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 is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on July 2, 2026. Claims 1, 8-9, 12-15, and 19-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the specification and underlying context that the lane width may be measured (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9-10), the examiner agrees. One of ordinary skill would understand how to measure the lane width using the cameras. However, one of ordinary skill would not understand how to use the measured lane width to set the predetermined distance as paragraph 0013 merely recites claim language and there is no other disclosure of how any of the disclosed methods use a predetermined distance based on a width of a lane.
Regarding applicant’s argument that neither Tosaka nor Shimizu describes that a change in distance is determined to be at least as great as a predetermined change in distance, and that turn indicator cancelation is performed when the change in distance is at least as great as the predetermined change in distance (Applicant’s Response, pg. 12). The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 2, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on July 2, 2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0013 and 0100 state that the predetermined distance can be based on a width of at least one of the original lane and target lane, but there is no disclosure on how it is being done making it unclear how the predetermined distance would be adjusted based on the lane width.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 21, lines 1-3, and claim 28, lines 1-3, the limitation “wherein determining that the change in distance is at least as great as the predetermined change in distance comprises determining that a cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line is below a threshold” appears to be new matter. Paragraphs 0074-0077 details the process of using a cross-over distance to determine that a lane change has occurred. In these paragraphs, there is no detail stating that determining that the change in distance is at least as great as the predetermined change in distance comprises determining that a cross-over distance is below a threshold. Instead, determining that a cross-over distance is below a threshold is included in paragraph 0073 which details the process of using a first predetermined threshold to determine that a lane change has occurred and verifying the lane change with a second threshold.
Claims 22-27 and 29 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claims 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In claim 21, lines 1-3, and claim 28, lines 1-3, the limitation “determining that a cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line is below a threshold” in combination with the limitation in claim 1, lines 10-11, and claim 15, lines 11-12, respectively, “determine that the change in distance is at least as great as a predetermined change in distance” is not detailed within the specification. The change in distance being at least as great as the predetermined change in distance is measuring the jump in distance as the vehicle crosses over the centerline while the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and cross-over lane line being below a threshold is measuring the distance to the centerline. These two limitations are performed in different processes. Fig. 4C and paragraph 0073 disclose “determining that a cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line is below a threshold” while Fig. 4D and paragraphs 0074-0077 disclose “determine that the change in distance is at least as great as a predetermined change in distance”. One of ordinary skill would not be able to determine that the change in distance is at least as great as a predetermined change in distance comprises determining the cross-over distance is below a threshold.
Claims 22-27 and 29 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 8, line 1, the limitation "the predetermined distance" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear if it is the same as the predetermined change in distance previously recited in claim 1 (lines 10-11). For purposes of examination, the examiner is assuming applicant intended to recite "the predetermined change in distance".
In claim 9, lines 1-2, the limitation "the predetermined distance is based on a width of at least one of the original lane and the target lane" renders the claim indefinite because "the predetermined distance" lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear if it is the same as the predetermined change in distance previously recited in claim 1 (lines 10-11). It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intended to recite "the predetermined change in distance", since there is no disclosure of using the predetermined change in distance based on a width of a lane line. Further, "the predetermined distance is based on a width of at least one of the original lane and the target lane" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a predetermined distance is calculated or determined based on a width of a lane line in combination with the disclosed method. Therefore, the scope is unclear. It is noted that para. 13 of the specification repeats this limitation. However, there is no other disclosure of how any of the disclosed methods use a predetermined distance based on a width of a lane.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 12-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (JP 2009166734) in view of Jia (CN 115265493).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Shimizu discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry and a computer-implemented method, respectively, configured to:
determine that a turn indicator of a host vehicle is activated (Shimizu, [0037] regarding receiving an input signal when the turn lever is rotated (i.e., activated)); and
cancel the turn indicator (Shimizu, [0041] regarding turning off the turn signal when it is determined that the lane change has been completed).
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose how to obtain a change in distance between the host vehicle and an immediate left or right lane line during a lane change from an original lane over a cross-over lane line to a target lane, wherein the change in distance represents a change of lane line from an immediate left lane line of the original lane to an immediate left lane line of the target lane, or from an immediate right lane line of the original lane to an immediate right lane line of the target; and
determine that the change in distance is at least as great as a predetermined change in distance.
Jia teaches how to obtain a change in distance between the host vehicle and an immediate left or right lane line during a lane change from an original lane over a cross-over lane line to a target lane, wherein the change in distance represents a change of lane line from an immediate left lane line of the original lane to an immediate left lane line of the target lane, or from an immediate right lane line of the original lane to an immediate right lane line of the target lane (Jia, [0035] regarding calculating the lateral deviation of a vehicle in the current lane relative to one side of the lane line and the calculation showing a large abrupt change when the vehicle changes lanes & Fig. 5 regarding the measurement being to the left lane line of the original lane when the vehicle is in the original lane and to the left lane line of the target lane when the vehicle is in the target lane); and
determine that the change in distance is at least as great as a predetermined change in distance (Jia, [0082] regarding if the distance change of the vehicle relative to one side of the current lane in the two consecutive lane line images exceeds a preset threshold, the vehicle changes lane).
Shimizu and Jia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu to swap the lane change determination method, as taught by Shimizu, with determining the distance change to one side exceeds a preset threshold to determine a lane change, as taught by Jia, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of detecting a lane change.
Shimizu, as modified, teaches cancel the turn indicator based on the change in distance being at least as great as the predetermined change in distance (Detecting a lane change, as taught by Jia, and turning off the turn signal when a lane change has been completed, as taught by Shimizu).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Shimizu in view of Jia teaches the computer system as claimed in claim 1. Jia further teaches wherein the predetermined distance is a fixed value (Jia, [0082] regarding if the distance change of the vehicle relative to one side of the current lane in the two consecutive lane line images exceeds a preset threshold, the vehicle changes lane).
Shimizu and Jia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu, as modified, to incorporate using a preset threshold, as taught by Jia, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of detecting a lane change at the same location within the new lane.
Regarding claim 12, Shimizu in view of Jia teaches the computer system as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine that a distance between the host vehicle and the left or right lane line is within a tolerance interval based on the obtained change in distance.
Shimizu teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine that a distance between the host vehicle and the left or right lane line is within a tolerance interval based on the obtained change in distance (Shimizu, Fig. 5 regarding determining the value y is back within the range A. The vehicle's distance to the lane line y will have moved from the middle of the range A down to zero, to the width of the lane line, and back down to within the range A. Therefore, the tolerance A is determined by factoring in change in distance as it represents the vehicle is within the lane.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu, as modified, to incorporate determining the distance to the lane line is within a range, as taught by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of confirming the vehicle has performed a lane change.
Regarding claim 13, Shimizu in view of Jia teaches the computer system as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuity is further configured to:
determine that a distance between the vehicle and the left or right lane line is within a tolerance interval based on the obtained change in distance; and
re-determine, for a subsequent position of the host vehicle during the lane change, that the distance between the vehicle and the left or right lane line is within the tolerance interval.
Shimizu teaches wherein the processing circuity is further configured to:
determine that a distance between the vehicle and the left or right lane line is within a tolerance interval based on the obtained change in distance (Shimizu, Fig. 5 regarding determining the value y is back within the range A. The vehicle's distance to the lane line y will have moved from the middle of the range A down to zero, to the width of the lane line, and back down to within the range A. Therefore, the tolerance A is determined by factoring in change in distance as it represents the vehicle is within the lane.); and
re-determine, for a subsequent position of the host vehicle during the lane change, that the distance between the vehicle and the left or right lane line is within the tolerance interval (Shimizu, Fig. 5 regarding the value y line being within the range A just as it enters the range and at a time x4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu, as modified, to incorporate determining the distance to the lane line is within a range, as taught by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of confirming the vehicle has performed a lane change.
Regarding claim 14, Shimizu in view of Jia teaches a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (Shimizu, [0001] regarding a vehicle).
Regarding claim 20, Shimizu in view of Jia teaches the method as claimed in claim 15. Jia further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 15 (Jia, [0015] regarding memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor).
Shimizu and Jia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu, as modified, to incorporate a computer-readable media, as taught by Jia, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of detecting a lane change.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Jia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiong (CN 111599182).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Shimizu in view of Jia teaches the computer system as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined distance is based on a width of at least one of the original lane and the target lane.
Xiong teaches wherein the predetermined distance is based on a width of at least one of the original lane and the target lane (Xiong, [0067] regarding the lane change threshold being set based on the lane width).
Shimizu and Xiong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu, as modified, to incorporate setting the lane change threshold based on the lane width, as taught by Xiong, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of detecting a lane change.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Jia as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Au (US 2013/0265152).
Regarding claim 19, Shimizu in view of Jia teaches the method as claimed in claim 15, but does not explicitly teach A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 15.
Au teaches a computer program product comprising program code ([0097] & [0104]).
Shimizu and Au are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane change determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu, as modified, to incorporate a computer program comprising code, as taught by Au, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the vehicle has changed lanes.
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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights