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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on July 22, 2024. Claims 1-24 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on July 22, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 62/706,438 dated August 17, 2020 is acknowledged. Examiner notes Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application the date of the provisional application. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Additionally, Applicant’s request for priority to U.S. App. No. 17/445,199 dated August 17, 2021 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The following limitations are considered new matter:
Claim 1 recites wherein the ECU determines a lane quality value based at least in part on one selected from the group consisting of (i) determining fading of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road and (ii) determining vanishing of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road. [0014]-[0015] of the original disclosure briefly discusses that faded lane markers may be associated with a lower quality value. Additionally, the term “vanishing” is found once in the original disclosure at [0015] and is discussed in relation to lane width. Examiner has failed to find any original disclosure pertaining to determining fading of one or more lane markers or determining vanishing of one or more lane markers, and Examiner has failed to find original disclosure pertaining to vanishing of lane markers being used as a basis for the lane quality value. For at least these reasons, this limitation is considered new matter. Furthermore, all limitations stemming from this limitation are likewise new matter.
Claim 14 recites wherein the ECU determines a lane quality value based at least in part on determining fading of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road. This is considered new matter for the reasons recited above pertaining to fading lane markers. Furthermore, all limitations stemming from this limitation are likewise new matter.
Claim 19 recites wherein the ECU determines a lane quality value based at least in part on determining vanishing of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road. This is considered new matter for the reasons recited above pertaining to vanishing lane markers. Furthermore, all limitations stemming from this limitation are likewise new matter.
Each of claims 2 and 15 recites wherein the ECU determines the lane quality value at least in part by determining fading of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road, and wherein the vehicular control system limits steering of the vehicle based on the determined fading of one or more lane markers exceeding a specified limit. This is considered new matter for the reasons recited above pertaining to fading lane markers. Furthermore, all limitations stemming from this limitation are likewise new matter. Additionally, Examiner has failed to find any original disclosure pertaining to a specified limit of fading of the lane markers. Furthermore, all limitations stemming from this limitation are likewise new matter.
Claim 3 recites wherein the ECU determines the lane quality value at least in part by determining vanishing of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road, and wherein the vehicular control system estimates a virtual lane marker based at least in part on the one or more determined lane markers. This is considered new matter for the reasons recited above pertaining to vanishing lane markers. Furthermore, all limitations stemming from this limitation are likewise new matter.
Each of claims 5, 7-9, 13, 16-18, and 22-24 recites limitations pertaining to a steering command and the steering command is presented as the same claim element recited in each of their respective independent claims. However, the original disclosure only includes disclosure for the limitations found in the independent claims pertaining to a steering command; see Summary of the Invention [0004]. It appears that Applicant has equated the steering command with the steering torque command disclosed in the original disclosure at [0013] and [0016]. A steering torque command is a subset of a steering command, and the original disclosure only provides support for the subset. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting the recitations of steering command to be “steering torque command” for the recited dependent claims.
Each of claims 8, 16, and 22 recites wherein the vehicular control system, responsive to the determined lane quality value being below the threshold value after the vehicular control system provides the steering command to the steering system of the equipped vehicle, provides a second steering command to the steering system of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the second steering command adjusts the heading of the equipped vehicle to a lesser degree than the steering command. The only disclosure Examiner found pertaining to this limitation is found in [0015]-[0016] which discloses gradually reducing the steering torque after the enable value goes FALSE. There is no original disclosure pertaining to the steering command being adjusted by a lesser degree, and there is no original disclosure pertaining to what is mean by a lesser degree.
Each of claims 9, 17, and 23 recites wherein the vehicular control system, responsive to the determined lane quality value being below the threshold value after the vehicular control system provides the steering command to the steering system of the equipped vehicle, provides a second steering command to the steering system of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the second steering command adjusts the heading of the equipped vehicle to the same degree as the steering command. The only disclosure Examiner found pertaining to this limitation is found in [0015]-[0016] which discloses gradually reducing the steering torque after the enable value goes FALSE. There is no original disclosure pertaining to the steering command being adjusted by a same degree, and there is no original disclosure pertaining to what is mean by a same degree. Examiner further notes that is it unclear why there would be no change regardless of whether or not the quality value is below a threshold as there would be no practical application of the claimed steps.
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.
Claim 1, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, and 23 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-7, 10-13, 15, 18, 20-21, and 24 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites wherein the ECU determines a lane quality value based at least in part on one selected from the group consisting of (i) determining fading of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road and (ii) determining vanishing of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road. It is unclear what the difference is between fading and vanishing. Based on the original disclosure, the two appear to be interchangeable; see at least [0015]. Furthermore each of the other independent claims is essentially identical to claim 1 with claim 14 requiring the fading and claim 19 requiring the vanishing. If the two terms mean the same thing, Claims 1, 14, and 19 would be patentably indistinct and would need to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) along with at least some of the dependent claims. If the two terms do not mean the same thing, then there is a lack of written description issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) reciting the differences. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting all of the independent claims as requiring fading of the lines or an equivalent thereof.
Each of claims 8, 16, and 22 recites wherein the second steering command adjusts the heading of the equipped vehicle to a lesser degree than the steering command. It is unclear what lesser degree pertains to. For example, the lesser degree could pertain to the steering angle, the steering wheel angle, an amount of adjustment, the heading direction being a less severe change from the immediate heading, the rate of change of the steering to reach the target heading, that the steering command is not initiated, or some other meaning. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that the steering command is not initiated.
Each of claims 9, 17, and 23 recites wherein the second steering command adjusts the heading of the equipped vehicle to the same degree as the steering command. It is unclear what lesser degree pertains to. For example, the lesser degree could pertain to the steering angle, the steering wheel angle, amount of adjustment, the heading direction, the rate of change of the steering to reach the target heading, or some other meaning. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that there is no change with the type of steering control.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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, 8-11, 13-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102018110629 (hereinafter, “Mills”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/349345 (hereinafter, “Hodge”). Examiner notes that the attached English translation of DE102018110629 is cited to herein.
Regarding claim 1, Mills discloses A vehicular control system (see at least p. 8), the vehicular control system comprising:
…wherein the camera is operable to capture image data (see at least p. 8; the camera system 106 may detect and capture lane markers);…
an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software (see at least p. 8; the ECU may implement the vehicle camera system described throughout the disclosure);
wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to the ECU (see at least p. 8; the ECU is part of the vehicle camera system and is configured to receive sensed data from the camera(s));
wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises an image processor for processing image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU (see at least p. 8; the ECU may include image processing software instructions for performing image processing of the captured images);
wherein the ECU, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU, determines lane markers of a traffic lane along a road being traveled by the equipped vehicle (see at least p. 8; lane markers are identified via the image processing performed by the ECU in the surroundings of the vehicle);
wherein the ECU determines a lane quality value based at least in part on one selected from the group consisting of (i) determining fading of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road and (ii) determining vanishing of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road (see at least p. 16; the road quality threshold (i.e., lane quality) may be determined at least partially based on a threshold associated with a clarity of the lane markers. Examiner asserts that the clarity of the lane markers is equivalent to fading/vanishing of the lane markers); and
wherein, when the lane quality value exceeds a threshold value, the vehicular control system provides a steering command to a steering system of the equipped vehicle to adjust a heading of the equipped vehicle to center the equipped vehicle within the traffic lane of the road being traveled by the equipped vehicle (see at least p. 16; if the road quality threshold is met, then automated driver assistance features, including lane centering, are implemented).
However, Mills does not explicitly teach a camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular control system, wherein the camera views forward of the equipped vehicle through the windshield of the equipped vehicle;
wherein the camera comprises an imaging array having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns.
Hodge, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
a camera disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular control system, wherein the camera views forward of the equipped vehicle through the windshield of the equipped vehicle (see at least [0045]-[0046]; the vehicle cameras may include 4k dash cameras);
wherein the camera comprises an imaging array having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (see at least [0045]-[0046]; the vehicle cameras may include 4k dash cameras).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mills with the teachings of Hodge, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve front camera video capturing; see at least Hodge at [0010].
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Mills discloses and Hodge teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mills discloses wherein the ECU determines the lane quality value at least in part by determining fading of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road, and wherein the vehicular control system limits steering of the vehicle based on the determined fading of one or more lane markers exceeding a specified limit (see at least p. 16; the road quality threshold (i.e., lane quality) may be determined at least partially based on a threshold associated with a clarity of the lane markers. Examiner asserts that the clarity of the lane markers is equivalent to fading/vanishing of the lane markers, and if the road quality threshold is not met, then automated driver assistance features, including lane centering, are not implemented).
Claim 15 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Mills discloses teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mills discloses wherein the vehicular control system, responsive to the determined lane quality value being below the threshold value after the vehicular control system provides the steering command to the steering system of the equipped vehicle, provides a second steering command to the steering system of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the second steering command adjusts the heading of the equipped vehicle to a lesser degree than the steering command (see at least p. 16; if the road quality threshold is met, then automated driver assistance features, including lane centering, are implemented. Examiner notes that, at least in some cases, not implementing the lane center will result in a lower steering command angle).
