DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 7/24/2024 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 8/25/2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Claims 1 and 3 are independent.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, (f) paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-2 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1-2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-2 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1-2 all recite a driving environment recognition unit configured to
recognize information about a driving environment including one or more lanes and one or more vehicles on a road. In the specification, zero corresponding structure found was as there is zero support for such a unit.
However, it appears that the Image recognition unit, would read on this and “In the embodiment described above, the control units including the image recognition ECU 13, the driving ECU 14, the CP ECU 21, the E/G ECU 22, the T/M ECU 23, the BK ECU 24, and the PS ECU 25 are implemented by a known microcomputer including elements such as a central processing unit (CPU), a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), and a non-volatile memory, and peripheral devices. Programs to be run by the CPU and fixed data such as data tables may be previously stored in the ROM. All or part of the functions of the processor may be implemented by logic or analog circuits. Additionally, the operations of the various programs may be performed by an electronic circuit such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA)” [Specification, Page 33-34].
Claims 1-2 all recite a lane change determination unit configured to determine whether the vehicle is in a process of changing lanes. In the specification, the zero corresponding structure was found, as there is zero support for such a unit.
However, it appears that the driving ECU 14, would read on this and “In the embodiment described above, the control units including the image recognition ECU 13, the driving ECU 14, the CP ECU 21, the E/G ECU 22, the T/M ECU 23, the BK ECU 24, and the PS ECU 25 are implemented by a known microcomputer including elements such as a central processing unit (CPU), a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), and a non-volatile memory, and peripheral devices. Programs to be run by the CPU and fixed data such as data tables may be previously stored in the ROM. All or part of the functions of the processor may be implemented by logic or analog circuits. Additionally, the operations of the various programs may be performed by an electronic circuit such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA)” [Specification, Page 33-34].
Claims 1-2 all recite a preceding vehicle provisional registration unit configured to execute, from start to end of the changing lanes of the vehicle, a provisional registration. In the specification, the zero corresponding structure was found, as there is zero support for such a unit.
However, it appears that the driving ECU 14, would read on this and “In the embodiment described above, the control units including the image recognition ECU 13, the driving ECU 14, the CP ECU 21, the E/G ECU 22, the T/M ECU 23, the BK ECU 24, and the PS ECU 25 are implemented by a known microcomputer including elements such as a central processing unit (CPU), a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), and a non-volatile memory, and peripheral devices. Programs to be run by the CPU and fixed data such as data tables may be previously stored in the ROM. All or part of the functions of the processor may be implemented by logic or analog circuits. Additionally, the operations of the various programs may be performed by an electronic circuit such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA)” [Specification, Page 33-34].
Claims 1-2 all recite provisional registration cancellation unit configured to cancel, after the vehicle moves into the target lane, the provisional registration. In the specification, the zero corresponding structure was found, as there is zero support for such a unit.
However, it appears that the driving ECU 14, would read on this and “In the embodiment described above, the control units including the image recognition ECU 13, the driving ECU 14, the CP ECU 21, the E/G ECU 22, the T/M ECU 23, the BK ECU 24, and the PS ECU 25 are implemented by a known microcomputer including elements such as a central processing unit (CPU), a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), and a non-volatile memory, and peripheral devices. Programs to be run by the CPU and fixed data such as data tables may be previously stored in the ROM. All or part of the functions of the processor may be implemented by logic or analog circuits. Additionally, the operations of the various programs may be performed by an electronic circuit such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA)” [Specification, Page 33-34].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 has typographical errors that need to be corrected.
Claim 2 states “The preceding vehicle recognition device for a vehicle according to claim 1” and should read “The preceding vehicle recognition device for the vehicle according to claim 1” since this vehicle has already been introduced. There two variables for vehicle are “a/the vehicle” and “a/the one or more vehicles” and with stating “a”, it introduces unclarity to the claims. Based on specification and claim construction, the Office understands this to be “the vehicle”.
This Office suggests going through all claims and looking for similar errors as the above listed errors, as the above list was exemplary in nature and by no means exhaustive. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 states “and a provisional registration cancellation unit configured to cancel, after the vehicle moves into the target lane, the provisional registration when the preceding vehicle is continuously identified as an adjacent vehicle for a set number of times” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, thus indefinite. In the limitations before, the preceding vehicle is in “a target lane for a lane change destination” yet here, the preceding vehicle is now in the adjacent lane, thus it is unclear what is actually being claimed. Is this a typo? Or is this limitation supposed to capture when the leading vehicle in the target lane, later in time moves into an adjacent lane, such as a lane change or something else? As currently presented, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are unclear, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret at measurement of a preceding vehicle in an adjacent lane as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 2 states “the provisional registration when the preceding vehicle is continuously identified as an adjacent vehicle for a set number of times” and again, as in Claim 1, the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, thus indefinite. In the limitation before in Claim 1 it states, the preceding vehicle is in “a target lane for a lane change destination” yet here, the preceding vehicle is now in the adjacent lane, thus it is unclear what is actually being claimed. Is this a typo? Or is this limitation supposed to capture when the leading vehicle in the target lane, later in time moves into an adjacent lane, such as a lane change or something else? As currently presented, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are unclear, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret at measurement of a preceding vehicle in an adjacent lane as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 3 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (device). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 3 is directed to an apparatus (device). Therefore, Claim 3 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1 and 3 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 3 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: A preceding vehicle recognition device for a vehicle, the preceding vehicle recognition device comprising: a processor configured to
recognize information about a driving environment including one or more lanes and one or more vehicles on a road,
determine whether the vehicle is in a process of changing lanes,
execute, from start to end of the changing lanes of the vehicle, a provisional registration that designates, as a preceding vehicle, one of the one or more vehicles that is in a target lane selected as a lane change destination
and cancel, after the vehicle moves into the target lane, the provisional registration when the preceding vehicle is continuously identified as an adjacent vehicle for a set number of times.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determining ,registering and unregistering” steps encompass a user to make gather information between about a vehicle and account for the data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “processor configured to”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining ,registering and unregistering steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of registering and unregistering is mere definition of using data that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that registering and unregistering using a processor, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the registering and unregistering steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a processor or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 3 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the processor amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data and dividing data, and determinizing errors, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of determining, registering and unregistering are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the data is used . MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Further Claim 1 is not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claim 2 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1 and 3.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the registration data. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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 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.
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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0307595) in view of Huang et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0334986).
With respect to Claim 1: While Kato discloses “A preceding vehicle recognition device for a vehicle” [Kato, ¶ 0083-0085 (another vehicle (in the shown example, m2) that travels immediately before the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a forward reference vehicle mB)];
“the preceding vehicle recognition device comprising a driving environment recognition unit configured to recognize information about a driving environment including one or more lanes and one or more vehicles on a road” [Kato, ¶ 0036-0040, 0045, and 0072-0074 (the information necessary for driving the host vehicle M during driving assistance is information, such as for example, a future trajectory of the host vehicle M (a target trajectory to be described below), whether lane change is to be performed, a destination lane of a lane change, the recognized lane (lane marking), and other vehicles)];
“a lane change determination unit configured to determine whether the vehicle is in a process of changing lanes” [Kato, ¶ 0076, 0083-0085 with Figure 5 (as an example, a scenario in which the host vehicle M travels in a section in which the lane change event is planned, that is, a scenario in which the host vehicle M is caused to change lanes)];
“a preceding vehicle provisional registration unit configured to execute, from start to end of the changing lanes of the vehicle, a provisional registration that designates, as a preceding vehicle, one of the one or more vehicles that is in a target lane selected as a lane change destination” [Kato, ¶ 0076, 0083-0085 with Figure 5 (another vehicle (in the shown example, m2) that travels immediately before the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a forward reference vehicle mB)];
“and a provisional registration cancellation unit configured to cancel, after the vehicle moves into the target lane, the provisional registration when the preceding vehicle is continuously identified as an adjacent vehicle” [Kato, ¶ 0076, 0083-0085 with Figure 5 (The passing event is an event in which the host vehicle M is caused to change lanes to an adjacent lane temporarily, pass the preceding vehicle mA in the adjacent lane)];
Kato does not specifically state that the vehicle in the adjacent lane was measured a specific amount of times.
Huang, which is in the same field of invention of lane changing vehicle control systems teaches “and a provisional registration cancellation unit configured to cancel, after the vehicle moves into the target lane, the provisional registration when the preceding vehicle is continuously identified as an adjacent vehicle for a set number of times” [Huang, ¶ 0041 and 0064 (determining whether the vehicle has a constant lane change within a preset historical duration, to obtain the lane change detection result, where the preset historical duration is the number of historical frames or a historical time length, and the number of historical frames is a preset number of frames of vehicle images continuously acquired by the camera)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang into the invention of Kato to not only include identifying vehicles in adjacent and target lanes when performing a lane change as Kato discloses but to also identify a vehicle as not in your lane but as in the adjacent lane as taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Huang into Kato to create a more robust system that better verifying vehicles locations based on thresholds such as duration and number of times measured [Huang, ¶ 0041]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control during lane changes based on surrounding vehicles and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 3: all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in Claim 1. The device taught/disclosed in Claim 3 with its processor can clearly function as the device with units of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 3 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0307595) in view of Huang et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0334986) and in further view of Watanabe et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/015936).
With respect to Claim 2: While Kato discloses “The preceding vehicle recognition device for the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein” [Kato, ¶ 0083-0085 (another vehicle (in the shown example, m2) that travels immediately before the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a forward reference vehicle mB)];
“and a provisional registration cancellation unit configured to cancel, after the vehicle moves into the target lane, the provisional registration when the preceding vehicle is continuously identified as an adjacent vehicle” [Kato, ¶ 0076, 0083-0085 with Figure 5 (The passing event is an event in which the host vehicle M is caused to change lanes to an adjacent lane temporarily, pass the preceding vehicle mA in the adjacent lane)];
Kato does not specifically state that the vehicle in the adjacent lane was measured a specific amount of times, or that this measurement of a vehicle in adjacent lane occurs when lane lines are unclear.
Huang, which is in the same field of invention of lane changing vehicle control systems teaches “and a provisional registration cancellation unit configured to cancel, after the vehicle moves into the target lane, the provisional registration when the preceding vehicle is continuously identified as an adjacent vehicle for a set number of times” [Huang, ¶ 0041 and 0064 (determining whether the vehicle has a constant lane change within a preset historical duration, to obtain the lane change detection result, where the preset historical duration is the number of historical frames or a historical time length, and the number of historical frames is a preset number of frames of vehicle images continuously acquired by the camera)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang into the invention of Kato to not only include identifying vehicles in adjacent and target lanes when performing a lane change as Kato discloses but to also identify a vehicle as not in your lane but as in the adjacent lane as taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Huang into Kato to create a more robust system that better verifying vehicles locations based on thresholds such as duration and number of times measured [Huang, ¶ 0041]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control during lane changes based on surrounding vehicles and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Further, Watanabe, which is also a vehicle control system that measuring lane lines and accounts for other vehicles teaches “in a case where a lane demarcation line defining the target lane is unclear” [Watanabe, ¶ 0175-0178 and 0187 with Figure 25];
“cancel, the provisional registration when the preceding vehicle is continuously identified as the and remains in the target lane for a set time duration” [Watanabe, ¶ 0175-0178 and 0187 with Figure 25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe into the invention of Kato to not only include identifying vehicles in adjacent and target lanes when performing a lane change as Kato discloses but to also identify a vehicle as not in your lane but as in the adjacent lane even when lane lines are not present based with a duration of time as taught by Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Watanabe into Kato to create a more robust system that account for vehicles in other lanes even when lane lines are unclear [Watanabe, ¶ 0184]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control during lane changes based on surrounding vehicles and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c