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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to independent claim 1, Applicant argues Tamura (US 20220315043) appears not to disclose the control unit configuration steps. In particular, Applicant argues, in Tamura the purpose of determining whether the recognized road lane markings are parallel on both sides is to determine whether there is an error in second map information, and it is evaluated “only to decide whether map information is erroneous”, and not to provide a notification of a hands-on request and recited in claim 1. Applicant argues there is no disclosure in Tamura of prompting the driver because lane boundaries are non-parallel. Applicant argues, according to the Office’s interpretation, the driver is prompted to grip the steering wheel when only lane markings on one side are recognized, but does not establish how Tamura teaches a hands off continuation process to continue the hands off state or provide a hands on request. Applicant argues that Tamura appears to only disclose a determination not to continue a hands off state, but not control to continue a hands off state or provide a notification of a hands on request. Applicant argues that Tamura’s transitioning between driving modes A and B do not teach the recited hands-off continuation determination process because both driving modes do not require a hands-on state and are not to either continue the control of the hands off state or provide a notification for a hands on state. Applicant argues that Tamura’s [0074] does not teach both the speed condition and the distance condition as recited in the claim, and at best only a distance condition is taught. Therefore, Applicant concludes that Tamura fails to teach independent claim 1 and the rejection should be withdrawn.
However, as a first matter of fact the claim at no point recites performing any sort of prompting of the driver, let alone any sort of prompting “because” lane boundaries are non-parallel. Instead the claim recites only that “when” lane boundaries are non-parallel, prompting could be performed, which is significantly broader than what is argued by the Applicant. The claim language allows for, for example, merely coincidental timing of when the lanes happen to be non-parallel, prompting to occur, but does not restrict to “because”. If the Applicant firmly believes this feature to be an important part of their invention, the Examiner strongly encourages them to actually amend the claims, rather than arguing for features the claims simply do not reflect.
Nonetheless, Tamura still quite comfortably teaches this narrower view of the limitations as suggested by the Applicant. Tamura, as readily pointed to by the Applicant teaches at least in [0072] that when recognized road lane markings on both sides are not parallel, there is an error determined and the vehicle changes modes from mode B to mode C. Then, as clearly stated in the disclosure and the previous Office Action, at least in [0063] when in mode C and the driver does not have their hands on the wheel, a prompt is given to the driver to grip the wheel and end a hands off state. This is precisely determining whether to continue a hands off state based on a parallel lane line state, at least by determining that the hands off state should not be continued, which is precisely what is required by the claim. While this certainly may include the purpose of recognizing error as helpfully suggested by the Applicant, this still explicitly includes prompting the driver to grip a steering wheel when determining not to continue the hands off state and is not evaluated in isolation disregarding the remaining disclosure of the reference, as the Applicant appears to suggest would be preferred. Then, when solely lane markings on one side are recognized, as further discussed in [0072], a determination is made not to continue a hands off state and the vehicle is transitioned to mode C, and once again a prompt to grip the steering wheel is given to the driver, which is a determination made to provide the notification of the hands on request when at least one of the boundaries fails to be recognized. This is again precisely what is required by the claim as the claim does not require determining both options of continuing a hands-off state or prompting a hands-on state, but only that a determination be made to select one of these options. Next, as established in [0057] when the vehicle travels below a threshold speed, driving mode A may be operated, and in [0074] a traveling mode may not be switched when a preceding vehicle within a distance is recognized even when other errors may be found, which is a determination that the vehicle, when in mode A below the threshold speed, determines a preceding vehicle to follow within a threshold distance, to continue a hands off state. This once again is what is required by the claim. Even were mode A to mode B transitions not to require a hands on state, there is still a determination that a hands-off state is continued.
As such, these arguments are unpersuasive.
In regards to independent claim 3, Applicant argues similar features are not taught as argued above in regards to claim 1. Applicant argues that Tamura’s [0074] fails to teach the continuation of hands off state or notification for a hands on state determination based on both a boundary line condition and a distance condition and [0051] only generally teaches recognizing a traveling lane by comparing road lane markings including solid and broken lines, but not as a condition for continuing hands off driving. Therefore, Applicant concludes Tamura does not teach each and every limitation of independent claim 3 and the rejection should be withdrawn.
However, at least the same explanation in regards to claim 1 applies to claim 3 as well. Further, Tamura teaches at least in [0074], when a preceding vehicle is recognized as being within a first predetermined distance, hands-off driving mode B may be continued even when at least one lane boundary is not recognized, where [0051] establishes lane recognition of broken lines, which are dashed lane lines, which necessarily includes recognition of a broken lane line, misrecognition of the broken lane line, recognition of a solid lane line, and misrecognition of a solid lane line. As such, for largely the same reasons as above, this makes a determination to continue a hands off state when remaining in mode B and discontinue a hands of state when transitioning to mode C, which is again what is required by the claim.