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Mills discloses teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mills discloses wherein the vehicular control system, responsive to the determined lane quality value being below the threshold value after the vehicular control system provides the steering command to the steering system of the equipped vehicle, provides a second steering command to the steering system of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the second steering command adjusts the heading of the equipped vehicle to the same degree as the steering command (see at least p. 16; if the road quality threshold is met, then automated driver assistance features, including lane centering, are implemented. Examiner notes that, at least in some cases, when the lane centering is not yet engaged, no change is performed for the steering type).
Claims 17 and 23 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Mills discloses teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mills discloses wherein the ECU, based on the determined lane markers, determines a trajectory for the equipped vehicle to follow along the road being traveled by the equipped vehicle (see at least p. 16; the road quality threshold (i.e., lane quality) may be determined at least partially based on a threshold associated with a clarity of the lane markers. Examiner asserts that the clarity of the lane markers is equivalent to fading/vanishing of the lane markers, and if the road quality threshold is met, then automated driver assistance features, including lane centering and hands free automated driving, are implemented).
Regarding claim 11, Mills discloses teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mills discloses wherein the vehicular control system adjusts steering of the vehicle based on a change in lane width of the traffic lane in which the equipped vehicle is traveling (see at least p. 16; if the road quality threshold is met, then automated driver assistance features, including lane centering, are implemented. Lane centering takes into account differences in the lane as the vehicle traverses the road).
Regarding claim 13, Mills discloses teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mills discloses wherein, responsive to the determined lane quality value being below the threshold value, the vehicular control system disables providing steering commands (see at least p. 16; the road quality threshold (i.e., lane quality) may be determined at least partially based on a threshold associated with a clarity of the lane markers. Examiner asserts that the clarity of the lane markers is equivalent to fading/vanishing of the lane markers, and if the road quality threshold is not met, then automated driver assistance features, including lane centering, are not implemented).
Claims 18 and 24 are rejected for essentially the same reasoning as claim 13.
Claims 3-4 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills in view of Hodge, as applied to independent claim 1 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0068248 (hereinafter, “Kobayashi”).
Regarding claim 3, Mills discloses and Hodge teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 3. Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ECU determines the lane quality value at least in part by determining vanishing of one or more lane markers of the traffic lane of the road, and wherein the vehicular control system estimates a virtual lane marker based at least in part on the one or more determined lane markers (see at least [0041]-[0043] and [0069]; vanishing/fading of the lane markers are determined, and a virtual lane marker is estimated based on the vanishing/fading).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mills, as previously modified by Hodge, with the teachings of Kobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent errors in steering control due to erroneous recognition of lane markers; see at least Kobayashi at [0006].
Claim 20 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, The Mills, Hodge, and Kobayashi combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the vehicular control system estimates a virtual lane marker based in part on lane width of the traffic lane of the road (see at least [0041]-[0043]; the virtual lane markers are based on part on the fixed left and right directions (i.e., fixed width) correlating to the traffic lane width of the road).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mills, as previously modified by Hodge, with the teachings of Kobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent errors in steering control due to erroneous recognition of lane markers; see at least Kobayashi at [0006].
Claim 21 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills in view of Hodge, as applied to independent claim 1 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0086832 (hereinafter, “Moshchuk”).
Regarding claim 5, Mills discloses and Hodge teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5. Moshchuk, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ECU generates a raw steering angle command, and wherein the ECU, using a nonlinear function, provides the steering command based on the raw steering angle command (see at least [0003]; nonlinear function may be used to generate the torque steering command)
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mills, as previously modified by Hodge, with the teachings of Moshchuk, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent erroneous steering commands; see at least Moshchuk at Abstract.
Regarding claim 6, the Mills, Hodge, and Moshchuk combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Moshchuk, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the nonlinear function scales the raw steering angle command from an initial value to a final value, and wherein the final value is smaller than the initial value (see at least [0004], [0010], [0012], and [0054]; scalar function minimization may be used).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mills, as previously modified by Hodge, with the teachings of Moshchuk, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent erroneous steering commands; see at least Moshchuk at Abstract.
Regarding claim 7, Mills discloses and Hodge teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5. Moshchuk, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ECU provides the steering command using at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a feedforward control signal and (ii) a proportional control signal (see at least [0004]-[0012]; the system uses proportional control signals (i.e., is reactive to existing errors)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mills, as previously modified by Hodge, with the teachings of Moshchuk, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent erroneous steering commands; see at least Moshchuk at Abstract.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as depending from a rejected claim but may be found allowable if re-written in independent form, including all intervening claims, and after the above objections and/or rejections are remedied. Examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter are essentially the same as the reasons described in the parent application, U.S. App. No. 17/445,199 Notice of Allowability.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
a. U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0203770 which relates to controlling a vehicle between lines and takes into account fading of the lane lines; and
b. U.S. Pub. No. 2016/01446618 which pertains to lane following path planning for an autonomous vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666