle width, a left offset value and a right offset value (“The electronic device 100 may estimate a sum of the vehicle width of the first front vehicle 502 and a first value as the first lane width 503 of the first lane.” ¶ 79. Examiner Note: FIG.5 shows that the first value has left and right components, so the first value can be considered as representative of both left and right offset values.), and
wherein the left offset value is set equal to a predetermined value (See at least ¶ 79 and FIG. 5.), and
wherein the right offset value is set equal to a predetermined value (See at least ¶ 79 and FIG. 5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase, Kim ’492 and Xiong to include the features taught by Kim ’513 with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for determining the width of a virtual lane, thereby enhancing lane keeping.
Claim 11 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Chase and in view of Kim ’492 as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Torii et al. (US20160194003A1; “Torii”) and in view of Onica (US20160325740A1; “Onica”).
As to claim 11, the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 fails to explicitly disclose:
transmitting instructions to the human machine interface to output a question to the driver if the driver is willing to drive to a perceived center line of a lane, and
receiving an information of the human machine interface corresponding to an answer of the driver.
Nevertheless, Torii teaches:
transmitting instructions to the human machine interface to output a question to the driver if the driver is willing to drive to a perceived center line of a lane (“The HMI 5 includes, for example, a display panel for displaying the image information for the occupant, a speaker for the voice output, and an operation button or a touch panel for the occupant to perform the input operation. When an operation to operate or to stop the automatic travelling is input by the occupant, the HMI 5 starts or stops the automatic travelling by outputting a signal to the ECU 10.” ¶ 27. “The HMI 5 outputs a warning to prompt an input operation by the driver or a warning indicating a time delay until switching to the manual travelling starts. For example, the HMI 5 outputs a warning to prompt the driver to return the lateral position of the vehicle V to the center of the travelling lane 31 in the lane width direction.” ¶ 28.), and
receiving an information of the human machine interface corresponding to an answer of the driver (See at least ¶¶ 27-28.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase and Kim ’492 to include the features of: transmitting instructions to the human machine interface to output a question to the driver if the driver is willing to drive to a perceived center line of a lane; and receiving an information of the human machine interface corresponding to an answer of the driver, as taught by Torii, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining a driver’s intention and aiding in lane keeping.
The combination of Kobayashi, Chase, Kim ’492 and Torii fails to explicitly disclose: transmitting, when the received information corresponds to a positive answer, instructions to the human machine interface to prompt the driver to confirm that the driver has driven to the perceived center line of the lane.
Nevertheless, Onica teaches: transmitting instructions to the human machine interface to prompt the driver to confirm that a vehicle control has been performed (“The processing unit 9-1 can e.g. display questions to the driver about … an action performed by the driver assistance system 3-1. This can e.g. be done right after the action is performed by the driver assistance system 3-1.” ¶ 43.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Chase, Kim ’492 and Torii to include the feature of: transmitting instructions to the human machine interface to prompt the driver to confirm that a vehicle control has been performed, as taught by Onica, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing a more versatile and flexible driver assistance system. (See Onica, ¶¶ 2-11.) Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Onica’s prompt can be performed after a driver has driven to the center lane as performed in Torii – the foregoing enables confirmation that a vehicle has indeed been driven to a center lane and that subsequent processing such as lane keeping can be performed.
CONCLUSION
This action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights