DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/774,543 filed on April 6, 2026 in which claims 1, 18, 28, and 29 were amended, claim 3 was cancelled, and claim 30 was added.
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, and 4-30 are pending, of which claims 18, 19, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and claims 1, 2, and 4-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18, 19, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, this claim states “wherein modifying the vehicle trajectory comprises: increasing a distance between the vehicle and the object; and maintaining the vehicle trajectory between within the left lane line and the right lane line.”
Parent claim 1 was additionally amended to explicitly recite that the vehicle trajectory must be modified and explicitly removed the option to only modify the vehicle velocity. Further, Applicant explicitly states in the present remarks that modifying the vehicle velocity is not the same as modifying the trajectory. (Remarks 11). Thus, this limitation of claim 1 cannot be understood to be interpreted in any manner that is merely a modification of velocity without also modifying the trajectory under the doctrine of prosecution estoppel.
However, the definition of a trajectory modification in claim 18 is merely a change in velocity. For instance, when a vehicle slows down (i.e., changes its velocity) to avoid a collision with a preceding vehicle, that vehicle is “increasing a distance between the vehicle and the object” and “maintaining the vehicle trajectory between within the left lane line and the right lane line.” Specifically, the “maintaining” limitation does not require any change in trajectory because the plain and ordinary meaning of “maintain” is to keep in an existing state.
Therefore, claim 18 now contradicts parent claim 1, rending this claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 19 and 30, these claims depend from claim 18 and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
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, 18-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota, US Publication 2024/0375654 (hereinafter Hirota) in view of Awathe et al., US Publication 2024/0383479 (hereinafter Awathe), each cited on the Notice of References Cited dated January 5, 2026.
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. Finally, 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).
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 one4-the vehicle trajectory.”
However, Awathe 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” (Awathe ¶ 18) where camera 14b may be used to detect lane markings. Additionally, Awathe 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” (Awathe ¶ 19) where the radar sensors may detect objects in front of the vehicle. Further, Awathe discloses “one or more computer-readable media storing 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” (Awathe ¶ 29) by extrapolating the lane marks from the image data obtained from the front camera module. Moreover, Awathe discloses “process second data captured by the second sensor to determine an object location and compute an object trajectory” (Awathe ¶ 25) where the radar sensor is used to locate objects near the vehicle.
Finally, Awathe 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” (Awathe ¶¶ 25, 44) where the ADAS system performs a lane change operation (i.e., causes the vehicle to modify the trajectory from a longitudinal path to a lateral path in the event that no collision threat is detected (Awathe ¶ 44), which is based on the radar sensor data. (Awathe ¶ 25).
Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe before him or her to modify the autonomous vehicle controls of Hirota to include the autonomous lane change vehicle control of Awathe.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Hirota teaches the “base device” for autonomously controlling a vehicle in the event that an object is detected. Further, Awathe teaches the “known technique” laterally adjusting the position of an autonomous vehicle in the event that an object is detected that is applicable to the base device of Hirota. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification would have merely involved the addition of computer code and would have resulted in a system with more options in the event of a detected object.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 18, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses “wherein modifying the vehicle trajectory comprises: increasing a distance between the vehicle and the object” (Hirota ¶ 74) by reducing the power to the engine to perform a speed control, which increases the distance between the vehicle and the object. Further, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses “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.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 18 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses “wherein the second sensor is an optical sensor.” (Hirota ¶ 78).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses “wherein the second sensor is a LiDAR sensor.” (Hirota ¶ 78).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe 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 Awathe 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 30, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 18 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe discloses “wherein increasing the distance between the vehicle and the object comprises laterally repositioning the vehicle” (Awathe ¶ 44) by performing a lane change, which is laterally repositioning the vehicle. Awathe further discloses that the system may terminate a lane change in progress (Awathe ¶ 24), meaning that it is possible that the vehicle laterally moves but does not exit its lane before the process terminates.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Awathe, 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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, Awathe, 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, Awathe, and Hu before him or her to modify the object trajectory calculation of Hirota and Awathe 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, Awathe, and Hu discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota, Awathe, 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 Awathe, 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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, Awathe, 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, Awathe, and Jain before him or her to modify the collision detection of Hirota and Awathe 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 Awathe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hirota and Awathe 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, Awathe, 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, Awathe, and Jain before him or her to modify the sensors of Hirota and Awathe 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 April 6, 2026, with respect to the objection to the specification and the rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 9) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification and the rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed April 6, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-30 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (Remarks 10-11) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hirota and Awathe.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 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