DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on December 5, 2024. This action is made non-final.
2. Claims 1-15 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
4. The pending claims were evaluated for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and it was determined that the claims are eligible under § 101. While independent claims recite steps that could be interpreted as mental processes (i.e., determining steps of Claim 1, and similarly, Claims 8 and 15), it was determined that the claims integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, particularly by reciting “controlling, by the processor and based on the second lane departure reference distance, driving of the vehicle.”
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
Figure 3 illustrates element
PNG
media_image1.png
22
28
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but this element is not referenced in the Specification. It is noted that Instant Specification references camera 132 when describing Fig. 3, but this is not illustrated in Fig. 3.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate elements/labels which are not legible, particularly the labels on the x and y axis.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
6. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee), US 2009/0021358 A1, published on January 22, 2009, in view of Cheng et al. (hereinafter Cheng), US 2020/0272835 A1, published on August 27, 2020.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Lee discloses a method of controlling a vehicle, comprising:
receiving, by a processor executing computer instructions stored in a memory and via at least one sensor of the vehicle, lane information of a lane in which the vehicle is traveling (see Figs. 1 and 6 (steps S100-S140), ¶¶ 0023-24, disclosing that current lane information is obtained or determined via a camera and/or other sensors).
determining, by the processor and based on the lane information and a first lane departure reference distance, that the vehicle is departing the lane (see Fig. 6 (steps S150-S190), ¶¶ 0029-30, 0060-67, showing a determination that the vehicle is approaching Lc1).
determining, based on specification information of the vehicle and the lane information, a second lane departure reference distance (see ¶¶ 0033-35, disclosing that a second critical line Lc2 is determined based on the lane information and the vehicle’s motion; see also Figs. 4(a)-(b), ¶¶ 0029, 0037-51, showing different specification information of the vehicle, such as front wheel angle, weight of the vehicle, and distance between the front wheel and the center of the vehicle’s mass, utilized in determining the vehicle’s motion).
controlling, by the processor and based on the second lane departure reference distance, driving of the vehicle (see ¶¶ 0024, 0054, 0063, showing that a second warning signal is outputted when the vehicle reaches Lc2).
It is noted that “controlling … driving of the vehicle” is broadly recited in the claim and the instant Specification does not appear to explicitly define what comprises (or does not comprise) such control (see Specification (as filed) ¶¶ 0056, 0060, 0066 (corresponding to ¶¶ 0060, 0065 of US 2025/0296559 A1), stating that the driving is controlled based on the LDW warning time and the LKA control time). However, even if controlling step was interpreted to require more than issuing a warning (as suggested, for example, by dependent Claim 3) as disclosed by Lee, a skilled artisan would understand that other actions (such as braking, haptic feedback, handing over control, etc.) can be implemented instead of or in addition to outputting the second warning, as taught by Cheng.
Cheng is directed towards performing intelligent driving control of a vehicle according to an estimated time at which the vehicle drives out of a lane line (see Cheng, Abstract). Cheng teaches determining an estimated distance by which the vehicle drives out of a lane based on a running state of the vehicle and the lane line detection result, and in turn determining an estimated time after which the vehicle drives out of the lane line (see Cheng, ¶¶ 0041, 0043-44). Cheng teaches that intelligent driving control is performed according to the estimated time (see Cheng, ¶¶ 0048-50). Cheng teaches that an early warning can be provided to the vehicle, but further teaches that an automatic driving control can be performed in addition to or instead of a later warning (see Cheng, Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0058-60, 0105-06). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant Application was filed, to supplement the outputting of a second warning signal of Lee with intelligent driving control described in Cheng, in order to improve the driving safety by reacting to an unintended lane departure (see Cheng, ¶¶ 0002, 0050).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Lee in view of Cheng teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the determining that the vehicle is departing the lane comprises determining the first lane departure reference distance based on a distance between a camera of the at least one sensor and a line of the lane and a position of the camera on the vehicle, and determining that the first lane departure reference distance is less than a preset distance (see Lee, ¶¶ 0024-25, 0031, 0035, 0053, 0061; see Cheng, ¶¶ 0053, 0059, 0098, 0104-05; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Lee in view of Cheng teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches adjusting, based on the second lane departure reference distance, a warning time of a lane departure warning (LDW) and a control time of a lane keeping assist (LKA); and controlling, based on the warning time of the LDW and the control time of the LKA, the driving of the vehicle (see Cheng, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0053-61; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Lee in view of Cheng teaches the method according to claim 3, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the specification information comprises: a width of the vehicle … wherein the at least one sensor comprises the camera (see Lee, Fig. 1 (element 10), ¶¶ 0029, 0059, discussing camera, see Cheng, ¶ 0098, discussing width of the vehicle). While Lee in view of Cheng does not appear to explicitly teach a longitudinal distance between a front wheel axle of the vehicle and a camera of the vehicle, Lee and Cheng teach that a variety of values can be considered when calculating/determining the vehicle’s motion, deviation, etc. (see Lee, ¶¶ 0029-30, 0037-51, Cheng, ¶¶ 0098, 0104), and a skilled artisan would understand that the position of the camera, in relation to other specifications of the vehicle, would be known and considered in order to ensure that the running environment (of Cheng) and/or lane/motion/deviation determinations (of Lee) are correctly processed.
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Lee in view of Cheng teaches the method according to claim 4, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the lane information comprises: a distance between two lines defining the lane, a curvature of a line of the two lines, and an angle between the line and a travel direction of the vehicle (see Lee, ¶¶ 0029-30, Cheng, Fig. 5).
With respect to Claims 8-12, these claims are directed to a vehicle comprising steps and/or features corresponding to Claims 1-5, respectively, and are thus rejected along the same rationale as Claims 1-5, above.
With respect to Claim 15, Claim 15 is directed to a method of controlling a vehicle, comprising steps and/or features corresponding to Claims 1 and 2, and is thus rejected along the same rationale as those claims, above.
Discussion of Prior Art
7. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose or suggest the combination of steps/features as recited in dependent Claim 6 (and similarly, dependent Claim 13), particularly with respect to “wherein the determining the second lane departure reference distance is based on the width, the longitudinal distance, and the angle.” While Lee in view of Cheng teaches a way to determine different distances and corresponding time points in order to perform the intelligent driving control, nothing in Lee and Cheng appears to suggest that such determination is made “based on the width, the longitudinal distance, and the angle,” as required by Claim 6. Dependent Claim 7 is dependent upon Claim 6 (and similarly, dependent Claim 14 is dependent upon Claim 13), thus the prior art of record also does not appear to disclose or suggest the combination of steps/features recited therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667