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 .
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.
Status of Claims
In the amendment filed on March 5th, 2026, claims 2 and 4 have been amended, claims 1, 3 and 5 have been cancelled and no new claim has been added. Therefore, claims 2 and 4 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhberger et al. (DE 102017202615 A1) in view of Molin et al. (US 20220410908 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20190087668 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Kuhberger teaches a vehicle comprising a travel lane detector that detects a lane that the host vehicle is traveling in (Abstract; Page 1, Paragraph 3; Page 3, Paragraph 2)
The invention relates to a method for lane departure warning for a driver of a vehicle, in which a driver activity and / or a driving state is detected and the driver is warned by a haptic warning when and / or before leaving a lane. The intensity of the warning is thereby adapted as a function of the detected driver activity and / or the detected driving state and / or at least one preceding lane departure warning issued in the past and within a certain period of time [Abstract]
A lane departure warning is usually a sub-function of a so-called lane departure warning system, which warns the driver of a vehicle before or while leaving a lane on a road. For this purpose, different optical systems and controls are used, with which the position of the vehicle is determined within the lane. If the vehicle falls below a certain distance to the lane marking and a possible lane departure, the system warns.[Pg 1, Para 3]
In addition, it is preferably provided that the intensity of the warning is adapted to a driving condition. A driving condition can in particular represent a type of road. The idea behind this is that when driving on a winding country road, it is more likely to assume that the driver is attentive, as the driving task is more complex and demands more attention, similar to a drive with high lateral acceleration. So, if the driver leaves a lane while driving on a winding country lane, there is a high likelihood that this will happen deliberately or intentionally. The vehicle is then in an active driving state. A constant lane departure warning can then again be disturbing. Instead, if the driver drives predominantly in a monotone straight-ahead drive, for example on a freeway, then the driver should receive less attention. The vehicle is then in a non-active or less active driving state.[Pg 3, Para 2]
Kuhberger then teaches a lane departure warning determination unit that, if conditions for issuing a lane departure warning are met with respect to the host vehicle, determines whether or not to issue the warning (Page 1, Paragraph 3; Page 3, Paragraphs 4-8)
A lane departure warning is usually a sub-function of a so-called lane departure warning system, which warns the driver of a vehicle before or while leaving a lane on a road. For this purpose, different optical systems and controls are used, with which the position of the vehicle is determined within the lane. If the vehicle falls below a certain distance to the lane marking and a possible lane departure, the system warns.[Pg 1, Para 3]
If a lane departure warning at a short time interval (in particular at a distance of seconds to a few minutes, and particularly preferably in less than 5 minutes) follows a previous lane departure warning, it can be assumed that the driver has already been alerted and made aware by the previous warning , The more often such a warning follows each other within a certain period of time, the more likely it is to assume that the driver deliberately chooses the lane and leaves the lane intentionally. For example, in situations where the driver deliberately cuts corners.
In addition, it is preferable that the intensity of the warning decreases upon detection of a plurality of previous lane departure warnings consecutive in a certain period of time. The time period mentioned is particularly preferably in a range between 0 and 5 minutes.
Particularly preferably, the intensity of the warning gradually decreases on detection of a plurality of lane departure warnings preceding in a time period. The more warnings follow, the lower the intensity of the warning can become.
It is further preferred that the value of the intensity decreases to a minimum value or a minimum intensity. This minimum intensity is preferably such that it is still strong enough to be above the perception threshold of the driver. Alternatively, however, it is also conceivable that the minimum intensity is so low that the driver can no longer perceive them or no warning at all takes place. Should a further warning occur so late after a preceding lane departure warning that the defined time span is exceeded, then it is preferable to raise the warning intensity back to the original value, namely the maximum intensity.[Pg3, Para 4-8]
Lastly, Kuhberger teaches a warning unit that issues a warning on a basis of a determination result of the lane departure warning determination unit, wherein if the conditions for issuing the lane departure warning are met again within a predetermined period of time after the conditions for issuing the lane departure warning are met, the warning unit issues no warning (Page 3, Paragraphs 4-8).
If a lane departure warning at a short time interval (in particular at a distance of seconds to a few minutes, and particularly preferably in less than 5 minutes) follows a previous lane departure warning, it can be assumed that the driver has already been alerted and made aware by the previous warning , The more often such a warning follows each other within a certain period of time, the more likely it is to assume that the driver deliberately chooses the lane and leaves the lane intentionally. For example, in situations where the driver deliberately cuts corners.
In addition, it is preferable that the intensity of the warning decreases upon detection of a plurality of previous lane departure warnings consecutive in a certain period of time. The time period mentioned is particularly preferably in a range between 0 and 5 minutes.
Particularly preferably, the intensity of the warning gradually decreases on detection of a plurality of lane departure warnings preceding in a time period. The more warnings follow, the lower the intensity of the warning can become.
It is further preferred that the value of the intensity decreases to a minimum value or a minimum intensity. This minimum intensity is preferably such that it is still strong enough to be above the perception threshold of the driver. Alternatively, however, it is also conceivable that the minimum intensity is so low that the driver can no longer perceive them or no warning at all takes place. Should a further warning occur so late after a preceding lane departure warning that the defined time span is exceeded, then it is preferable to raise the warning intensity back to the original value, namely the maximum intensity.[Pg3, Para 4-8]
Here we see Kuhberger’s teaching explaining the warning system being a function of the comparison of current driver activity and past lane departure within a period of time with a current lane departure, to avoid redundant warnings, Kuhberger’s teaching decreases the frequency of the warning, to no warning at all.
Kuhberger fails to teach a forward obstacle detector that detects an obstacle ahead of the host vehicle; and a frontal collision warning determination unit that determines whether or not an obstacle is detected within a preset detection range, on the basis of a detection result of the forward obstacle detector, wherein if the conditions for issuing the lane departure warning are met again within the predetermined period of time after the conditions for issuing the lane departure warning are met, a length of the detection range in a vehicle width direction is shortened.
Molin on the other hand teaches a forward obstacle detector that detects an obstacle ahead of the host vehicle; and a frontal collision warning determination unit that determines whether or not an obstacle is detected within a preset detection range (Paragraph 86)
Another exemplary performance event may be a headway event, which may be detected from forward distance data characterizing the headway between the vehicle and an object (e.g., another vehicle) in front of the vehicle. The headway event may be generated from the forward distance sensor data, using known techniques in the art. Example headway characterizations include, but are not limited to, distance-gap (i.e., meters, etc., from impact) and time-gap (e.g., seconds, etc. from impact or a speed-dependent time headway), which may indicate the headway between the vehicle and the front object as, for example, following too close/far, increasing/decreasing following distance, or any other headway activity.[P-86]
Furthermore, on the basis of a detection result of the forward obstacle detector, wherein if the conditions for issuing the lane departure warning are met again within the predetermined period of time after the conditions for issuing the lane departure warning are met, a length of the detection range in a vehicle width direction is shortened (Paragraph 86)
Another exemplary performance event may be a headway event, which may be detected from forward distance data characterizing the headway between the vehicle and an object (e.g., another vehicle) in front of the vehicle. The headway event may be generated from the forward distance sensor data, using known techniques in the art. Example headway characterizations include, but are not limited to, distance-gap (i.e., meters, etc., from impact) and time-gap (e.g., seconds, etc. from impact or a speed-dependent time headway), which may indicate the headway between the vehicle and the front object as, for example, following too close/far, increasing/decreasing following distance, or any other headway activity.[P-86]
Thereby, it would be obvious during the time of the filing date of the said invention to combine Molin’s teaching with Kuhberger’s teaching in order to enable a more effective and efficient lane departure warning.
Kuhberger modified fails to specify the vehicle being a saddle riding vehicle.
Kim on the other hand teaches a travel lane detector that detects lane departure for vehicles such as four wheeled vehicle and two wheeled vehicle (saddle riding vehicle) (Paragraphs 48, 53, 115, 161)
In the disclosure, the vehicle may be a device on which a person rides or a cargo is loaded, and which can be moved, and for example, may include a vehicle, an airplane, a motorcycle, a ship, a train, or the like.[P-48]
The electronic device 100 may obtain road information regarding the road on which the vehicle travels, by analyzing the obtained image. Specifically, the electronic device 100 may detect at least one object included in the obtained image by analyzing the obtained image. In this case, the at least one detected object may be at least one of a vehicle, a motorcycle, a bicycle, a sign, a traffic light, a building, a sign board, a pedestrian, or an animal, but this is merely an example, and may also include other objects for obtaining road information. In this case, the electronic device 100 may detect the at least one object by inputting the image to an object recognition model which is trained to estimate an object.[P-53]
The ADAS 420, which is an advanced driver assist system, may include: a lane departure warning system (LDWS) which detects a departure from a lane made without turning on a turn signal, and provides corresponding information to a driver; a forward collision warning system (FCWS) which recognizes a vehicle ahead in real time with a camera mounted on a front portion of a vehicle, and warns of danger of accident in advance based on a motion of the vehicle ahead; an intelligent parking assist system (IPAS) which automatically assists drivers in parking vehicles through front and rear detection sensors and a voice guidance; a car navigation system (CNS) which has a GPS device embedded therein to automatically display a vehicle's location and simultaneously to provide surrounding traffic situations in real time; a rear parking assist system (RPAS) which detects a collision in advance while parking and guides a driver to allow the driver to exactly grasp a parking space when parking at the back; and a pedestrian collision warning system (PCWS) which recognizes a pedestrian and detects an accident caused by driver's carelessness in advance, and guides the driver. [P-115]
Referring to FIG. 7E, the electronic device 100 may obtain road information based on the information regarding the plurality of objects 710-1 and 710-2. Specifically, the electronic device 100 may obtain the road information by inputting the information regarding the objects to a recognition model which is trained to estimate road information. In this case, the electronic device 100 may detect a blind spot 720 as the road information as shown in FIG. 7E. That is, the electronic device 100 may detect an area where a motorcycle or a pedestrian jaywalking appears between the first and second vehicle objects as the blind spot.[P-161]
Here, we see Kim teaching a vehicle driving assisting device capable of being integrated with different vehicles, including conventional vehicles as well as motorcycles/saddle riding vehicles. Given that the claim language as written fails to specifically recite how the inventive components/limitations are integrated to the specific disclosed saddle riding vehicle, it would have been obvious to combine Kim’s teaching with Kuhberger modified’s teaching in order to improve the vast compatibility to better integrate a cost effective lane departure detecting device into multiple different type of vehicles.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhberger et al. (DE 102017202615 A1) in view of Molin et al. (US 20220410908 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20190087668 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fukutomi (US 20220204082 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Kuhberger modified fails to teach if the frontal collision warning determination unit determines not to issue a warning, the lane departure warning determination unit determines whether or not to issue a warning.
Fukutomi teaches if the frontal collision warning determination unit determines not to issue a warning, the lane departure warning determination unit determines whether or not to issue a warning (Paragraph 31)
In an aspect of the present disclosure, the lane departure prevention device may further include an obstacle detection device configured to detect an obstacle in front of the vehicle, and the control unit may be configured to, in a situation where issuing of the warning and steering of the steering wheel are prohibited, when the obstacle in front of the vehicle is detected by the obstacle detection device, not release the prohibition of issuing of the warning and the prohibition of steering of the steering wheel even when a determination is made that the vehicle terminates traveling obliquely to the lane based on the position of the vehicle detected by the vehicle position detection device. [P-31]
Here, we see an example of a situation of when a warning may be prohibited based on a front obstacle detection unit, may possibly be overridden by a lane changing warn unit of the same vehicle.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in art during the filing date of the said invention to combine Fukutomi’s teaching with Kuhberger modified’s teaching in order to enable a more effective and efficient lane departure warning.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s arguments and has addressed them above under new grounds of rejection. Furthermore, the examiner encourages the applicant to contact the examiner for suggestions to overcome the art in the rejection. Examiner has corrected the primary citated reference [Kuhberger et al. (DE 102017202615 A1)] number to the correct inventor to properly reflect the cited passages within the rejection.
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 ANTHONY D AFRIFA-KYEI whose telephone number is (571)270-7826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/ANTHONY D AFRIFA-KYEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights