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 . Claims 1-11 were previously pending. Claims 1-6 and 8-11 have been amended. Claim 12 has been newly added. No claims have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke (US 2015/0153735 A1) in view of Moshchuk (US 2012/0101701 A1) and Ishimaru (US 2023/0122011 A1, cited in the IDS dated 8/30/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Clarke discloses a driving assistance device comprising: a processor that executes instructions to: recognize division lines for dividing a traveling path around a vehicle (see at least [0205, 0219, 0294, 0321, 0336] – identifying lane lines); detect a presence of a target object in front of the vehicle and on a same traveling path as the vehicle (see at least Figs. 32A-32B, [0334-0336, 0358] – detect presence of another vehicle ahead of vehicle 200); determine a degree of approach between the vehicle and the target object, wherein the degree of approach is an estimated distance to collision between the vehicle and the target object (see at least [0366-0369] – distance to the stopped vehicle); based on the degree of approach between the vehicle and the target object satisfying a first condition, instruct the vehicle to stop (see at least Figs. 32A-32B, [0369] – braking profile in segment 4, close the remaining distance which may constitute the last 5-7 meters to the stopped vehicle to gradually bring the vehicle to a stop); and instruct the vehicle to avoid coming into contact with the target object by steering (see at least [0308, 0332] – evasive actions may be taken to avoid a collision, such as by transmitting signals to the steering system 240), wherein the processor includes a first preliminary operation control that performs a first preliminary operation when the degree of approach does not satisfy the first condition but satisfies a second condition (see at least Figs. 32A-32B, [0368] – braking profile in segment 3, this zone may be approximately 5-30 meters away from the stopped vehicle), the processor further includes a second preliminary operation control that performs a second preliminary operation when the degree of approach does not satisfy the first condition and the second condition but satisfies a third condition (see at least Figs. 32A-32B, [0366-0367] – braking profile in segments 1 and/or 2, segment 1 zone may be approximately 100-200 meters away from the stopped vehicle, segment 2 zone may be approximately 30-100 meters away from the stopped vehicle), the first condition is a condition that is satisfied when the degree of approach indicates that the distance to collision in the first condition is shorter than the distance to collision of the second condition (see at least Fig. 32B, [0366-0369]), the second condition is a condition that is satisfied when the degree of approach indicates that the distance to collision in the second condition is shorter than the distance to collision of the third condition (see at least Fig. 32B, [0366-0369]), the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation are deceleration operations of the vehicle to notify a driver of the vehicle of the presence of the target object, wherein the second preliminary operation is a multiple stage deceleration operation performed at an earlier timing than the first preliminary operation.
In the primary embodiment, Clarke does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the degree of approach is an estimated time to collision, the smaller a value obtained by dividing a distance between the vehicle and the target object by a relative speed between the vehicle and the target object, the higher the degree of approach.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Clarke does disclose wherein the degree of approach is an estimated time to collision, the smaller a value obtained by dividing a distance between the vehicle and the target object by a relative speed between the vehicle and the target object, the higher the degree of approach (see at least [0308, 0323, 0330] – time to collision… determined based on the distance and velocity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Clarke’s degree of approach to be an estimated time to collision. This modification could be carried out with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well known that the risk of collision correlates with the time to collision and is greatly dependent upon the relative speed of the vehicles. For example, if the distance between vehicles is 100 feet and the relative speed of the vehicles is 5 mph, the TTC is greater and the risk of collision is relatively low. However, if the distance between the vehicles is 100 feet and the relative speed of the vehicles is 50 mph, the TTC is very short and the risk of collision is higher. Therefore using TTC as an indicator or threshold as opposed to distance provides a safer process for preventing collisions. This would help make the user feel safer (Clarke – [0338]).
Clarke does not appear to explicitly disclose perform the second preliminary operation when it is determined that there is no space where the vehicle is able to move after performing avoidance by the steering to any traveling path on a side of the target object at a point in time when the third condition is satisfied.
Moshchuk, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: perform the second preliminary operation when it is determined that there is no space where the vehicle is able to move after performing avoidance by the steering to any traveling path on a side of the target object at a point in time when the third condition is satisfied (see at least Figs. 3-4, [0022-0025] – if the time to collision is less than the fourth threshold Th4 and the adjacent lane is not available, provide full autonomous collision mitigation braking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Moshchuk into the invention of Clarke with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of safely avoiding collisions by checking whether an adjacent lane is clear so that the collision can be avoided by steering and when the adjacent lane is not clear providing hard braking to avoid the collision (Moshchuk – [0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect Clarke to check the adjacent lanes before maneuvering into them, otherwise additional collisions would occur. This would improve overall safety by preventing other collisions by changing lanes to avoid the forward collision.
Clarke does not appear to explicitly disclose when the second preliminary operation control determines that there is a misrecognized lane based on a lane width of a lane divided by two division lines among a plurality of division lines recognized, the traveling path on the side of the target object is specified based on information on a lane other than the misrecognized lane.
Ishimaru, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: when the second preliminary operation control determines that there is a misrecognized lane based on a lane width of a lane divided by two division lines among a plurality of division lines recognized, the traveling path on the side of the target object is specified based on information on a lane other than the misrecognized lane (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0097-0102] – For example, when the width WLC of fifth lane candidate is smaller than the minimum lane width LWmin, among the two adjacent lane boundary lines B5 and B6 of the fifth lane candidate, the lane boundary line B6 located on the outer side viewed from the subject vehicle is discarded and the lane boundary line B5 located on the inner side viewed from the subject vehicle is set as the outer end of lane detection range. By executing S305 and S306, it is possible to reduce the risk of using lane boundary line information that is highly likely to be erroneously detected in the subsequent processing… For example, as shown in FIG. 10 , when the lane boundary line B1 corresponding to the left boundary line of the first lane candidate is located on outer side of the left road edge EgL, the detection result of the lane boundary line B1 is discarded.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Ishimaru into the invention of Clarke with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the possibility of erroneously specifying the travel lanes (Ishimaru – [0083, 0093]). Doing so facilitates preventing the vehicle from maneuvering into a lane which has been erroneously detected, because maneuvering into a lane which has been erroneously detected could create a dangerous situation.
Regarding claim 2, Clarke does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, when the lane width of the lane divided by the two division lines among the plurality of division lines recognized is less than a threshold value, one of the two division lines is deleted to recognize a lane, and the traveling path on the side of the target object is specified based on the recognized lane.
Ishimaru, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein, when the lane width of the lane divided by the two division lines among the plurality of division lines recognized is less than a threshold value, one of the two division lines is deleted to recognize a lane, and the traveling path on the side of the target object is specified based on the recognized lane (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0097-0102] – For example, when the width WLC of fifth lane candidate is smaller than the minimum lane width LWmin, among the two adjacent lane boundary lines B5 and B6 of the fifth lane candidate, the lane boundary line B6 located on the outer side viewed from the subject vehicle is discarded and the lane boundary line B5 located on the inner side viewed from the subject vehicle is set as the outer end of lane detection range. By executing S305 and S306, it is possible to reduce the risk of using lane boundary line information that is highly likely to be erroneously detected in the subsequent processing… For example, as shown in FIG. 10 , when the lane boundary line B1 corresponding to the left boundary line of the first lane candidate is located on outer side of the left road edge EgL, the detection result of the lane boundary line B1 is discarded.).
The motivation to combine Clarke and Ishimaru is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Clarke does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value is a value that is set based on the lane width of the lane in which the vehicle travels.
Ishimaru, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the threshold value is a value that is set based on the lane width of the lane in which the vehicle travels (see at least [0098] - The minimum lane width LWmin is the minimum value of possible lane width range. The minimum lane width LWmin may be set based on laws and regulations of an area where the subject vehicle travels.).
The motivation to combine Clarke and Ishimaru is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Clarke does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second preliminary operation control deletes a division line that is farther from the vehicle out of the two division lines when the lane width of the vehicle divided by the two division lines is less than a threshold value.
Ishimaru, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the second preliminary operation control deletes a division line that is farther from the vehicle out of the two division lines when the lane width of the vehicle divided by the two division lines is less than a threshold value (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0097-0102] – For example, when the width WLC of fifth lane candidate is smaller than the minimum lane width LWmin, among the two adjacent lane boundary lines B5 and B6 of the fifth lane candidate, the lane boundary line B6 located on the outer side viewed from the subject vehicle is discarded and the lane boundary line B5 located on the inner side viewed from the subject vehicle is set as the outer end of lane detection range. By executing S305 and S306, it is possible to reduce the risk of using lane boundary line information that is highly likely to be erroneously detected in the subsequent processing… For example, as shown in FIG. 10 , when the lane boundary line B1 corresponding to the left boundary line of the first lane candidate is located on outer side of the left road edge EgL, the detection result of the lane boundary line B1 is discarded.).
The motivation to combine Clarke and Ishimaru is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Clarke does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second preliminary operation control deletes a division line with a lower degree of recognition which is recognized out of the two division lines when the lane width of the lane divided by the two division lines is less than a threshold value.
Ishimaru, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the second preliminary operation control deletes a division line with a lower degree of recognition which is recognized out of the two division lines when the lane width of the lane divided by the two division lines is less than a threshold value (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0097-0102] – For example, when the width WLC of fifth lane candidate is smaller than the minimum lane width LWmin, among the two adjacent lane boundary lines B5 and B6 of the fifth lane candidate, the lane boundary line B6 located on the outer side viewed from the subject vehicle is discarded and the lane boundary line B5 located on the inner side viewed from the subject vehicle is set as the outer end of lane detection range. By executing S305 and S306, it is possible to reduce the risk of using lane boundary line information that is highly likely to be erroneously detected in the subsequent processing… For example, as shown in FIG. 10 , when the lane boundary line B1 corresponding to the left boundary line of the first lane candidate is located on outer side of the left road edge EgL, the detection result of the lane boundary line B1 is discarded.).
The motivation to combine Clarke and Ishimaru is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Clarke does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second preliminary operation control deletes one division line based on line types of the two division lines when the lane width of the lane divided by the two division lines is less than a threshold value.
Ishimaru, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the second preliminary operation control deletes one division line based on line types of the two division lines when the lane width of the lane divided by the two division lines is less than a threshold value (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0097-0102] – For example, when the width WLC of fifth lane candidate is smaller than the minimum lane width LWmin, among the two adjacent lane boundary lines B5 and B6 of the fifth lane candidate, the lane boundary line B6 located on the outer side viewed from the subject vehicle is discarded and the lane boundary line B5 located on the inner side viewed from the subject vehicle is set as the outer end of lane detection range. By executing S305 and S306, it is possible to reduce the risk of using lane boundary line information that is highly likely to be erroneously detected in the subsequent processing… For example, as shown in FIG. 10 , when the lane boundary line B1 corresponding to the left boundary line of the first lane candidate is located on outer side of the left road edge EgL, the detection result of the lane boundary line B1 is discarded.).
The motivation to combine Clarke and Ishimaru is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Clarke discloses wherein the second preliminary operation is an operation that is started at an earlier timing than the first preliminary operation (see at least Fig. 32B, [0366-0369]).
Regarding claim 8, Clarke discloses wherein at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing the vehicle to output a braking force that is smaller than another braking force that the processor instructs the vehicle to output during other conditions (see at least Fig. 32B, [0366-0369]).
Regarding claim 9, Clarke discloses wherein at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing a human machine interface to perform a display, audio output, or vibration output for calling attention (see at least Fig. 4, [0023-0024] – audible alert).
In the primary embodiment, Clarke does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing an output device to perform a display, audio output, or vibration output for calling attention.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Clarke does disclose wherein at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing an output device to perform a display, audio output, or vibration output for calling attention (see at least [0130] – various notifications (e.g., alerts) via speakers 360).
Moshchuk, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing an output device to perform a display, audio output, or vibration output for calling attention (see at least Fig. 4, [0023-0024] – audible alert).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Moshchuk into the invention of Clarke with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing additional waning to the driver so the driver can take evasive action (Moshchuk – [0004, 0019, 0024]). This would improve overall safety by alerting the driver of possible collisions.
Regarding claims 10-11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 10-11 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 10-11 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Clarke discloses wherein a braking force output from the vehicle during the first preliminary operation is greater than another braking force output from the vehicle during the second preliminary operation (see at least Fig. 32B, [0366-0369]).
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, claim limitations are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669