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 action is in reply to the response filed 26 March 2026
Claims 1-8, and 10-11 have been amended.
Claims 9 and 12 have been cancelled
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitations of claim 1-11 were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation and/or has provided arguments that overcome most of the 112(f) interpretations. Accordingly the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn for claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-11. However, the interpretation stands for claim 4 as noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9 was 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The Applicant cancelled claim 9, rendering moot the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 26 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant indicates that by amending claims 1-8 and 10-11 and cancelling claims 9 and 12 that the ejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is patent eligible. The examiner has updated the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to address the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
Claim(s) 1 and 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iizuka et al. WO-2021065780-A1, published 8 April 2021, hereinafter “Iizuka”).
Claim(s) 2 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka in view of Tsuchiya et al. (JP-2000149197-A, hereinafter “Tsuchiya”, the reference and the machine translation provided in the IDS).
Claim(s) 2 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka in view of Takabayashi (US Pub. No. US-20170039865-A1, hereinafter “Takabayashi ”).
Claim(s) 3-4 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka and Takabayashi in view of Maeda et al. (US Pub. No. US-20220165160-A1, hereinafter “Maeda”).
Claim(s) 2 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka in view of Schiller (US Pub. No. US-20250010876-A1, hereinafter “Schiller”).
Claim(s) 5-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka and Schiller in further view of Maeda et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/016160, hereinafter “Maeda”).
Claim(s) 8-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka, Takabayashi, Maeda in further view of Yamada et al. (US Pub. No. US-20190073540-A1, hereinafter “Yamada”)
Claim(s) 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka, Takabayashi in further view of Maeda and Hisaie et al. (JP-2005346371-A, hereinafter “Hisaie”)
Claim(s) 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka in view of Berntorp et al. (US Pub. No. US-20180284785-A1, hereinafter “Berntorp”).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 26 March, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Iizuka et al. (WO-2021065780-A1, published 8 April 2021, hereinafter “Iizuka”), and Maeda et al. (US Pub. No. US-20220165160-A1, hereinafter “Maeda”) as applied below.
Maeda was previously cited to reject claim 3. Applicant’s arguments regarding Maeda are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that while Maeda recognizes a traveling lane in which the host vehicle is traveling Maeda does not teach
Maeda does describe recognizing the "road shoulder" as a road boundary, however, unlike Claim 1 of the present application, Maeda does not describe separating a road on which the subject vehicle travels into a road shoulder region within a predetermined width from a widthwise edge of the road and capable of traveling by the saddle type vehicle, and a normal traveling region adjacent to the road shoulder region, and specify a traveling position of the subject vehicle on the road by distinguishing between the shoulder region and the normal traveling region.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Maeda teaches in [0056] recognizing the lane from the shoulder and further determining the location of travel of the vehicle in view of the detection of the shoulder and lane and thus teaches separating a road on which the subject vehicle travels into a road shoulder region and a normal traveling region adjacent to the road shoulder (“Also, the recognition unit 320 recognizes, for example, a lane (a traveling lane) in which the host vehicle M is traveling. For example, the recognition unit 320 recognizes a traveling lane by comparing a road marking line pattern obtained from the second map information 72 (for example, an array of solid lines and broken lines) with a road marking line pattern in the periphery of the host vehicle M recognized from an image captured by the camera 51. The recognition unit 320 may recognize a traveling lane by recognizing not only a road marking line but also a traveling road boundary (a road boundary) including a road marking line, a road shoulder, a curb, a median strip, a guardrail, and the like. In this recognition, the position of the host vehicle M acquired from the navigation device 60 or the processing result by means of the INS may be added. In addition, the recognition unit 320 recognizes a stop line, an obstacle, a red light, a tollhouse, other road events, and the like.”). It is clear that the computer does not, and is not, capable of physically separating the shoulder from the normal traveling portion of the road. Thus, the term “separating” as used in the instant application is to make a distinction between the shoulder and the normal traveling portion of the road. As noted above, Maeda does make this distinction and thus teaches the limitation as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 26 March, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s amendments, the examiner has provided a new ground(s) of rejection in view of Iizuka et al. (WO-2021065780-A1, published 8 April 2021, hereinafter “Iizuka”), and Yamada et al. (US Pub. No. US-20190073540-A1, hereinafter “Yamada”), as applied below.
Yamada was previously cited to reject claim 8. Applicant’s arguments regarding Yamada are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that while Yamada teaches that the widths WL1 and WR2 are varied according to the position of the vehicle M within the driving lane such that Yamada describes changing the width of the warning area according to the position, Yamada does not teach
in a case where the road is separated into a first lane and a second lane adjacent to the first lane, and the driving position is near a lane edge within the second lane that is opposite the first lane, restrict a widthwise length of the alert region defined on the second lane side relative to the subject vehicle to an area inside a separation line separating the first lane and the second lane
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Yamada teaches restricting a widthwise length (a length of dimension in the widthwise direction) of the alert region defined on the second lane side relative to the subject vehicle to an area inside a separation line separating the first lane and the second lane (see at least Yamada Figure 6 and 7, WL1 and Wl2 and [0066-0069]; [0066] “Here, in a case in which the horizontal position of the subject vehicle M deviates to one of the left side or the right side from the running lane center CL, the monitoring area setting unit 131 changes the forms of the left rear-side area A.sub.RL and the right rear-side area A.sub.RR. The changing of the forms of the areas, for example, is changing one or both of the width and the length of each of the left rear-side area A.sub.RL and the right rear-side area A.sub.RR. The changing of the forms may be enlarging or contracting the left rear-side area A.sub.RL and the right rear-side area A.sub.RR or sliding the left and right rear-side areas in one direction of the upper, lower, left, and right sides by a predetermined distance….[0067] FIG. 7 is a diagram showing a view in which the forms of a left rear-side area A.sub.RL and a right rear-side area A.sub.RR are changed in a case in which a horizontal position of a subject vehicle M deviates to the left side from running lane center CL. In the example illustrated in FIG. 7, the horizontal position of the subject vehicle M during running deviates from the running lane center CL of its own lane L1 to the left side by a distance D. In this case, the monitoring area setting unit 131 adjusts a width WL1 of the left rear-side area A.sub.RL and a width WR1 of the right rear-side area A.sub.RR on the basis of the distance D….[0068] For example, the monitoring area setting unit 131 sets a value acquired by subtracting the distance D from a width WL1 during running of the subject vehicle M at the running lane center CL as a width WL2 of the left rear-side area ARL. In addition, the monitoring area setting unit 131 sets a value acquired by adding the distance D to a width WR1 during running of the subject vehicle M at the running lane center CL as a width WR2 of the right rear-side area ARR….[0069] “In this way, the monitoring area setting unit 131 changes a monitoring area disposed on the same side as the side, to which the horizontal position of the subject vehicle M deviates, as being decreased and changes a monitoring area disposed on the opposite side as being increased.”).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “wherein computer”. The examiner believes this should be replaces with “wherein the computer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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, sixth 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a course changing predictor …predicts” as recited in claim 4
Structural support for these units can be found in limitations can be found in at least [0048] and [0066] and Figure 1 of the instant application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the course changing predictor predicts…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed toward a driving support and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 8 is directed toward a drying support system and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. 1. (Currently Amended) A driving support system comprising:
• a computer configured to:
• acquire surrounding information related to a state of surroundings of a subject vehicle that is a saddle type vehicle;
• based on the surrounding information, recognize another vehicle present in an alert region defined to be laterally behind the subject vehicle as an alert target;
• in a case where the alert target is recognized, perform first alert control of alerting a driver of the subject vehicle about a presence of the alert target;
• based on the surrounding information, predict execution of course changing by the subject vehicle to be performed while the alert target is recognized; and
• separate a road on which the subject vehicle travels into a road shoulder region within a predetermined width from a widthwise edge of the road and capable of traveling by the saddle type vehicle, and a normal traveling region adjacent to the road shoulder region, and specify a traveling position of the subject vehicle on the road by distinguishing between the shoulder region and the normal traveling region,
• wherein computer performs second alert control with a higher alert intensity than the first alert control in a case where execution of the course changing from the shoulder region to the normal traveling region or from the normal traveling region to the shoulder region is predicted while the first alert control is performed.
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 “based on the surrounding information, recognize another vehicle present in an alert region defined to be laterally behind the subject vehicle as an alert target”, “based on the surrounding information, predict execution of course changing by the subject vehicle to be performed while the alert target is recognized”, and “separate a road on which the subject vehicle travels into a road shoulder region within a predetermined width from a widthwise edge of the road and capable of traveling by the saddle type vehicle, and a normal traveling region adjacent to the road shoulder region, and specify a traveling position of the subject vehicle on the road by distinguishing between the shoulder region and the normal traveling region” steps encompass a human viewing sensor data displayed and determining that there is a vehicle in the driver’s blind spot and further and determining the driver is intending on changing lanes based on a turn signal operation, and further making a mental determination of the division of the road and the shoulder and determining whether the vehicle is on the road or the shoulder.
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”):
Claim 1 recites:
A driving support system comprising:
a computer configured to:
• acquire surrounding information related to a state of surroundings of a subject vehicle that is a saddle type vehicle;
• based on the surrounding information, recognize another vehicle present in an alert region defined to be laterally behind the subject vehicle as an alert target;
• in a case where the alert target is recognized, perform first alert control of alerting a driver of the subject vehicle about a presence of the alert target;
• based on the surrounding information, predict execution of course changing by the subject vehicle to be performed while the alert target is recognized; and
• separate a road on which the subject vehicle travels into a road shoulder region within a predetermined width from a widthwise edge of the road and capable of traveling by the saddle type vehicle, and a normal traveling region adjacent to the road shoulder region, and specify a traveling position of the subject vehicle on the road by distinguishing between the shoulder region and the normal traveling region,
• wherein computer performs second alert control with a higher alert intensity than the first alert control in a case where execution of the course changing from the shoulder region to the normal traveling region or from the normal traveling region to the shoulder region is predicted while the first alert control is performed.
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 “a computer configured to…”, “acquire surrounding information related to a state of surroundings of a subject vehicle that is a saddle type vehicle”, “in a case where the alert target is recognized, perform first alert control of alerting a driver of the subject vehicle about a presence of the alert target” and “wherein computer performs second alert control with a higher alert intensity than the first alert control in a case where execution of the course changing from the shoulder region to the normal traveling region or from the normal traveling region to the shoulder region is predicted while the first alert control is performed” the examiner submits that these limitations 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 and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In particular, a computer configured to” is recited at a high level of generality that merely automates the acquisition of surrounding information steps, therefore acting as a generic computer or generic components such as image sensors that are simply employed as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see the instant application [0040] and [0048]).
Further, the limitations of “acquire surrounding information related to a state of surroundings of a subject vehicle that is a saddle type vehicle”, “in a case where the alert target is recognized, perform first alert control of alerting a driver of the subject vehicle about a presence of the alert target” and “wherein computer performs second alert control with a higher alert intensity than the first alert control in a case where execution of the course changing from the shoulder region to the normal traveling region or from the normal traveling region to the shoulder region is predicted while the first alert control is performed” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering or data output) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect 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 computer 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.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 1 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 elements of “a computer configured to” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (see [0040] and [0048] of the instant application). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquire surrounding information related to a state of surroundings of a subject vehicle that is a saddle type vehicle”, “in a case where the alert target is recognized, perform first alert control of alerting a driver of the subject vehicle about a presence of the alert target” and “wherein computer performs second alert control with a higher alert intensity than the first alert control in a case where execution of the course changing from the shoulder region to the normal traveling region or from the normal traveling region to the shoulder region is predicted while the first alert control is performed” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 have similar recitations to claim 1 and the analysis above with respect to claim 8 also applies to claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7 and 10-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering and data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-7 and 10-11 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 10-11 are not patent eligible.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka (WO-2021065780-A1, published 8 April 2021, hereinafter “Iizuka”, however, the examiner notes that the citations provided correspond to US equivalent 2022/0340203 for ease of citations) in view of Maeda et al. (US Pub. No. US-20220165160-A1, hereinafter “Maeda”).
Regarding claim 1, Iizuka discloses a driving support system comprising:
a computer configured to (see at least Iizuka Figure 2, ECU 23):
see at least Iizuka Figure 1, wherein the vehicle 1 is a saddle type vehicle see also [113] “The first flag indicates that the other vehicle T is actually detected by a camera, radar, or the like in the embodiment, but the present invention is not limited thereto.”);
based on the surrounding information, recognize another vehicle present in an alert region defined to be laterally behind the subject vehicle as an alert target (see at least Iizukia Figure 9 and see at least Iizuka [113] “The first flag indicates that the other vehicle T is actually detected by a camera, radar, or the like in the embodiment, but the present invention is not limited thereto.” See also [0115] “When the first flag is set (when the presence of the other vehicle T is detected in the detection area), the first warning is issued. The first warning is a warning display using, for example, an indicator lamp, a liquid crystal panel, or the like.”)
in a case where the alert target is recognized, perform first alert control of alerting a driver of the subject vehicle about a presence of the alert target (see at least Iizukia Figure 9 and see at least Iizuka [113] “The first flag indicates that the other vehicle T is actually detected by a camera, radar, or the like in the embodiment, but the present invention is not limited thereto.” See also [0115] “When the first flag is set (when the presence of the other vehicle T is detected in the detection area), the first warning is issued. The first warning is a warning display using, for example, an indicator lamp, a liquid crystal panel, or the like.”)
based on the surrounding information, predict execution of course changing by the subject vehicle to be performed while the alert target is recognized(see at least Iizukia Figure 9 and [112] “The second flag is a flag indicating that a course change prediction operation (an operation in which a course change is predicted) of the own vehicle M to the side on which the other vehicle T is detected is detected in a state in which the first flag is set.”) ; and
wherein from the shoulder region to the normal traveling region or from the normal traveling region to the shoulder region is predicted see at least Iizukia Figure 9 and [0116] “When the second flag is set (when the course change prediction operation is detected), the second warning (for example, a warning for the rider's tactile sensation such as vibrating the body contact portion in the vehicle body, and a warning that causes a vehicle body behavior such as braking stronger than specified one) that is stronger than the first warning is issued, and the assist steering control gain is adjusted so that the roll (and thus the lane change) to the side on which the presence of the other vehicle T is recognized can be suppressed.” The examiner notes that Iizuka teaches providing the second warning when there is a course change in the direction of an object, and thus teaches providing the warning at any time of deviation from the lane including when the vehicle is moving from the lane to the shoulder, from the shoulder to a lane or from one lane to another lane. It would be nonsensical to not provide the warning of Iizuka when the system has detected an object that would result in potential collision in the destination lane/area in the case when a the vehicle is moving from a lane to a shoulder or from a shoulder to a lane).
However, Iizuka does not teach
separate a road on which the subject vehicle travels into a road shoulder region within a predetermined width from a widthwise edge of the road and capable of traveling by the saddle type vehicle, and a normal traveling region adjacent to the road shoulder region, and specify a traveling position of the subject vehicle on the road by distinguishing between the shoulder region and the normal traveling region,
Maeda teaches providing an alert when there are other vehicles in the blind spot.
separate a road on which the subject vehicle travels into a road shoulder region within a predetermined width from a widthwise edge of the road and capable of traveling by the saddle type vehicle, and a normal traveling region adjacent to the road shoulder region, and specify a traveling position of the subject vehicle on the road by distinguishing between the shoulder region and the normal traveling region (see at least Maeda [0056] “Also, the recognition unit 320 recognizes, for example, a lane (a traveling lane) in which the host vehicle M is traveling. For example, the recognition unit 320 recognizes a traveling lane by comparing a road marking line pattern obtained from the second map information 72 (for example, an array of solid lines and broken lines) with a road marking line pattern in the periphery of the host vehicle M recognized from an image captured by the camera 51. The recognition unit 320 may recognize a traveling lane by recognizing not only a road marking line but also a traveling road boundary (a road boundary) including a road marking line, a road shoulder, a curb, a median strip, a guardrail, and the like. In this recognition, the position of the host vehicle M acquired from the navigation device 60 or the processing result by means of the INS may be added. In addition, the recognition unit 320 recognizes a stop line, an obstacle, a red light, a tollhouse, other road events, and the like.”). It is clear that the computer does not, and is not, capable of physically separating the shoulder from the normal traveling portion of the road. Thus, the term “separating” as used in the instant application is to make a distinction between the shoulder and the normal traveling portion of the road. As noted above, Maeda does make this distinction and thus teaches the limitation as claimed.
wherein computer performs second alert control with [[a higher alert intensity than the first alert control]] in a case where execution of the course changing from the shoulder region to the normal traveling region or from the normal traveling region to the shoulder region (see at least Maeda [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iizuka with the teaching of Maeda because as Maeda teaches this provides important surrounding information of the vehicle and its relative position and the posture of the host vehicle
Again as noted above, Iizuka teaches providing the second warning of a higher intensity than the first warning when there is a course change in the direction of a detected object. Further, Maeda teaches recognizing the division between a normal lane and a shoulder and determining the vehicle’s location. Thus, the combination of Iizuka and Maeda teach providing the warning either when the vehicle is moving from the lane to the shoulder, from the shoulder to a lane or from one lane to another lane.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka and Maeda in further view of Tsuchiya et al. (JP-2000149197-A, hereinafter “Tsuchiya”, the reference and the machine translation provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Iizuka and Maeda teaches the driving support system according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the computer predicts execution of the course changing based on the surrounding information in a case where it is recognized that a movement triggering factor that triggers a movement of the subject vehicle in a width direction is present ahead of the subject vehicle in a traveling direction.
Tsuchiya teaches wherein the computer predicts execution of the course changing based on the surrounding information in a case where it is recognized that a movement triggering factor that triggers a movement of the subject vehicle in a width direction is present ahead of the subject vehicle in a traveling direction (see at least Tsuchiya [0022] “In such a vehicle periphery monitoring device, as described above, whether or not the vehicle will catch up with the preceding vehicle can be predicted by the relative positional relationship between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle. Therefore, if it is determined that the following vehicle is present in the blind spot area when it is predicted that the lane will be changed based on such a relative positional relationship, the driver is provided with information that can be reliably recognized. , If it is not predicted that a lane change will be made, and if it is determined that the following vehicle is in the blind spot area, the driver is provided with information that does not cause as much annoyance as possible. Different information is provided to the driver.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iizuka and Maeda with the teaching of Tsuchiya, with a reasonable expectation of success because as Tsuchiya teaches this avoids the lane change by the driver when a vehicle is within the blind spot (see at least Tsuchiya [0019]), thus increasing safety.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka and Maeda in view of Takabayashi (US Pub. No. US-20170039865-A1, hereinafter “Takabayashi ”).
Regarding claim 2, Iizuka teaches the driving support system according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the computer predicts execution of the course changing based on the surrounding information in a case where it is recognized that a movement triggering factor that triggers a movement of the subject vehicle in a width direction is present ahead of the subject vehicle in a traveling direction.
Takabayashi teaches wherein the computer predicts execution of the course changing based on the surrounding information in a case where it is recognized that a movement triggering factor that triggers a movement of the subject vehicle in a width direction is present ahead of the subject vehicle in a traveling direction (see at least Takabayashi Figure 5 [0031-0035] “Here, as the collision avoidance models, for example, it is possible to define a braking avoidance model, a left steering avoidance model, and a right steering avoidance model. The braking avoidance model is a model that avoids a collision by braking while keeping the lane, and the left/right steering avoidance model is a model that avoids a collision by changing lanes to the left/right by inputting a steering amount. In addition, it is assumed as to the models that the braking amount or steering amount is set in such a manner as not to exceed a prescribed limited value. In particular, if the collision deciding unit 6 which will be described later decides that the collision avoidance is impossible, although a correction value of the braking amount or steering amount is fed back to the route prediction unit 4, an operation is executed which will prevent the braking amount or steering amount from exceeding the prescribed limited value… [0035] It can calculate the prediction route as to the left/right steering avoidance model in the same manner..” See also [0045] “In addition, in the case of the steering avoidance as shown in FIG. 5, it is conceivable that other surrounding vehicles are traveling already along the lane into which the self vehicle 200 changes its lane by steering avoidance. Thus, the collision deciding unit 6 calculates collision risks as to the nearest preceding vehicle 201 and the nearest following vehicle 202 in the lane after the change. Furthermore, the collision deciding unit 6 selects the maximum value from the collision risks of the target vehicle 203, nearest preceding vehicle 201 and nearest following vehicle 202, and makes the collision decision. Incidentally, regions enclosed by broken lines in FIG. 5 indicate a prediction error.” See also[003] [0013] [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iizuka and Maeda with the teaching of Takabayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success because as Takabayashi teaches this predicts a route for the own vehicle with a low collision risk (see at least Takabayashi [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Iizuka, Maeda and Takabayashi teach the driving support system according to claim 2, further comprising
computer predicts that the subject vehicle will change course from the road shoulder region to the normal traveling region in a case where it is recognized that the traveling position is located in the road shoulder region and an obstacle as the movement triggering factor is present ahead of the subject vehicle in the traveling direction (see above citations and discussion with respect to claim 1 and the combination of Iizuka and Maeda and at least Takabayashi Figure 5 [0031-0035] “Here, as the collision avoidance models, for example, it is possible to define a braking avoidance model, a left steering avoidance model, and a right steering avoidance model. The braking avoidance model is a model that avoids a collision by braking while keeping the lane, and the left/right steering avoidance model is a model that avoids a collision by changing lanes to the left/right by inputting a steering amount. In addition, it is assumed as to the models that the braking amount or steering amount is set in such a manner as not to exceed a prescribed limited value. In particular, if the collision deciding unit 6 which will be described later decides that the collision avoidance is impossible, although a correction value of the braking amount or steering amount is fed back to the route prediction unit 4, an operation is executed which will prevent the braking amount or steering amount from exceeding the prescribed limited value… [0035] It can calculate the prediction route as to the left/right steering avoidance model in the same manner..” See also [0045] “In addition, in the case of the steering avoidance as shown in FIG. 5, it is conceivable that other surrounding vehicles are traveling already along the lane into which the self vehicle 200 changes its lane by steering avoidance. Thus, the collision deciding unit 6 calculates collision risks as to the nearest preceding vehicle 201 and the nearest following vehicle 202 in the lane after the change. Furthermore, the collision deciding unit 6 selects the maximum value from the collision risks of the target vehicle 203, nearest preceding vehicle 201 and nearest following vehicle 202, and makes the collision decision. Incidentally, regions enclosed by broken lines in FIG. 5 indicate a prediction error.” See also[003] [0013] [0054]. Further, the examiner notes that while Takabayashi does not explicitly teach that the vehicle is traveling in a shoulder region, the method of Takabayashi teaches steering left or right to avoid an object and can be applied to driving in a shoulder region or a lane of Maeda. Further the examiner notes that a shoulder region can be considered a lane for a vehicle to travel within, for example an emergency lane, bicycle lane, and thus can be considered one of the lanes of Takabayashi.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Iizuka, Maeda and Takabayashi teach the driving support system according to claim 2, further comprising:
the computer, in a case where a preceding vehicle is present ahead of the subject vehicle in the traveling direction, calculate a risk index based on the surrounding information, the risk index decreasing as a risk that the subject vehicle will come into contact with the preceding vehicle increases (see at least Takabayashi Figure 5 and [0028] “The collision object detector 3 detects a surrounding vehicle with a possibility of causing a collision with the self vehicle. For example, the detection can be made in accordance with the idea of TTC (Time To Collision). The TTC is defined by Expression (1), and if the TTC is not greater than a threshold, the vehicle is detected as one having a possibility of causing a collision. Furthermore, the detected surrounding vehicle i is defined as a target vehicle.” See also [0039] “To understand the collision risk intuitively, we will describe relationships between the relative positions of the self vehicle (target 2) to the target vehicle (target 1) and the collision risks. For example, in a scene where the target 1 collides with the target 2 as shown in FIG. 3 (the position of the target 1 is the same as that of the target 2), a shaded area 101 of FIG. 3 approaches one. In other words, the collision risk is calculated as 1 (or 100%). In contrast, in a scene where the distance between the target 1 and target 2 is far away infinitely as shown in FIG. 4, the shaded area of FIG. 4 approaches zero. In other words, the collision risk is calculated as 0 (0%). Accordingly, it is seen intuitively that the upper probability of the chi-square distribution is a value corresponding to the collision risk. Furthermore, since a table which shows correspondence between the square value ε.sub.k+n of the Mahalanobis distance and the upper probability of the chi-square distribution is calculable in advance, keeping the table enables the collision risk estimation unit 5 to read out the collision risk corresponding to the square value of the Mahalanobis distance without any calculation.”) and
the course changing predictor predicts execution of the course changing in a case where the traveling position is located in the normal traveling region, the preceding vehicle as the movement triggering factor is present ahead of the subject vehicle in the traveling direction, and the risk index for the preceding vehicle is smaller than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (see at least Takabayashi Figure 5 wherein the own vehicle is 200, the preceding or target vehicle is 203 and wherein the collision risk and course predictor predicts a change of course based on the preceding vehicle and collision risk. [0045] “In addition, in the case of the steering avoidance as shown in FIG. 5, it is conceivable that other surrounding vehicles are traveling already along the lane into which the self vehicle 200 changes its lane by steering avoidance. Thus, the collision deciding unit 6 calculates collision risks as to the nearest preceding vehicle 201 and the nearest following vehicle 202 in the lane after the change. Furthermore, the collision deciding unit 6 selects the maximum value from the collision risks of the target vehicle 203, nearest preceding vehicle 201 and nearest following vehicle 202, and makes the collision decision. Incidentally, regions enclosed by broken lines in FIG. 5 indicate a prediction error.” See also [0031] and [0035] as cited above for the steering avoidance to another lane to avoid collision See at least Takabayashi [0028] “The TTC is defined by Expression (1), and if the TTC is not greater than a threshold, the vehicle is detected as one having a possibility of causing a collision. See also [0059] “In addition, according to the route prediction device of the embodiment 1, since the collision deciding unit is configured in such a manner as to make the collision decision by comparing the collision risks with the threshold that has been set, it can decide whether the collision can occur or not easily”. The examiner notes that time to collision (TTC) can correspond to the risk index. Further, Takabayashi discusses both (TTC) and collision risk and further teaches that these values are inversely proportional. Thus, Takabayashi teaches predicting the lane change when the collision risk above a threshold (or the TTC or risk index is below a threshold).
Claim(s) 2, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka and Maeda in view of Schiller (US Pub. No. US-20250010876-A1, hereinafter “Schiller”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Iizuka and Maeda teach the driving support system according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein computer predicts execution of the course changing based on the surrounding information in a case where it is recognized that a movement triggering factor that triggers a movement of the subject vehicle in a width direction is present ahead of the subject vehicle in a traveling direction.
Schiller teaches wherein the computer predicts execution of the course changing based on the surrounding information in a case where it is recognized that a movement triggering factor that triggers a movement of the subject vehicle in a width direction is present ahead of the subject vehicle in a traveling direction (see at least Schiller [0049-0054] and [0057-0058] “[0052] The control unit 116 can also determine the presence of a traffic signal system at the traffic network node and check whether at least one preceding vehicle has already come to a standstill at a red signal and determine its lane. Alternatively or additionally, the control unit 116 can determine the speeds of preceding vehicles on the at least two lanes and take into consideration the determined speeds and determined stationary vehicles when determining the first delay time and/or the second delay time…[0054] In autonomous driving, the control unit 116 transmits the lane change recommendation to a functional unit 120 of the vehicle 102 for autonomous driving, which in particular actuates an actuator, a drive system, a braking system, and/or a steering system. In non-autonomous driving, the control unit 116 outputs the lane change recommendation via an output unit of a human-machine interface to the vehicle driver 104.” See also [0057-0058] ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iizuka and Maeda with the teaching of Schiller to determine the vehicle should change lanes, with a reasonable expectation of success because as Schiller teaches this reduce the time and delay while driving (see at least Schiller [0021-0022]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Iizuka, Maeda and Schiller teach the driving support system according to claim 2, further comprising the computer predicts execution of the course changing in a case where the traveling position is located in the normal traveling region, the movement triggering factor comprises movement triggering factors, a preceding vehicle and a traffic light as the movement triggering factors are present ahead of the subject vehicle in the traveling direction, and a display mode of the traffic light represents no-entry or stop (see at least Schiller [0049-0054] and [0057-0058] “[0052] The control unit 116 can also determine the presence of a traffic signal system at the traffic network node and check whether at least one preceding vehicle has already come to a standstill at a red signal and determine its lane. Alternatively or additionally, the control unit 116 can determine the speeds of preceding vehicles on the at least two lanes and take into consideration the determined speeds and determined stationary vehicles when determining the first delay time and/or the second delay time…[0054] In autonomous driving, the control unit 116 transmits the lane change recommendation to a functional unit 120 of the vehicle 102 for autonomous driving, which in particular actuates an actuator, a drive system, a braking system, and/or a steering system. In non-autonomous driving, the control unit 116 outputs the lane change recommendation via an output unit of a human-machine interface to the vehicle driver 104.” See also [0057-0058] ).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Iizuka, Maeda and Schiller teach the driving support system according to claim 2 the computer predicts execution of the course changing in a case where the traveling position is located in the normal traveling region, a preceding vehicle as the movement triggering factor is present ahead of the subject vehicle in the traveling direction, and a brake lamp of the preceding vehicle is lit stop (see at least Schiller [0049-0054] and [0057-0058} which teaches predicting a lane change when the preceding vehicle has come to a stop and further teach the control unit taking into account image data of the surroundings of the vehicle in front of the vehicle “[0052] The control unit 116 can also determine the presence of a traffic signal system at the traffic network node and check whether at least one preceding vehicle has already come to a standstill at a red signal and determine its lane. …[0054] In autonomous driving, the control unit 116 transmits the lane change recommendation to a functional unit 120 of the vehicle 102 for autonomous driving, which in particular actuates an actuator, a drive system, a braking system, and/or a steering system. In non-autonomous driving, the control unit 116 outputs the lane change recommendation via an output unit of a human-machine interface to the vehicle driver 104.” See also [0057-0058] [0057] The traffic signals L1 to L4 are on red in the first traffic situation, so that all present road users 102, v1, v2, v3, 232, 234 have to stop or remain standing. The vehicle v2 standing on the first lane s1 in front of the vehicle 102 signals a right turn so that there is an intention to turn to the right into the third lane s3…[0058] The control unit 116 of the vehicle 102 determines in the traffic situation 200 shown, in particular starting from image data of a camera of the vehicle 102, which takes images of the surroundings of the vehicle 102, in particular of the area in front of the vehicle 102, and generates corresponding image data and transfers these data for processing to the control unit 116,.”)
While the described and cited embodiment of Schiller describes determining that the vehicles are at a stop, it does not explicitly state determining that the vehicle brake lights are lit. Schiller teaches in another embodiment that relevant surrounding information for determination of a recommendation of a lane change includes brake lights of a preceding vehicle. (See Schiller [0004] that teaches it is known that the recorded image data can include vehicle tail lights and in particular brake lights. “[0004] Document DE 10 2020 007 074 A1 teaches a method and a device for determining items of relevant surroundings information for a vehicle on the basis of image data recorded in darkness of a vehicle camera having its recording area directed in front of the vehicle. It is provided that a distinction is made on the basis of recorded image data between vehicle taillights, in particular additional vehicle reversing, position, and/or brake lights, arranged at the top on the rear with respect to a vehicle vertical axis, of preceding vehicles and traffic signals of a traffic signal system, a vehicle contour for classifying at least one preceding vehicle is determined on the basis of the image data, wherein in the case of multiple lanes running in one direction of a roadway section lying in front of the vehicle and in the case of a preceding vehicle classified as a utility vehicle, which is located on a right lane in front of the vehicle, a lane change recommendation is output to a vehicle user of the vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iizuka, Maeda and Schiller with the additional embodiment of Schiller, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Schiller teaches the surrounding information is helpful in determining whether a lane change is recommended for the own vehicle and further, the as Schiller is interested in determining if the preceding vehicles are stopped, brake lights are common indication that a vehicle is stopped.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Iizuka, Maeda and Schiller teach the driving support system according to claim 2, further comprising
the computer predicts execution of the course changing in a case where the traveling position is located in the normal traveling region, a preceding vehicle as the movement triggering factor is present ahead of the subject vehicle in the traveling direction, and a turn signal of the preceding vehicle is lit (see at least Schiller [0053] and [0057] “[0053] The control unit 116 can also determine the intention to turn of each preceding vehicle on the first lane into the third lane and only determine the length of the vehicle with intention to turn if only a single vehicle with intention to turn has been determined. In the case of multiple vehicles with intention to turn, in general the distance between crossing area and first lane is not sufficient so that all vehicles fit into this area. The control unit 116 can determine a lane change recommendation in this case without further checking.” And [0057] “The vehicle v2 standing on the first lane s1 in front of the vehicle 102 signals a right turn so that there is an intention to turn to the right into the third lane s3.” See also [0072-0073] which teaches that the intention to turn comprises turn signal and calculates a delay to determine whether to change lanes “The traffic signals L5 and L6 remain on red, so that the vehicle v2 with intention to turn (turn signal) onto the third lane s3 does not have to wait for the oncoming traffic before the vehicle v2 can turn to the left. The traffic signals L5 and L6 remain on red, so that the vehicle v2 with intention to turn (turn signal) onto the third lane s3 does not have to wait for the oncoming traffic before the vehicle v2 can turn to the left. The vehicle v2 can therefore turn to the left onto the lane s3 immediately after the switching of the traffic signal L1 and stop in the area between crossing area 230 and the left lane edge of the lane s1 minus the width of the opposite roadway 250 having the relevant distance d in order to wait until all pedestrians 232, 234, after passing the crossing area 230, have left it again and the vehicle v2 can drive further along the lane s3, as can be seen in the sixth traffic situation shown in FIG. 7….[0073] The following vehicle 102 (ego vehicle) is located on the second lane s2 behind a slowly accelerating and slowly driving truck v3. The control unit 116 determines a first delay time for the vehicle 102 at the traffic network node 400 with lane change to the lane s1 and a second delay time if the vehicle 102 remains on the second lane s2. Due to the slow truck v3 on the second lane, the second delay time is greater than the first delay time and the control unit 116 determines a lane change recommendation for the vehicle 102 from lane s2 to lane s1, which is output to the vehicle driver 104 or is transferred to a further control unit for autonomous or semiautonomous driving.”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka, Maeda, and Takabayashi in further view of Hisaie et al. (JP-2005346371-A, hereinafter “Hisaie”)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Iizuka, Maeda and Takabayashi teach the driving support system according to claim 2, but do not teach wherein
the computer predicts that the subject vehicle will not change course from the normal traveling region to the road shoulder region in a case where the subject vehicle travels in the normal traveling region and within a predetermined distance from a line that separates the road shoulder region and the normal traveling region continuously for more than or equal to a predetermined time period.
Hisaie teaches the computer predicts the vehicle not change course from the normal traveling region to the road shoulder region in a case where the subject vehicle travels in the normal traveling region and within a predetermined distance from a line that separates the road shoulder region and the normal traveling region continuously for more than or equal to a predetermined time period (see at least Hisaie Figure 4 and [0034] “As shown in FIG. 4, when the host vehicle is traveling in the lane center region (ya ≦ y ≦ yb), the lane change estimated threshold value T is set to Ta (for example, Ta⟩ 0.5). When the host vehicle deviates from the vicinity of the lane center and enters the lane edge region, the lane change estimated threshold value T gradually decreases, and the lane change estimated threshold value T becomes Tb at the right or left edge of the lane. Here, the lane change estimated threshold value T is 0 ⟨T ⟨1. When the host vehicle is traveling in the lane center region, it is considered that the probability of the host vehicle changing the lane is low. Therefore, the threshold value T is increased so that the intention to change the lane is carefully estimated. On the other hand, when the host vehicle travels in the lane edge region, it is considered that the probability of changing the lane is higher than when traveling in the lane center region. Make it relatively small.” See also [0038] “The driving intention estimation reference variable setting unit 50 sets the lane center area and the lane edge area in the own lane, and the own vehicle is in the lane center area as shown in FIG. 4 (ya ≦ y ≦ yb). Increases the lane change estimated threshold value T more than when the host vehicle is in the lane edge region (y ⟨ya or y⟩ yb). Thereby, even if the lateral position y in the lane fluctuates due to, for example, wobbling in the own lane, it is possible to reduce erroneous estimation that the lane change is intended while maintaining the lane. Further, when traveling in the lane edge region, it is considered that the probability of changing the lane is higher than when traveling in the lane center region. Therefore, by setting the threshold value T to a small value (⟨Ta), the lane change intention Can be positively estimated.” The examiner interprets “traveling in the lane center region” to be traveling continuously or for a period of time.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iizuka, Maeda Takabayashi with the teaching of Hisaie because as Hisaie teaches this provides a more reliable detection of whether the vehicle will change lanes and reduces erroneous estimations of lane changes (see Hisaie [0038]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka and Maeda in view of Berntorp et al. (US Pub. No. US-20180284785-A1, hereinafter “Berntorp”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Iizuka and Maeda teach wherein the computer is further configured to learn a traveling position of the subject vehicle in a road width direction, and predict execution of the course changing based on the surrounding information and a result of learning of the traveling position.
Berntorp teaches wherein the computer is further configured to learn a traveling position of the subject vehicle in a road width direction, and predict execution of the course changing based on the surrounding information and a result of learning of the traveling position (see at least Berntorp [0066] In one embodiment described later, the infinite number of trajectories is encapsulated into a finite set of trajectories by assigning a probability distribution function to one trajectory resulting from one unique combination of intentions. Depending on the location with which the trajectory is initiated, that is, from which position a hypothetical vehicle is on the toad, the hypothetical different trajectories are more or less likely to be trajectories followed by a vehicle observed by the sensing system. Consequently, one embodiment generates the feasible trajectories starting from different locations with respect to the host vehicle, wherein the different locations are dependent on the information provided by the map. For instance, if there is an obstruction in the right lane and the host vehicle is located in the left lane, hypothetical trajectories emanating from locations in front of the host vehicle are more likely to change lane and accelerate, whereas if the position is behind the host vehicle, hypothetical trajectories are more likely to slow down” and see at least Berntorp [0106] [109] and [111-114] “For example, one embodiment trains a neural network. The training 810c involves mapping a sequence of sensor data 801c to an intention, such as change lane left 840 and change velocity 860, 870 of the vehicle….[0113] The training data can include input time-series signals from the onboard sensors and the intention of the driver. The input data can be labeled according to the current intention that is being trained…[0114] When training a deep decision tree, random forest, to have enough training data, one embodiment employs a sliding window approach for training. For example, one embodiment computes the feature values from the measured vehicle's lateral position; and longitudinal and lateral speed. If not measured directly, these variables can be estimated from a filter, such as particle filter or Kalman filter, using sensors such as radars and cameras, GPS, and the road map. From the state variables and the road geometry, one embodiment computes normalized lateral position…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iizuka and Maeda with the teaching of Berntorp, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Berntorp teaches this allows for determining feasible or probable trajectories in a shared environment.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub. No. US-20190073540-A1, hereinafter “Yamada”).
Regarding claim 8, Iizuka discloses a driving support system comprising:
a computer configured to (see at least Iizuka Figure 2, ECU 23):
see at least Iizuka Figure 1, wherein the vehicle 1 is a saddle type vehicle see also [113] “The first flag indicates that the other vehicle T is actually detected by a camera, radar, or the like in the embodiment, but the present invention is not limited thereto.”);
based on the surrounding information, recognize another vehicle present in an alert region defined to be laterally behind the subject vehicle as an alert target (see at least Iizukia Figure 9 and see at least Iizuka [113] “The first flag indicates that the other vehicle T is actually detected by a camera, radar, or the like in the embodiment, but the present invention is not limited thereto.” See also [0115] “When the first flag is set (when the presence of the other vehicle T is detected in the detection area), the first warning is issued. The first warning is a warning display using, for example, an indicator lamp, a liquid crystal panel, or the like.”)
in a case where the alert target is recognized, perform first alert control of alerting a driver of the subject vehicle about a presence of the alert target (see at least Iizukia Figure 9 and see at least Iizuka [113] “The first flag indicates that the other vehicle T is actually detected by a camera, radar, or the like in the embodiment, but the present invention is not limited thereto.” See also [0115] “When the first flag is set (when the presence of the other vehicle T is detected in the detection area), the first warning is issued. The first warning is a warning display using, for example, an indicator lamp, a liquid crystal panel, or the like.”)
based on the surrounding information, predict execution of course changing by the subject vehicle to be performed while the alert target is recognized(see at least Iizukia Figure 9 and [112] “The second flag is a flag indicating that a course change prediction operation (an operation in which a course change is predicted) of the own vehicle M to the side on which the other vehicle T is detected is detected in a state in which the first flag is set.”) ;
wherein the computer is further configured to:
perform second alert control with a higher alert intensity than the first alert control in a case where execution of the course changing is predicted see at least Iizukia Figure 9 and [0116] “When the second flag is set (when the course change prediction operation is detected), the second warning (for example, a warning for the rider's tactile sensation such as vibrating the body contact portion in the vehicle body, and a warning that causes a vehicle body behavior such as braking stronger than specified one) that is stronger than the first warning is issued, and the assist steering control gain is adjusted so that the roll (and thus the lane change) to the side on which the presence of the other vehicle T is recognized can be suppressed.” The examiner notes that Iizuka teaches providing the second warning when there is a course change in the direction of an object, and thus teaches providing the warning at any time of deviation from the lane including when the vehicle is moving from the lane to the shoulder, from the shoulder to a lane or from one lane to another lane. It would be nonsensical to not provide the warning of Iizuka when the system has detected an object that would result in potential collision in the destination lane/area in the case when a the vehicle is moving from a lane to a shoulder or from a shoulder to a lane).
However, Iizuka does not teach
specify a traveling position of the subject vehicle on a road on which the subject vehicle travels; and
in a case where the road is separated into a first lane and a second lane adjacent to the first lane, and the driving position is near a lane edge within the second lane that is opposite the first lane, restrict a widthwise length of the alert region defined on the second lane side relative to the subject vehicle to an area inside a separation line separating the first lane and the second lane
Yamada teaches specify a traveling position of the subject vehicle on a road on which the subject vehicle travels; and in a case where the road is separated into a first lane and a second lane adjacent to the first lane, and the driving position is near a lane edge within the second lane that is opposite the first lane, restrict a widthwise length of the alert region defined on the second lane side relative to the subject vehicle to an area inside a separation line separating the first lane and the second lane (see at least Yamada Figure 6 and 7, WL1 and Wl2 and [0066-0069]; [0066] “Here, in a case in which the horizontal position of the subject vehicle M deviates to one of the left side or the right side from the running lane center CL, the monitoring area setting unit 131 changes the forms of the left rear-side area A.sub.RL and the right rear-side area A.sub.RR. The changing of the forms of the areas, for example, is changing one or both of the width and the length of each of the left rear-side area A.sub.RL and the right rear-side area A.sub.RR. The changing of the forms may be enlarging or contracting the left rear-side area A.sub.RL and the right rear-side area A.sub.RR or sliding the left and right rear-side areas in one direction of the upper, lower, left, and right sides by a predetermined distance….[0067] FIG. 7 is a diagram showing a view in which the forms of a left rear-side area A.sub.RL and a right rear-side area A.sub.RR are changed in a case in which a horizontal position of a subject vehicle M deviates to the left side from running lane center CL. In the example illustrated in FIG. 7, the horizontal position of the subject vehicle M during running deviates from the running lane center CL of its own lane L1 to the left side by a distance D. In this case, the monitoring area setting unit 131 adjusts a width WL1 of the left rear-side area A.sub.RL and a width WR1 of the right rear-side area A.sub.RR on the basis of the distance D….[0068] For example, the monitoring area setting unit 131 sets a value acquired by subtracting the distance D from a width WL1 during running of the subject vehicle M at the running lane center CL as a width WL2 of the left rear-side area ARL. In addition, the monitoring area setting unit 131 sets a value acquired by adding the distance D to a width WR1 during running of the subject vehicle M at the running lane center CL as a width WR2 of the right rear-side area ARR….[0069] “In this way, the monitoring area setting unit 131 changes a monitoring area disposed on the same side as the side, to which the horizontal position of the subject vehicle M deviates, as being decreased and changes a monitoring area disposed on the opposite side as being increased.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iizuka with the teaching of Yamada, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yamada teaches this allows the monitoring areas such that all of the surrounding lanes can be monitored (see at least [0069] and Figure 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuge US-20060178789-A1 is cited for showing calculating a risk potential [0130] and determining that a vehicle will change lanes based on the vehicle’s position within the lane (see at least Figure 15 and accompanying description).
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 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights