DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of JP2023-221115 filed 12/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 and 07/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recites the term “likely”, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terazawa et al. (USPGPub 2015/0274164) in view of Matsumura (USPGPub 2016/0288707). As per claim 1, Terazawa discloses a vehicle control device comprising: the processor (see at least Figure 1; item 20) to: recognize a road marking of a course of a vehicle (see at least paragraph 0033; wherein in step 101, the steering controller 20 executes approximation processing for the left and right lane lines acquired by the forward recognition device 31), 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 (see at least paragraph 0040; wherein the steering controller 20 proceeds to S105 and calculates the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc, in which the vehicle deviates from the lane) and a state of the vehicle is less than or equal to a threshold value (see at least paragraph 0041; wherein the steering controller 20 proceeds to S106 and outputs the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc to the warning control device 40. The warning control device 40 compares the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc and the 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), 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 at least paragraphs 0043-0045; wherein the steering controller 20 proceeds to S108 and calculates, on the basis of the target yaw rate γt calculated in S107, the target yaw moment Mzt serving as a target turning amount applied to the vehicle necessary for preventing deviation from the lane…the steering controller 20 proceeds to S110, calculates the target torque Tp according to the following Expression (11) and outputs the target torque Tp to the motor driver 21). Terazawa does not explicitly mention a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions; and at least one processor connected to the storage medium; and perform switching between a first process of setting the threshold value to a first threshold value that is a preset fixed value and a second process of setting the threshold value to a second threshold value that is a variable value on the basis of a shape of the course of the vehicle. However Matsumura does disclose: a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (see at least paragraph 0056; wherein in the ECU 10, a program stored in the ROM is loaded into the RAM and is executed by the CPU); and at least one processor connected to the storage medium (see at least paragraph 0056; wherein in the ECU 10, a program stored in the ROM is loaded into the RAM and is executed by the CPU); and perform switching between a first process of setting the threshold value to a first threshold value that is a preset fixed value and a second process of setting the threshold value to a second threshold value that is a variable value on the basis of a shape of the course of the vehicle (see at last paragraph 0114; wherein the first threshold may be a fixed value, or may be a variable value. The first threshold may be zero, or may be a negative value. As the first threshold, for example, a greater value may be adopted as the vehicle speed of the vehicle M or the acceleration of the vehicle M increases. For example, in the case where the shape of a road along which the vehicle M is running is a curve shape, a greater value may be adopted as the first threshold, compared to the case where the road shape is a straight shape). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Matsumura with the teachings as in Terazawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a vehicle control apparatus that performs an alarm appropriate to the situation of the vehicle, see Matsumura paragraph 0007. As per claim 10, Terazawa discloses a vehicle control device comprising: the processor (see at least Figure 1; item 20): recognize a road marking of a course of a vehicle (see at least paragraph 0033; wherein in step 101, the steering controller 20 executes approximation processing for the left and right lane lines acquired by the forward recognition device 31), control assistance for suppressing the vehicle’s deviation from the road marking when the vehicle approaches the road marking of the course to a predetermined degree or more on the basis of a position of the road marking relative to the vehicle and a state of the vehicle (see at least paragraphs 0043-0045; wherein the steering controller 20 proceeds to S108 and calculates, on the basis of the target yaw rate γt calculated in S107, the target yaw moment Mzt serving as a target turning amount applied to the vehicle necessary for preventing deviation from the lane…the steering controller 20 proceeds to S110, calculates the target torque Tp according to the following Expression (11) and outputs the target torque Tp to the motor driver 21). Terazawa does not explicitly mention a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions; and at least one processor connected to the storage medium; and change a timing when the assistance is performed on the basis of a shape of the road. However Matsumura does disclose: a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (see at least paragraph 0056; wherein in the ECU 10, a program stored in the ROM is loaded into the RAM and is executed by the CPU); and at least one processor connected to the storage medium (see at least paragraph 0056; wherein in the ECU 10, a program stored in the ROM is loaded into the RAM and is executed by the CPU); and change a timing when the assistance is performed on the basis of a shape of the road (see at last paragraph 0114; wherein the first threshold may be a fixed value, or may be a variable value. The first threshold may be zero, or may be a negative value. As the first threshold, for example, a greater value may be adopted as the vehicle speed of the vehicle M or the acceleration of the vehicle M increases. For example, in the case where the shape of a road along which the vehicle M is running is a curve shape, a greater value may be adopted as the first threshold, compared to the case where the road shape is a straight shape). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Matsumura with the teachings as in Terazawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a vehicle control apparatus that performs an alarm appropriate to the situation of the vehicle, see Matsumura paragraph 0007. As per claim 11, Terazawa discloses a vehicle control method comprising: recognizing, by a computer, a road marking of a course of a vehicle (see at least paragraph 0033; wherein in step 101, the steering controller 20 executes approximation processing for the left and right lane lines acquired by the forward recognition device 31); determining, by the computer, 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 at least paragraph 0040; wherein the steering controller 20 proceeds to S105 and calculates the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc, in which the vehicle deviates from the lane) and a state of the vehicle is less than or equal to a threshold value (see at least paragraph 0041; wherein the steering controller 20 proceeds to S106 and outputs the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc to the warning control device 40. The warning control device 40 compares the lane deviation predicted time Tttlc and the 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); controlling, by the computer, 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 at least paragraphs 0043-0045; wherein the steering controller 20 proceeds to S108 and calculates, on the basis of the target yaw rate γt calculated in S107, the target yaw moment Mzt serving as a target turning amount applied to the vehicle necessary for preventing deviation from the lane…the steering controller 20 proceeds to S110, calculates the target torque Tp according to the following Expression (11) and outputs the target torque Tp to the motor driver 21). Terazawa does not explicitly mention performing, by the computer, switching between a first process of setting the threshold value to a first threshold value that is a preset fixed value and a second process of setting the threshold value to a second threshold value that is a variable value on the basis of a shape of the course of the vehicle. Howver Matsumura does disclose: performing, by the computer, switching between a first process of setting the threshold value to a first threshold value that is a preset fixed value and a second process of setting the threshold value to a second threshold value that is a variable value on the basis of a shape of the course of the vehicle (see at last paragraph 0114; wherein the first threshold may be a fixed value, or may be a variable value. The first threshold may be zero, or may be a negative value. As the first threshold, for example, a greater value may be adopted as the vehicle speed of the vehicle M or the acceleration of the vehicle M increases. For example, in the case where the shape of a road along which the vehicle M is running is a curve shape, a greater value may be adopted as the first threshold, compared to the case where the road shape is a straight shape). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Matsumura with the teachings as in Terazawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a vehicle control apparatus that performs an alarm appropriate to the situation of the vehicle, see Matsumura paragraph 0007.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terazawa et al. (USPGPub 2015/0274164), in view of Matsumura (USPGPub 2016/0288707), and further in view of Kanoh et al. (USPGPub 2022/0119000). As per claim 3, Terazawa and Matsumura do not explicitly mention wherein the at least one processor sets the second threshold value on the basis of a degree of curve of the course. However Kanoh does disclose: wherein the at least one processor sets the second threshold value on the basis of a degree of curve of the course (see at least paragraph 0109; wherein the change unit increases the upper limit speed in at least one of a case where a shape of a road on which the vehicle travels is smaller than a predetermined turning curvature). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kanoh with the teachings as in Terazawa and Matsumura. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reliability of the detection result, see Kanoh paragraph 0027. As per claim 4, Kanoh discloses wherein the at least one processor increases the second threshold value as a degree of change in the degree of curve increases (see at least paragraph 0097; wherein the change unit increases the upper limit speed in at least one of a case where a shape of a road on which the vehicle travels is smaller than a predetermined turning curvature).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terazawa et al. (USPGPub 2015/0274164), in view of Matsumura (USPGPub 2016/0288707), and further in view of Shimakage (USPGPub 2019/0359215). As per claim 5, Terazawa and Matsumura do not explicitly mention wherein the at least one processor executes the first process when the shape of the course is a curved road and a radius of curvature of a curve of the curved road exceeds a set threshold value, and executes the second process when the shape of the course is a curved road and a radius of curvature of a curve of the curved road is less than or equal to the set threshold value. However Shimakage does disclose: wherein the at least one processor executes the first process when the shape of the course is a curved road and a radius of curvature of a curve of the curved road exceeds a set threshold value, and executes the second process when the shape of the course is a curved road and a radius of curvature of a curve of the curved road is less than or equal to the set threshold value (see at least paragraph 0051; wherein the road shape determination function serves to set a curvature radius threshold R.sub.th on the basis of the variation amount A in the lateral position of the forward adjacent vehicle calculated in step S202). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Shimakage with the teachings as in Terazawa and Matsumura. The motivation for doing so would have been to dissipate the uneasy feeling given to the driver when the subject vehicle travels along a curve or a narrow road in the automated or autonomous travel control, see Shimakage paragraph 0004. As per claim 7, Terazawa and Matsumura do not explicitly mention wherein, when a shape of the course is a curved road, the at least one processor executes the first process when a width of a lane of the course is less than or equal to a predetermined width, and executes the second process when the width of the lane of the course exceeds the predetermined width. However Shimakage does disclose: wherein, when a shape of the course is a curved road, the at least one processor executes the first process when a width of a lane of the course is less than or equal to a predetermined width, and executes the second process when the width of the lane of the course exceeds the predetermined width (see at least paragraph 0079; wherein when the ratio (B/W) of the vehicle width B of the forward adjacent vehicle V2 to the road width W of the road located ahead is X1 or more and less than X2, the road shape determination function serves to set the narrow road threshold W.sub.th such that the narrow road threshold W.sub.th increases in proportion to the ratio (B/W) within a range from W2 to W1). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Shimakage with the teachings as in Terazawa and Matsumura. The motivation for doing so would have been to dissipate the uneasy feeling given to the driver when the subject vehicle travels along a curve or a narrow road in the automated or autonomous travel control, see Shimakage paragraph 0004.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein, when a shape of the course is a curved road, the at least one processor executes the first process with respect to a process of setting a threshold value for a road marking an inner side of the curved road, and executes the second process with respect to a process of setting a threshold value for a road marking on an outer side of the curved road.
Claim(s) 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein, when one of road markings on both sides of the course cannot be recognized, the at least one processor executes the first process from a predetermined distance before a point where one of the road markings cannot be recognized.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2022/0315043 – Provide a vehicle control device recognizes a surrounding situation of a vehicle, controls steering and acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle without depending on an operation of a driver of the vehicle based on the surrounding situation and map information, determines a driving mode of the vehicle to be one of a plurality of driving modes including a first driving mode and a second driving mode. USPGPub 2018/0238696 – Provide a route generator includes: a conversion unit configured to generate virtual road information in which a shape of a road has been converted into a rectilinear shape on the basis of map information including information indicating the shape of the road; a traveling path generating unit configured to generate a traveling path of a host vehicle on the road having the rectilinear shape in the virtual road information generated by the conversion unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662