As such, this argument too is unpersuasive.
In regards to independent claim 5, Applicant argues similar features are not taught as argued above in regards to claims 1 and 3. Applicant argues Tamura and Raveh (US 20220080997) do not teach the claim as a whole. In particular, Applicant argues that even if Raveh teaches that lane lines may be obscured by obstructions including other vehicles, Raveh cannot teach all of the features of the final limitation of the claim, which has been conceded by the Office is not taught by Tamura. Applicant argues, Raveh only teaches uncertainty based on occlusion, but not the recited apply a travel trajectory of the preceding vehicle as an alternative indicator of lane boundaries and the subsequent operations. Therefore, Applicant argues, Tamura and Raveh, alone or in combination, fail to teach each and every feature of claim 5 and the rejection should be withdrawn.
However, at least the same explanation in regards to claim 1 applies to claim 5 as well. Further, the rejection is not of Tamura and Raveh in isolation, but instead that Tamura, as modified by Raveh teaches the claim as a whole including each and every limitation. As explained in the previous rejection Tamura teaches determining that a vector of the trajectory of the preceding vehicle is parallel with recognized lane line and determine to track the preceding vehicle, and continuing hands-off driving mode B when the preceding vehicle is within a predetermined distance, even when an error is determined including at least one lane line being unrecognized or misrecognized. Raveh then teaches that lane lines may be obscured by obstructions including other vehicles, which may cause uncertainty in the lane line determinations. By the combination of these references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Tamura, by incorporating the teachings of Raveh, such that in particular a determination is made that a lane line is obscured by another vehicle, which is then further used in the vehicle control operations of Tamura. Tamura already tracks a vehicle, but lacks solely doing this based upon vehicle obscured lane markings. This is all that is required to arrive at the claim as a whole, and as such this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency and therefore their rejections should be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tamura et al. (US 20220315043).
In regards to claim 1, Tamura teaches a vehicle control device for a vehicle capable of autonomous driving and manual driving, comprising: (Figs 1, 2, 3, vehicle capable of autonomous driving and manual driving in modes A-E.)
a surroundings information recognition unit configured to acquire, in a direction of travel of the vehicle, left and right lane boundaries of a lane in which the vehicle is traveling, and recognize information about surroundings of the vehicle; ([0034]-[0037] camera, radar, and LiDAR may be combined to image the area in front of and around the vehicle, [0051], [0072] including recognizing a lane and lane boundaries on both sides of the vehicle.)
a notification unit configured to provide a notification of a hands-on request for switching from a hands-off state, in which a driver of the vehicle has no hands on a steering wheel during autonomous driving being performed, to a hands-on state, in which the driver has at least one hand on the steering wheel; ([0063] driver may be prompted to grip the steering wheel when transitioning from a hands off state to a hands on state using the human machine interface, for example when transitioning between autonomous modes B and C.) and
a control determination unit configured to determine controls for the vehicle according to a result of recognition by the surroundings information recognition unit, wherein ([0072]-[0075] determiner determines operations for the vehicle based on recognized surroundings including whether to transition between driving modes and hands on or hands off states.)
the control determination unit is configured to determine the control to continue the hands-off state when the left and right lane boundaries acquired by the surroundings information recognition unit are parallel to each other in the hands-off state, and to determine the control to provide the notification of the hands-on request when the left and right lane boundaries are not parallel to each other in the hands-off state, ([0072] when the recognized lane markings are determined not to be parallel, the determiner determines there is an error and transitions the driving mode of the vehicle from hands-off driving mode B to hands-on driving mode C, otherwise, when the road markings in the sensor information and the map information match and are parallel, the driving mode is continued. [0063] driver is prompted to grip the steering wheel when transitioning from a hands off state to a hands on state using the human machine interface.)
the control determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the hands-off state when at least one of the lane boundaries fails to be recognized by the surroundings information recognition unit, and then perform a hands-off continuation determination process to determine either the control to continue the hands-off state or the control to provide the notification of the hands-on request, ([0072] when only lane markings on one side are recognized, a determination is made not to continue a hands-off state and the vehicle is transitioned to mode C, and [0063] a prompt to grip the steering wheel is given to the driver through the human machine interface. This is a determination made to provide the notification of the hands-on request made when at least one of the lane boundaries fails to be recognized.) and
the control determination unit is configured to, in the hands-off continuation determination process, determine the control to continue the hands-off state when a speed of the vehicle is lower than a predefined first speed threshold and a vehicle-to-vehicle distance from the vehicle to a preceding vehicle is less than a predefined first distance threshold. ([0057] when in driving mode A, the vehicle operates automatically based on the presence of a preceding vehicle while traveling at or below a threshold speed, which when these conditions are not met, the driving mode may be switched from mode A to mode B, where both driving modes A and B do not require a hands-on state. [0074] when the determiner recognizes a preceding vehicle within a predetermined distance, even when errors are determined, the traveling mode may not be switched from mode B to mode C. As such, when initially traveling within driving mode A and B, the vehicle may not be transitioned to a hands-on mode even when only one lane boundary is recognized by following the vehicle in front of the own vehicle provided the preceding vehicle is present, as explained in regards to mode B as being within a predetermined distance, and traveling below a predetermined speed as explained within mode A, when both these conditions are true, mode A is continued and a hands-off state is continued.)
In regards to claim 2, Tamura teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, further comprising an imaging device configured to capture images of surroundings ahead of the vehicle, ([0034]-[0037] camera, radar, and LiDAR may be combined to image the area in front of and around the vehicle, [0051], [0072] including recognizing a lane and lane boundaries on both sides of the vehicle.)
the surroundings information recognition unit is configured to acquire the lane boundaries from the images captured by the imaging device. ([0034]-[0037] camera, radar, and LiDAR may be combined to image the area in front of and around the vehicle, [0051], [0072] including recognizing a lane and lane boundaries on both sides of the vehicle.)
In regards to claim 3, Tamura teaches a vehicle control device for a vehicle capable of autonomous driving and manual driving, comprising: (Figs 1, 2, 3, vehicle capable of autonomous driving and manual driving in modes A-E.)
a surroundings information recognition unit configured to acquire, in a direction of travel of the vehicle, left and right lane boundaries of a lane in which the vehicle is traveling, and recognizes information about surroundings of the vehicle; ([0034]-[0037] camera, radar, and LiDAR may be combined to image the area in front of and around the vehicle, [0051], [0072] including recognizing a lane and lane boundaries on both sides of the vehicle.)
a notification unit configured to provide a notification of a hands-on request for switching from a hands-off state, in which a driver of the vehicle has no hands on a steering wheel during autonomous driving being performed, to a hands-on state, in which the driver has at least one hand on the steering wheel; ([0063] driver may be prompted to grip the steering wheel when transitioning from a hands off state to a hands on state using the human machine interface, for example when transitioning between autonomous modes B and C.) and
a control determination unit configured to determine controls for the vehicle according to a result of recognition by the surroundings information recognition unit, wherein ([0072]-[0075] determiner determines operations for the vehicle based on recognized surroundings including whether to transition between driving modes and hands on or hands off states.)
the control determination unit is configured to determine the control to continue the hands-off state when the left and right lane boundaries acquired by the surroundings information recognition unit are parallel to each other in the hands-off state, and determine the control to provide the notification of the hands-on request when the left and right lane boundaries are not parallel to each other in the hands-off state, ([0072] when the recognized lane markings are determined not to be parallel, the determiner determines there is an error and transitions the driving mode of the vehicle from hands-off driving mode B to hands-on driving mode C, otherwise, when the road markings in the sensor information and the map information match and are parallel, the driving mode is continued. [0063] driver is prompted to grip the steering wheel when transitioning from a hands off state to a hands on state using the human machine interface.)
the control determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the hands-off state when at least one of the lane boundaries fails to be recognized by the surroundings information recognition unit, and then perform a hands-off continuation determination process to determine either the control to continue the hands-off state or the control to provide the notification of the hands-on request, ([0072] when only lane markings on one side are recognized, a determination is made not to continue a hands-off state and the vehicle is transitioned to mode C, and [0063] a prompt to grip the steering wheel is given to the driver through the human machine interface. This is a determination made to provide the notification of the hands-on request made when at least one of the lane boundaries fails to be recognized.) and
the control determination unit is configured to, in the hands-off continuation determination process, determine the control to continue the hands-off state when at least one of the lane boundaries is recognized by the surroundings information recognition unit as being a dashed line and a vehicle-to-vehicle distance from the vehicle to a preceding vehicle is less than a predefined second distance threshold. ([0074] when a preceding vehicle is recognized as being within a first predetermined distance, hands-off driving mode B may be continued even when at least one lane boundary is not recognized, including [0051] lane recognition of broken lines, which are dashed lane lines, which necessarily includes recognition of a broken lane line, misrecognition of the broken lane line, recognition of a solid lane line, and misrecognition of a solid lane line.)
In regards to claim 4, Tamura teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 3.
Claim 4 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura, in view of Raveh et al. (US 20220080997).
In regards to claim 5, Tamura teaches a vehicle control device for a vehicle capable of autonomous driving and manual driving, comprising: (Figs 1, 2, 3, vehicle capable of autonomous driving and manual driving in modes A-E.)
a surroundings information recognition unit configured to acquire, in a direction of travel of the vehicle, left and right lane boundaries of a lane in which the vehicle is traveling, and recognizes information about surroundings of the vehicle; ([0034]-[0037] camera, radar, and LiDAR may be combined to image the area in front of and around the vehicle, [0051], [0072] including recognizing a lane and lane boundaries on both sides of the vehicle.)
a notification unit configured to provide a notification of a hands-on request for switching from a hands-off state, in which a driver of the vehicle has no hands on a steering wheel during autonomous driving being performed, to a hands-on state, in which the driver has at least one hand on the steering wheel; ([0063] driver may be prompted to grip the steering wheel when transitioning from a hands off state to a hands on state using the human machine interface, for example when transitioning between autonomous modes B and C.) and
a control determination unit configured to determine controls for the vehicle according to a result of recognition by the surroundings information recognition unit, wherein ([0072]-[0075] determiner determines operations for the vehicle based on recognized surroundings including whether to transition between driving modes and hands on or hands off states.)
the control determination unit is configured to determine the control to continue the hands-off state when the left and right lane boundaries acquired by the surroundings information recognition unit are parallel to each other in the hands-off state, and to determine the control to provide a notification of the hands-on request when the left and right lane boundaries are not parallel to each other in the hands-off state, ([0072] when the recognized lane markings are determined not to be parallel, the determiner determines there is an error and transitions the driving mode of the vehicle from hands-off driving mode B to hands-on driving mode C, otherwise, when the road markings in the sensor information and the map information match and are parallel, the driving mode is continued. [0063] driver is prompted to grip the steering wheel when transitioning from a hands off state to a hands on state using the human machine interface.)
the control determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the hands-off state when at least one of the lane boundaries fails to be recognized by the surroundings information recognition unit, and then perform a hands-off continuation determination process to determine either the control to continue the hands-off state or the control to provide the notification of the hands-on request, ([0072] when only lane markings on one side are recognized, a determination is made not to continue a hands-off state and the vehicle is transitioned to mode C, and [0063] a prompt to grip the steering wheel is given to the driver through the human machine interface. This is a determination made to provide the notification of the hands-on request made when at least one of the lane boundaries fails to be recognized.) and
the control determination unit is configured to, in the hands-off continuation determination process, apply a travel trajectory of the preceding vehicle as an alternative indicator of the one of the lane boundaries obscured by the preceding vehicle, and then determine the control to continue the hands-off state when the travel trajectory of the preceding vehicle and a remaining one of the lane boundaries are parallel to each other. ([0073], [0074] vehicle may determine that vector of the trajectory of the preceding vehicle is parallel with recognized lane line and determine to track the preceding vehicle, continuing hands-off driving mode B when the preceding vehicle is within a predetermined distance, even when an error is determined including at least one lane line being unrecognized or misrecognized.)
Tamura does not teach:
the control determination unit is configured to, in the hands-off continuation determination process, when the surroundings information recognition unit recognizes that one of the lane boundaries is obscured by a preceding vehicle, apply a travel trajectory of the preceding vehicle as an alternative indicator of the one of the lane boundaries obscured by the preceding vehicle, and then determine the control to continue the hands-off state when the travel trajectory of the preceding vehicle and a remaining one of the lane boundaries are parallel to each other.
However, Raveh teaches that lane lines may be obscured by obstructions including other vehicles, which may cause uncertainty in the lane line determinations ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Tamura, by incorporating the teachings of Raveh, such that in particular a determination is made that a lane line is obscured by another vehicle, which is then further used in the vehicle control operations of Tamura.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Raveh, this allows for determining uncertainty in lane lines, which allows for improved tracking of lanes and therefore improved control of the vehicle ([0002]).
In regards to claim 6, Tamura, as modified by Raveh, teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 5.
Claim 6 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tamura et al. (US 20220315044) teaches transitioning between driving modes with different driver hands-on requirements.
Kim (US 20220204014) teaches issuing a warning when a hands-off state of a driver of a vehicle is detected and conditions are met.
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 MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights