CTNF 18/833,891 CTNF 93230 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The amendment of 07/27/2024 has been entered. Claims 5-10 are currently pending in the application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 0025 is objected to because the paragraph states “ "o" given in a "TRAVELING ROAD ABNORMALITY DETERMINATION" column indicates that neither the recognition unit 1a nor 2a has recognized an abnormality of the traveling road” (emphasis added) while Fig. 3 depicts ten instances where the symbol o is present when the imaging units have different recognitions. Therefore, the description in the specification and the depiction in the figure are inconsistent. 0025 is objected to because the paragraph states “ "x" indicates that the recognition units 1a and 2a each have recognized the abnormality of the traveling road” (emphasis added) while Fig. 3 depicts ten instances where the symbol x is present when the imaging units have different recognitions. Therefore, the description in the specification and the depiction in the figure are inconsistent. 0025 is objected to because the paragraph states “ "-" indicates that neither the recognition unit 1a nor 2a was capable of recognizing the abnormality of the traveling road” (emphasis added) while Fig. 3 depicts twelve instances where the symbol - is present when the imaging units have different recognitions. Therefore, the description in the specification and the depiction in the figure are inconsistent. At pg. 12 line 17 “the different algorithms” should read --the recognition units --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: At claim 8 line 11 “and” should read --or --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 5-10 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the controlling step in claim 5 integrates the recited mental processes into a practical application. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-37 AIA Claim s 5-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 5-8 of copending Application No. 18/833,890 (reference application) in view of WANG (US 10,754,689) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Regarding claim 5, the reference application claims a vehicle control apparatus comprising: first and second external environment detection units (claim 5) having a sensor (claim 5) and configured to detect an external situation in a predetermined region in a surrounding of a subject vehicle, respectively (claim 5); and a microprocessor configured to perform (claim 5): recognizing a division line defining a lane on which the subject vehicle travels based on a detection value by the first external environment detection unit (claim 6), by using a first algorithm (implied/inherent), and also recognize the division line of the lane on which the subject vehicle travels based on a detection value by the second external environment detection unit (claim 6), by using a second algorithm (implied/inherent). The reference application does not claim the second algorithm is different from the first algorithm. WANG teaches a front-view camera (308) and a rear-view (310) may be processed via different algorithms (col. 10 lines 38-39, 43-44, 46-47, and 66-67, and col. 11 lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second algorithm of the reference application as different than the first algorithm as taught by WANG to optimize the recognition algorithms to account for the different perspective views of the front-view and rear-view cameras from the vehicle. The reference application does not claim controlling an actuator for traveling based on a recognition result of the division line. WANG further teaches controlling an actuator for traveling based on a recognition result of a division line (col. 5 lines 52-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the reference application to control an actuator based on the recognition result of the division line as taught by WANG to keep the vehicle in the lane thereby improving the traveling safety of the vehicle. Regarding claim 6, the reference application as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5. The reference application further claims wherein the first external environment detection unit and the second external environment detection unit are first and second imaging units imaging a predetermined area in the surroundings of the subject vehicle, respectively (claim 7), and the microprocessor is configured to perform: the recognizing including recognizing the division line defining the lane on which the subject vehicle travels based on captured image data acquired by the first imaging unit (claim 7), by using the first algorithm (implied/inherent), and also recognize the division line defining the lane on which the subject vehicle travels based on captured image data acquired by the second imaging unit (claim 7), by using the second algorithm (implied/inherent). Regarding claim 7, the reference application as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5. the microprocessor is further configured to perform determining either a self-driving capability or a driving support capability to be applied to the subject vehicle (claim 6), based on a difference between a recognition result of the division line based on the detection value by the first external environment detection unit and a recognition result of the division line based on the detection value by the second external environment detection unit (claim 6). The reference application does not claim wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform: the controlling including controlling the actuator so that the self-driving capability or the driving support capability is applied to the subject vehicle. WANG further teaches wherein a microprocessor is configured to perform: the controlling including controlling the actuator so that the self-driving capability or the driving support capability is applied to the subject vehicle (col. 5 lines 52-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the reference application to control an actuator such that the self-driving or driving support capability is applied to the subject vehicle as taught by WANG to keep the vehicle in the lane thereby improving the traveling safety of the vehicle. Regarding claim 8, the reference application as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 7. The embodiment of the reference application (reference application claims 5-7) relied upon to reject claim 7 does not recite the further limitations of the claim. However, another embodiment of the reference application (reference application claim 8) further claims wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform: the recognizing including further recognizing a factor hindering travel of the subject vehicle, based on the detection value by the first external environment detection unit (claim 8), and also recognize a factor hindering the travel of the subject vehicle, based on the detection value by the second external environment detection unit (claim 8), and the determining including determining either the self-driving capability or the driving support capability to be applied to the subject vehicle (claim 8), based on a difference between the recognition result of the division line based on the detection value by the first external environment detection unit and the recognition result of the division line based on the detection value by the second external environment detection unit (claim 8), and a difference between the recognition result of the factor hindering the travel of the subject vehicle, based on the detection value by the first external environment detection unit and the recognition result of the factor hindering the travel of the subject vehicle, based on the detection value by the second external environment detection unit (claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lane keeping embodiment of the reference application (claim 7) with the collision avoidance embodiment of the reference application (claim 8) to provide a vehicle with both lane-keeping and collision-avoidance features to improve the safety of the vehicle. Regarding claim 9, the reference application as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5. The reference application further claims wherein the first and second external environment detection units each have the sensor of the same type (claim 7). Regarding claim 10, the reference application as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5. The reference application further claims wherein the sensor is an image sensor (claim 7). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIGUCHI (JP 4,654,208, provided by Applicant on 07/27/2024 IDS; English language equivalent in US 8,204,276) in view of WANG (US 10,754,689) . Regarding claim 5, HIGUCHI discloses (second embodiment, col. 11 line 37) a vehicle control apparatus comprising: first and second external environment detection units (front-view camera 3a, rear-view camera 3b, Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 9-14) having a sensor (camera, col. 4 lines 9-14) and configured to detect an external situation in a predetermined region in a surrounding of a subject vehicle (col. 4 lines 9-14), respectively (n.b. the claim does not require the predetermined region to be the same for both detection units); and a microprocessor (6, Fig. 1) configured to perform: recognizing a division line defining a lane on which the subject vehicle travels based on a detection value by the first external environment detection unit (i.a., col. 15 lines 6-7), by using a first algorithm (implied/inherent), and also recognize the division line of the lane on which the subject vehicle travels based on a detection value by the second external environment detection unit (i.a., col. 15 line 11), by using a second algorithm (implied/inherent); and controlling an actuator for traveling based on a recognition result of the division line (i.a. col. 5 lines 64-67, “lane keep” in second row of Fig. 19, col. 13 lines 28-31). HIGUCHI does not disclose the second algorithm (e.g., for the rear-view camera) is different from the first algorithm (e.g., for the front-view camera). WANG teaches a front-view camera (308) and a rear-view (310) may be processed via different algorithms (col. 10 lines 38-39, 43-44, 46-47, and 66-67, and col. 11 lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second algorithm of HIGUCHI as different than the first algorithm as taught by WANG to optimize the recognition algorithms to account for the different perspective views of the front-view and rear-view cameras from the vehicle. Regarding claim 6, HIGUCHI as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5. HIGUCHI further discloses wherein the first external environment detection unit and the second external environment detection unit (front-view camera 3a, rear-view camera 3b, Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 9-14) are first and second imaging units (front-view camera 3a, rear-view camera 3b, Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 9-14) imaging a predetermined area in the surroundings of the subject vehicle (front, back, etc., n.b. claim does not recite the cameras image the same predetermined area), respectively, and the microprocessor (6, Fig. 1) is configured to perform: the recognizing including recognizing the division line defining the lane on which the subject vehicle travels based on captured image data acquired by the first imaging unit (i.a., col. 15 lines 6-7), by using the first algorithm (implied/inherent), and also recognize the division line defining the lane on which the subject vehicle travels based on captured image data acquired by the second imaging unit (i.a., col. 15 line 11), by using the second algorithm (implied/inherent). Regarding claim 7, HIGUCHI as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5. HIGUCHI further discloses the microprocessor (6, Fig. 1) is further configured to perform determining either a self-driving capability (lane keep, Fig. 19, col. 13 lines 28-31) or a driving support capability (lane deviation warning, Fig. 19, col. 13 lines 31-33) to be applied to the subject vehicle, based on a difference (i.e., comparison, c.f. Applicant’s Fig. 3) between a recognition result of the division line based on the detection value by the first external environment detection unit and a recognition result of the division line based on the detection value by the second external environment detection unit (Fig. 19), wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform: the controlling including controlling the actuator so that the self-driving capability is applied to the subject vehicle (col. 13 lines 28-31). Regarding claim 8, HIGUCHI as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 7. HIGUCHI further discloses in a third embodiment (col. 16 line 1) wherein the microprocessor (6, Fig. 1) is configured to perform: the recognizing including further recognizing a factor hindering travel of the subject vehicle (i.e., obstructing object, col. 16 line 19), based on the detection value by the first external environment detection unit (col. 16 lines 44-51, Fig. 28), and also recognize a factor hindering the travel of the subject vehicle, based on the detection value by the second external environment detection unit (col. 16 lines 44-51, Fig. 28), and the determining including determining either the self-driving capability or the driving support capability to be applied to the subject vehicle, based on a difference (i.e., comparison; c.f. Applicant’s Fig. 3) between the recognition result of the division line based on the detection value by the first external environment detection unit and the recognition result of the division line based on the detection value by the second external environment detection unit (Fig. 19), or a difference (i.e., comparison; c.f. Applicant’s Fig. 3) between the recognition result of the factor hindering the travel of the subject vehicle, based on the detection value by the first external environment detection unit and the recognition result of the factor hindering the travel of the subject vehicle, based on the detection value by the second external environment detection unit (Fig. 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the microprocessor to perform both the collision avoidance features of the third embodiment of HIGUCHI and the lane keeping features of the second embodiment to provide the advantages of both lane keeping and collision avoidance in the same system (implied, i.a. col. 5 lines 52-58, col. 16 lines 18-24). Regarding claim 9, HIGUCHI as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5. HIGUCHI further discloses wherein the first and second external environment detection units (front-view camera 3a, rear-view camera 3b, Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 9-14) each have the sensor of the same type (camera, col. 4 lines 9-14). Regarding claim 10, HIGUCHI as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5. HIGUCHI further discloses wherein the sensor is an image sensor (camera, col. 4 lines 9-14). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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. /MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 2 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 3 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 4 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 5 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 6 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 7 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 8 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 9 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 10 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 11 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/833,891 Page 12 Art Unit: 3747
Prosecution Insights