DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/774,543 filed on July 30, 2026 in which claims 1, 19, 28, and 29 were amended; claims 18 and 30 were cancelled; and claim 31 was added.
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 30, 2026 has been entered.
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
Claims 1, 2, 4-17, 19-29, and 31 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-16, 19-26, 28, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota, US Publication 2024/0375654 (hereinafter Hirota), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated January 5, 2026, in view of Yahui, US Publication 2022/0314978.
Regarding claim 1, Hirota discloses an autonomous control system of a vehicle, the autonomous control system comprising “a first sensor to detect a left lane line and a right lane line of a traffic lane when the vehicle is traveling along the traffic lane” (Hirota ¶ 36) where the GNSS receiving part is used to detect the white lines as the lane boundaries. As shown in Fig. 2A, which is the image used to determine the white lines, there is both a left lane line and a right lane line. Additionally, Hirota discloses “a second sensor to detect an object located within the traffic lane or at a distance from the vehicle that is less than a predetermined distance threshold” (Hirota ¶ 78) where the ahead vehicle’s location may be obtained via radar or LIDAR and is in the same lane. Further, Hirota discloses “one or more computer-readable media storing instructions.” (Hirota ¶ 81). Moreover, Hirota discloses “when executed by one or more processors, cause the system to: process first image data captured by the first sensor to determine locations of the left lane line and the right lane line of the traffic lane” (Hirota ¶ 36) as discussed above. Likewise, Hirota discloses “generate a first control signal based on the determined locations of the left lane line and the right lane line, wherein the first control signal causes the vehicle to follow a vehicle trajectory between the left lane line and the right lane line” (Hirota ¶¶ 40-41) by determining to follow the preceding vehicle along a trajectory through the center of the lane. Hirota also discloses “process second data captured by the second sensor to determine an object location and compute an object trajectory” (Hirota ¶ 48) by determining the location and traveling direction of the vehicle. In addition, Hirota discloses “generate a second control signal based on at least one of the object location and the object trajectory, wherein the second control signal causes the vehicle to modify at a vehicle velocity” (Hirota ¶ 74) by performing a vehicle speed control (i.e., modifying the vehicle velocity). Finally, discloses “wherein modifying the vehicle trajectory comprises: … maintaining the vehicle trajectory between the left lane line and the right lane line” (Hirota ¶ 74) where the speed control does not adjust the steering and, thus, the vehicle trajectory between the left and right lane would be maintained.
Hirota does not appear to explicitly disclose “generate a second control signal based on at least one of the object location and the object trajectory, wherein the second control signal causes the vehicle to modify at least one-the vehicle trajectory” or “wherein modifying the vehicle trajectory comprises: increasing a distance between the vehicle and the object by adjusting a lateral position of the vehicle.”
However, Yahui at least teaches or suggests an autonomous control system of a vehicle, the autonomous control system comprising “a first sensor to detect a left lane line and a right lane line of a traffic lane when the vehicle is traveling along the traffic lane” (Yahui ¶¶ 28, 31) where camera 31A extracts a lane division line and then later giving examples requiring the detection of both right and left lane lines. Additionally, Yahui discloses “a second sensor to detect an object located within the traffic lane or at a distance from the vehicle that is less than a predetermined distance threshold” (Yahui ¶ 29) where detection unit 32A detects objects around the vehicle. Yahui shows that the object may be “within the traffic lane.” (Yahui Fig. 6B, see also ¶ 45). Further, Yahui discloses “one or more computer-readable media storing instructions.” (Yahui ¶ 26). Moreover, Yahui at least teaches and/or suggests “instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the system to: process first image data captured by the first sensor to determine locations of the left lane line and the right lane line of the traffic lane” (Yahui ¶¶ 28, 31) by disclosing that the system detects lane lines and then later giving examples requiring the detection of both right and left lane lines. Likewise, Yahui discloses “generate a first control signal based on the determined locations of the left lane line and the right lane line, wherein the first control signal causes the vehicle to follow a vehicle trajectory between the left lane line and the right lane line” (Yahui ¶¶ 27-28, 42-43) where ECU 21 uses the camera and detection unit to detect the surrounding information, including the lane lines, (Yahui ¶¶ 27-28), which is then passed to ECU 20 to calculate a vehicle trajectory (Yahui ¶¶ 42-43), which includes lane deviation suppression (i.e., the vehicle trajectory is between the left and right lane, Yahui ¶ 27). Yahui also discloses “process second data captured by the second sensor to determine an object location and compute an object trajectory” (Yahui ¶ 44) by predicting the movement 601 (i.e., the trajectory) of object 600. As discussed previously, this may be performed by the detection unit 32A of ECU 21, which passes the information to ECU 20 to perform this calculation. Finally, Yahui discloses “generate a second control signal based on at least one of the object location and the object trajectory, wherein the second control signal causes the vehicle to modify the vehicle trajectory, wherein modifying the vehicle trajectory comprises: increasing a distance between the vehicle and the object by adjusting a lateral position of the vehicle; and maintaining the vehicle within the left lane line and the right lane line” (Yahui ¶ 42, 54, Fig. 7A) where the object may be a signboard, which is understood in the art to be stationary (Yahui ¶ 42) and ECU 20 calculates collision avoidance operations including a shifting rightward (i.e., modifying the trajectory by increase a lateral distance between vehicle V and the stationary object, Yahui ¶ 54) while maintaining in-lane travel (Yahui Fig. 7A).
Hirota and Yahui are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of autonomous vehicle control.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hirota and Yahui before him or her to modify the autonomous vehicle control of Yahui to include the lane change suppression feature of Hirota.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the lane change suppression would improve the safety of the system by reducing the risk of the vehicle pulling in front of traffic in other lanes.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein following the vehicle trajectory between the left lane line and the right lane line comprises controlling one or more vehicle control systems selected from the following: a steering control system, an acceleration control system, and a braking control system” (Hirota ¶¶ 40-41) where the following zone is a curved section, which requires the use of a steering control system in order to follow the vehicle. Additionally, Yahui ¶ 27 discloses that the lane deviation suppression system controls at least a steering control system and a braking control system.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein modifying the vehicle trajectory comprises controlling one or more vehicle control systems selected from the following: a steering control system, an acceleration control system, and a braking control system” (Hirota ¶ 74) where performing an acceleration control system is used. Additionally, Yahui ¶ 45 discloses that the vehicle trajectory is modified by controlling the braking system.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein the instructions cause the system to compute a tolerance zone extending from one or both sides of the vehicle trajectory” (Hirota ¶ 41) where a tolerance zone of 1.5 meters extends from the center line, which is the vehicle trajectory.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein the width of the tolerance zone is less than or equal to the width between the left lane line and the right lane line” (Hirota Fi, 7A) where the 1.5 meters is shown to be half (i.e., less than or equal to) the distance between the left and right lane.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein following the vehicle trajectory comprises remaining within the tolerance zone extending from the vehicle trajectory” (Hirota Figs. 7A-7D) by giving several examples showing the vehicle trajectory remaining within the tolerance zone.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on a proximity between the object trajectory and at least one of the left lane line or the right lane line” (Hirota ¶¶ 71, 77, Fig. 7E) by giving an example where the trajectory of the preceding vehicle extends more than 1.5 meters from the center line and further indicating that this may be measured from the left or right lane markings.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on a proximity between the object and at least one of the left lane line or the right lane line” (Hirota ¶ 51, see also Hirota ¶ 77) where an object is determined to be a vehicle ahead, and thus to be followed, when the perpendicular distance of the vehicle is within a threshold value. The perpendicular distance represents the distance between the vehicle and the center of the lane, and is thus a representation of proximity to the lane lines on the right and left side.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on a proximity between the object trajectory and the tolerance zone” (Hirota ¶¶ 71, Fig. 7E) by giving an example where the trajectory of the preceding vehicle extends more than 1.5 meters from the center line.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on a proximity between the object and the tolerance zone” (Hirota ¶ 67) by determining that the vehicle ahead has deviated more than 1.5 meters from the centerline (i.e., the tolerance zone).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on a proximity between the object trajectory and at least one of the vehicle or the vehicle trajectory” (Hirota ¶¶ 54-55) where the object detection is based on the relative speed and direction (i.e., trajectory) of the vehicle ahead and the speed and direction of the current vehicle (i.e., the vehicle trajectory). Additionally, Yahui ¶ 42 discloses that the second control signal is based on a distance (i.e., proximity) between the object trajectory and the vehicle trajectory.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on a proximity between the object and at least one of the vehicle or the vehicle trajectory” (Hirota ¶ 30) where the control signal is based on the distance (i.e., proximity) between the vehicle ahead (i.e., the object) and the host vehicle (i.e., the vehicle). Additionally, Yahui ¶ 42 discloses that the second control signal is based on a distance (i.e., proximity) between the object and the vehicle trajectory.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on determining that a computed distance between the vehicle and the object is less than a distance threshold” (Hirota ¶ 60) where the object detection is based on the vehicle ahead (i.e., the object) being within 80 meters (i.e., less than a distance threshold) of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein the instructions cause the system to increase the distance by an amount that delays an intersection between the object trajectory and the vehicle trajectory” (Hirota ¶ 74) by reducing the power to the engine to perform a speed control, which increases the distance between the vehicle and the object, which naturally delays a collision (i.e., an intersection between the object trajectory and the vehicle trajectory).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein the instructions cause the system to generate at least one of an audible driver alert or a visual driver alert” (Hirota ¶ 74) by providing an alert sound (i.e., an audible driver alert).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein computing the object trajectory comprises tracking the object as it passes from a field of view of the first sensor to a field of view of the second sensor” (Hirota ¶ 78) where both sensors are mounted facing ahead and thus track objects in between the field of view of each senor.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein computing the object trajectory comprises tracking the object as it passes from a field of view of the second sensor to a field of view of the first sensor” (Hirota ¶ 78) where both sensors are mounted facing ahead and thus track objects in between the field of view of each senor.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein the vehicle is a first vehicle and the object is a second vehicle.” (Hirota ¶ 27).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein the second sensor is an optical sensor.” (Hirota ¶ 78). Additionally, Yahui ¶ 29 discloses that a LiDAR device is an optical sensor.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein the second sensor is a LiDAR sensor.” (Hirota ¶ 78, see also, Yahui ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein the second sensor is a radar sensor.” (Hirota ¶ 78).
Regarding claim 28, it merely recites the method performed by the system of claim 1. The method comprises performing the various functions. The combination of Hirota and Yahui comprises computer software modules that performing the same functions. Thus, claim 28 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, it merely recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for performing the method of claim 28. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Hirota and Yahui comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 29 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 28.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses “wherein adjusting the lateral position is based on the object trajectory computed from the second data captured by the second sensor” (Yahui ¶¶ 44-45) where the collision avoidance calculation, including the lateral adjustment, is based on the movement 601 of the object. As discussed above, this is based on data captured by the second sensor.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Yahui, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hu, US Publication 2023/0237908 (hereinafter Hu), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated January 5, 2026.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein computing the object trajectory comprises computing a confidence metric associated with the object trajectory.”
However, Hu discloses a vehicle navigation system that computes an object trajectory “wherein computing the object trajectory comprises computing a confidence metric associated with the object trajectory” (Hu ¶ 10) by calculating that the object trajectory has more than a minimum confidence.
Hirota, Yahui, and Hu are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of autonomous vehicle navigation.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hirota, Yahui, and Hu before him or her to modify the object trajectory calculation of Hirota and Yahui to include the confidence value of Hu.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the use of confidence values produces more accurate results.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hirota, Yahui, and Hu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota, Yahui, and Hu discloses “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on determining the confidence metric associated with the object trajectory meets a confidence threshold” (Hu ¶ 10) by calculating that the object trajectory has more than a minimum confidence.
Claims 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Yahui, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jain et al., US Publication 2022/0076032 (hereinafter Jain), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated January 5, 2026.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on a proximity between the object and a blind-spot region located adjacent to the vehicle.”
However, Jain discloses a lane monitoring system that generates signals to the driver “wherein generation of the second control signal is based on a proximity between the object and a blind-spot region located adjacent to the vehicle” (Jain ¶ 162) by alerting the driver (i.e., generating a second control signal) when an object is in (i.e., based on a proximity) the vehicle’s blind spot.
Hirota, Yahui, and Jain are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of lane monitoring systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hirota, Yahui, and Jain before him or her to modify the collision detection of Hirota and Yahui to include the blind spot monitoring of Jain.
The motivation for doing so would have been that blind spot monitoring is well-known in the art to reduce the risk of collisions.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Hirota and Yahui discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Yahui does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the second sensor is a sonar sensor.”
However, Jain discloses a lane monitoring system using a variety of sensors “wherein the second sensor is a sonar sensor.” (Jain ¶ 27).
Hirota, Yahui, and Jain are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of lane monitoring systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hirota, Yahui, and Jain before him or her to modify the sensors of Hirota and Yahui to include the sonar sensor of Jain.
The motivation for doing so would have been that sonar is well-known in the art to be a cheaper distance measuring system, thus reducing the cost of the overall system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed July 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Remarks 10-12) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Hecht et al., US Publication 2024/0282121, System and method for avoiding potholes that prioritizes staying within the lane boundaries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights