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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2-3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, “said host lane rightward” should read “said host vehicle”. Examiner has interpreted it to mean “said host vehicle”.
Regarding claim 3, “said host lane leftward” should read “said host vehicle”. Examiner has interpreted it to mean “said host vehicle”.
Regarding claim 5, “adjacent to said host lane rightward” should read “adjacent to said host vehicle”. Examiner has interpreted it to mean “adjacent to said host vehicle”.
Regarding claim 5, “adjacent to said host lane leftward” should read “adjacent to said host vehicle”. Examiner has interpreted it to mean “adjacent to said host vehicle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 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.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites “a host vehicle” twice. It is unclear if the second recitation refers back to the first recitation, or the second recitation is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a host vehicle”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the second recitation of “a host vehicle” to mean any host vehicle.
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, 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US 20180025645 A1) in view of Inomata (US 20160272202 A1).
Claim 1
Schwindt teaches:
A lane departure prevention apparatus comprising a control unit configured to perform
(Schwindt – Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
as a departure suppression support operation, at least one of an alert generation operation to generate an alert to a driver of a host vehicle and a lane departure prevention operation to apply a force in a direction for avoiding a departure of said host vehicle from a host lane to said host vehicle, when there is a probability that said host vehicle departs from said host lane
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, 0071, 0073) “The warning unit 44 provides an audio and/or visual indication”
said control unit is configured to permit performing said departure suppression support operation without cancelling performing said departure suppression support operation when a rear approaching vehicle that is positioned in said host lane and is approaching said host vehicle from behind is present, even when said turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state
(Schwindt – Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
Schwindt does not teach cancelling departure support when a turn signal is blinking.
However, Inomata teaches:
cancel performing said departure suppression support operation when a turn signal of said host vehicle is in a blinking state
(Inomata - Paragraph 0031) “a condition for interrupting the lane keeping assist function is set, when the traveling vehicle speed is out of a predetermined range, the white line is not recognized, the hands free state is detected in which the driver does not grip the steering wheel (the hands free detection state), or the turn signal is activated”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with cancelling departure suppression support when a turn signal is blinking of Inomata with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Schwindt and Inomata are both in the field of lane keeping assist. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety and reduces chances of a collision (Inomata – Paragraph 0013).
Claim 4
The combination of Schwindt and Inomata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Schwindt further teaches:
said control unit is configured to
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
perform said lane departure prevention operation as said departure suppression support operation
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
permit performing at least said lane departure prevention operation for preventing said host vehicle from departing to an overtaking lane with respect to said host lane without cancelling said lane departure prevention operation if said rear approaching vehicle is present, even when said turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
Claim 7
Schwindt teaches:
A lane departure prevention method comprising
(Schwindt - Paragraph 0045, Fig. 5) “FIG. 5 sets forth in detail a method for operating the central controller 36 to provide lane assistance”
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 8
Schwindt teaches:
A non-transitory storage medium storing a program, said program causing a computer applied to a host vehicle to implement
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0039-0040) “the electronic controller 28 of the rear sensor unit 24 includes a processor that has an executable program stored in a memory, such as a read only memory (ROM). The electronic controller 28 also includes a random access memory (RAM) for storing information that is received through the communication bus 48. Non-transitory computer readable memory of the electronic controller 28”
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt and Inomata, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larsen (US 20210097312 A1).
Claim 2
The combination of Schwindt and Inomata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Schwindt further teaches:
said control unit is configured to
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
perform said lane departure prevention operation as said departure suppression support operation
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
permit performing at least said lane departure prevention operation for preventing said host vehicle from departing to said right adjacent lane without cancelling said lane departure prevention operation if it is determined that said rear approaching vehicle, even when said turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
Schwindt does not teach determining whether a rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes.
However, Larsen teaches:
determine whether or not said rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane that is adjacent to said host lane rightward
(Larsen - Paragraph 0020, 0030, Fig. 1) “The LKAS may be activated e.g. if an object is approaching the vehicle from the rear at a certain speed so that an overtaking maneuver can be expected”.
Note: Larsen does not teach a rear approaching vehicle attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to said right adjacent lane
(Larsen - Paragraph 0020, 0030, Fig. 1) “The LKAS may be activated e.g. if an object is approaching the vehicle from the rear at a certain speed so that an overtaking maneuver can be expected”
Note: Larsen does not teach a rear approaching vehicle attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with determining whether a rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes of Larsen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Schwindt and Larsen are in the field of avoiding collisions through a lane keeping system. One would have been motivated to combine as this prevents vehicle collision (Larsen – Paragraph 0020).
Claim 3
The combination of Schwindt and Inomata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Schwindt further teaches:
said control unit is configured to
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
perform said lane departure prevention operation as said departure suppression support operation
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
and permit performing at least said lane departure prevention operation for preventing said host vehicle from departing to said left adjacent lane without cancelling said lane departure prevention operation if it is determined that said rear approaching vehicle, even when said turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
Schwindt does not specifically state determining whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes.
However, Larsen teaches:
determine whether or not said rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a left adjacent lane that is adjacent to said host lane leftward
(Larsen - Paragraph 0020, 0030, Fig. 1) “The LKAS may be activated e.g. if an object is approaching the vehicle from the rear at a certain speed so that an overtaking maneuver can be expected”
Note: Larsen does not teach a rear approaching vehicle attempting to change lanes to a left adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to said left adjacent lane
(Larsen - Paragraph 0020, 0030, Fig. 1) “The LKAS may be activated e.g. if an object is approaching the vehicle from the rear at a certain speed so that an overtaking maneuver can be expected”
Note: Larsen does not teach a rear approaching vehicle attempting to change lanes to a left adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with determining whether a rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes of Larsen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Schwindt and Larsen are in the field of avoiding collisions through a lane keeping system. One would have been motivated to combine as this prevents vehicle collision (Larsen – Paragraph 0020).
Claim 5
The combination of Schwindt and Inomata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Schwindt further teaches:
cancel a rightward departure prevention operation of said lane departure prevention operation, for preventing said host vehicle from departing from said host lane rightward
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078) “allows a lane change, and thus permits moving or steering of the host vehicle 20 to the left lane as desired”.
Note: Schwindt teaches the claimed invention except for rightward/leftward departure prevention operation. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a rightward or leftward departure prevention operation, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both sides.
cancel a leftward departure prevention operation of said lane departure prevention operation, for preventing said host vehicle from departing from said host lane leftward
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078) “allows a lane change, and thus permits moving or steering of the host vehicle 20 to the left lane as desired”
Note: Schwindt teaches the claimed invention except for rightward/leftward departure prevention operation. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a rightward or leftward departure prevention operation, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both sides.
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1-3. Please see the rejection above.
Note: It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a rightward/leftward departure prevention operation or turn signal, and determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt, Inomata, and Larsen, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhu (US 20190071091 A1).
Claim 6
The combination of Schwindt, Inomata, and Larsen teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as seen above.
Schwindt further teaches:
said control unit is configured to
(Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
Schwindt does not teach cancelling rightward/leftward departure prevention operating when the turn signal is blinking.
However Inomata teaches:
permit cancelling said rightward departure prevention operation, if said right turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state
(Inomata - Paragraph 0031) “a condition for interrupting the lane keeping assist function is set, when the traveling vehicle speed is out of a predetermined range, the white line is not recognized, the hands free state is detected in which the driver does not grip the steering wheel (the hands free detection state), or the turn signal is activated”
Note: Inomata teaches the claimed invention except for a right/left lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to permit cancelling towards a right or left lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
and permit cancelling said leftward departure prevention operation, if said left turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state
(Inomata - Paragraph 0031) “a condition for interrupting the lane keeping assist function is set, when the traveling vehicle speed is out of a predetermined range, the white line is not recognized, the hands free state is detected in which the driver does not grip the steering wheel (the hands free detection state), or the turn signal is activated”
Note: Inomata teaches the claimed invention except for a right/left lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to permit cancelling towards a right or left lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with cancelling departure suppression support when a turn signal is blinking of Inomata with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Schwindt and Inomata are both in the field of lane keeping assist. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety and reduces chances of a collision (Inomata – Paragraph 0013).
Schwindt does not teach permit cancelling only when there is a right/left adjacent lane.
However, Zhu teaches:
only when there is said right adjacent lane to which said host vehicle can change lanes rightward from said host lane
(Zhu - Paragraph 0047, Fig. 5) “there is another lane 412 is available adjacent to the current lane 411. Thus, user intention determination module 350 may determine that ADV 401 is intentionally moving to the right side in an attempt to change lane from current lane 411 to adjacent lane 412”
only when there is said left adjacent lane to which said host vehicle can change lanes leftward from said host lane
(Zhu - Paragraph 0047, Fig. 5) “there is another lane 412 is available adjacent to the current lane 411. Thus, user intention determination module 350 may determine that ADV 401 is intentionally moving to the right side in an attempt to change lane from current lane 411 to adjacent lane 412”
Note: Zhu teaches the claimed invention except explicit recitation of a left adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine a right or left adjacent lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with permit cancelling only when there are right/left adjacent lanes of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Schwindt and Zhu are in the field of lane keeping assist. One would have been motivated to combine as this recognizes driver’s intention and improves safety (Zhu – Paragraph 0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669