DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 19, 2024. Claims 1 – 11 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0274164 A1 to Terazawa et al. (herein after “Terazawa et al. publication") in view of cited JP 2006178675 A to Hayakawa (herein after "Hayakawa publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 11,
the Terazawa et al. publication discloses a vehicle control device comprising:
a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (see ¶23 – ¶25, where “a steering controller 20” is known to include a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions); and
at least one processor connected to the storage medium (see ¶23 – ¶25, where “a steering controller 20” is known to include at least one processor connected to the storage medium), the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to:
recognize a road marking of a course of a vehicle (see ¶25 for “[a] forward recognition device 31 functioning as a lane detector that detects the lane marking lines (the left and right lane lines) ”),
determine that the vehicle is likely to deviate from the road marking when it is determined that the remaining time before the vehicle reaches the road marking obtained on the basis of a position of the road marking relative to the vehicle and a state of the vehicle is less than or equal to a threshold value (see ¶31, where “a lane deviation predicted time Tttlc in which the vehicle deviates from the lane . . . The lane deviation predicted time Tttlc is output to the warning control device 40 . . . The warning control device 40 compares the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc and a threshold set in advance. When the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc is shorter than the threshold, the warning control device 40 emits a lane deviation warning to the driver using an auditory warning such as sound or chime sound or a visual warning such as monitor display”), and
control assistance for suppressing the vehicle's deviation from the road marking when it is determined that the vehicle is likely to deviate from the road marking (see ¶24 and ¶41 – ¶43).
The Terazawa et al. publication, however, does not specifically disclose
changing the threshold value on the basis of a degree of change in a degree of curve of the course.
The Hayakawa publication discloses “a lane departure prevention control device . . . for preventing a departure from the traveling lane of the host vehicle based on a curve shape in front of the host vehicle and a traveling state of the host vehicle.” (See ¶4.) “Also, as shown in the table of FIG. 13, the control content is changed according to the recognition level of the curve shape, so that the camera 13 can no longer grasp the curve shape while passing the curve.” (See ¶76.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests changing the threshold value on the basis of a degree of change in a degree of curve of the course.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Terazawa et al. publication to change the threshold value on the basis of a degree of change in a degree of curve of the course, as suggested by the Hayakawa publication, in order to prevent a departure when a host vehicle is about to depart from a traveling lane during traveling.
As to claim 2,
the Terazawa et al. publication, as modified by the Hayakawa publication, is considered to disclose the at least one processor increasing the threshold value as the degree of change in the degree of curve increases. (See ¶4 and ¶76 of the Hayakawa publication.)
As to claim 3,
the Terazawa et al. publication, as modified by the Hayakawa publication, is considered to disclose the at least one processor setting the threshold value to a first threshold value when the degree of change in the degree of curve is greater than or equal to a first degree of change, and setting the threshold value to a second threshold value less than the first threshold value when the degree of change in the degree of curve is less than the first degree of change. (See ¶4 and ¶76 of the Hayakawa publication.)
As to claim 4,
the Terazawa et al. publication, as modified by the Hayakawa publication, is considered to disclose the at least one processor setting the threshold value to a third threshold value when the degree of change in the degree of curve is greater than or equal to a second degree of change, and increasing the threshold value from a fourth threshold value to the third threshold value as the degree of change increases between the third threshold value and the fourth threshold value less than the third threshold value when the degree of change in the degree of curve is less than the second degree of change and exceeds the third threshold value. (See ¶4 and ¶76 of the Hayakawa publication.)
As to claims 5 and 6,
the Terazawa et al. publication, as modified by the Hayakawa publication, is considered to disclose the at least one processor executing a first change process of increasing the threshold value as the degree of change in the degree of curve increases when the degree of change increases as the degree of curve increases, and executing a second change process different from the first change process when the degree of change increases as the degree of curve decreases, and wherein the second change process is a process of setting a preset threshold value regardless of the degree of change in the degree of curve or a process of setting the threshold value to a second threshold value less than a first threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is a set threshold value that increases as the degree of change in the degree of curve increases when the degree of change increases in the first change process, and wherein the second threshold value is a set threshold value that increases as the degree of change in the degree of curve increases when the degree of change increases in the second change process. (See ¶4 and ¶76 of the Hayakawa publication.)
As to claim 7,
the Terazawa et al. publication discloses that when the at least one processor determines that the vehicle is likely to deviate from the road marking, a notification related to a deviation possibility is provided to a driver of the vehicle using a notifier or a steering control process is assisted so that the vehicle does not deviate from the road marking. (See ¶31, where “[t]he lane deviation predicted time Tttlc is output to the warning control device 40 as well. The warning control device 40 compares the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc and a threshold set in advance. When the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc is shorter than the threshold, the warning control device 40 emits a lane deviation warning to the driver using an auditory warning such as sound or chime sound or a visual warning such as monitor display.”)
As to claim 8,
the Terazawa et al. publication, as modified by the Hayakawa publication, is considered to disclose when a shape of the course is a curved road, the at least one processor sets a preset threshold value as the threshold value in a threshold value setting process for a road marking on an inner side of the curved road, and sets the threshold value based on the degree of change in the degree of curve of the course in a threshold value setting process for a road marking on an outer side of the curved road.. (See ¶4 and ¶76 of the Hayakawa publication.)
As to claim 9,
the Terazawa et al. publication discloses at least a vehicle control device comprising:
a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (see ¶23 – ¶25, where “a steering controller 20” is known to include a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions); and
at least one processor connected to the storage medium (see ¶23 – ¶25, where “a steering controller 20” is known to include at least one processor connected to the storage medium), the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to:
recognize a road marking of a course of a vehicle (see ¶25 for “[a] forward recognition device 31 functioning as a lane detector that detects the lane marking lines (the left and right lane lines) ”), and
perform a control process of providing a notification to a driver of the vehicle . . . (see ¶31, where “[t]he lane deviation predicted time Tttlc is output to the warning control device 40 as well. The warning control device 40 compares the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc and a threshold set in advance. When the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc is shorter than the threshold, the warning control device 40 emits a lane deviation warning to the driver using an auditory warning such as sound or chime sound or a visual warning such as monitor display”).
The Terazawa et al. publication, however, fails to specifically disclose
changing a timing when the assistance control process starts on the basis of a degree of change in a degree of curve of the course of the vehicle.
The Hayakawa publication discloses that “the control content by the deviation prevention control is changed according to the detection accuracy of the curve shape. Here, when the detection accuracy of the curve shape is lowered, when the departure prevention control is performed based on the lowered curve shape, the control accuracy of the departure prevention control is lowered or the control is terminated, etc. However, by taking into account this decrease in control accuracy, etc., the control content of deviation prevention control is changed according to the detection accuracy of the curve shape, and the control is performed in accordance with the detection accuracy of the curve shape.” (See ¶4.) In the event when the detection accuracy of the curve shape is lowered, such disclosure suggests changing a timing when the assistance control process starts on the basis of a degree of change in a degree of curve of the course of the vehicle in order to avoid prematurely preventing a departure from a traveling lane during traveling.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Terazawa et al. publication to change a timing when the assistance control process starts on the basis of a degree of change in a degree of curve of the course of the vehicle, as suggested by the Hayakawa publication, in order to in order to avoid prematurely preventing a departure from a traveling lane during traveling.
As to claim 10,
the Terazawa et al. publication, as modified by the Hayakawa publication, is considered to disclose the at least one processor advancing the timing as the degree of change in the degree of curve increases. (See ¶4 and ¶76 of the Hayakawa publication.)
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666