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 8, 2026. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 29, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on April 20, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated July 8, 2026, Examiner maintains the previous prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Masakazu’s infrared image used for edge extraction is not the same as using a temperature distribution signal generated by a temperature sensor measuring a road-surface temperature distribution to detect individual lane division lines represented in the temperature distribution signal and selecting the two closest lane division lines as the host-lane division lines (Applicant’s Response, pg. 4), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Masakazu discloses using an infrared camera to create infrared images and determining the roadway area using the edge portions extracted by the edge extraction of the infrared image in paragraph 0018. Paragraph 0053 details how a straight-line component corresponding to the edge of the road area (i.e., lane division lines) is extracted from the edge image and Fig. 10(b) details how the road area is the lane in which the vehicle is travelling resulting in the edge of the road area being the two lane lines closest to the vehicle. Because Masakazu does disclose the contended limitation, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejection.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6, lines 3-5, the limitation “the processor counts the image as an image in which detection of the lane division line fails only when the processor determines…that the lane division line is represented in the map” appears to be new matter. Paragraph 0037 discloses that the detection of the lane division line by the camera has failed when the lane division line is not detected from an image even though the lane division line is represented in the map as example, but it does not exclude other ways of determining that the detection of the lane division line using an image has failed. Because the original disclosure fails to provide written description pertaining to the use of the word “only” in the context, the limitation is considered new matter and is rejected as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masakazu (JP 2007323578).
Regarding claim 1, Masakazu discloses a lane division line detection device comprising:
a processor configured to:
determine which to use for detecting a lane division line out of a camera for capturing surroundings of a vehicle and a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature distribution in a predetermined region including a road surface around the vehicle and to generate a temperature distribution signal representing the temperature distribution in the predetermined region, the camera and the temperature sensor being mounted on the vehicle, based on a visibility index indicating how a road surface is viewed by the camera (Masakazu, [0032] regarding infrared cameras (i.e., temperature sensor) and a visible camera capturing images of the area in front of the vehicle & [0018] regarding using a visible image from a visible image imaging unit (i.e., camera) to identify a lane mark and using an infrared image (i.e., a temperature distribution) from an infrared imaging unit (i.e., temperature sensor) to determine an edge when the lane mark cannot be detected in the visible image (i.e., when visibility is good, use the visible image and when visibility is bad, use the infrared image)),
detect the lane division line based on an image representing the surroundings of the vehicle generated by the camera when the camera is used (Masakazu, [0047] regarding detecting a lane mark in the visible image), and
detect the lane division line based on a temperature distribution signal representing the temperature distribution around the vehicle generated by the temperature sensor when the temperature sensor is used (Masakazu, Fig. 6 (a), Fig. 6(b), & [0052] regarding edge points (i.e., lane division line) being extracted from the infrared image and the road area is detected in the area in front of the vehicle from the edge points),
wherein detecting the lane division line based on the temperature distribution signal includes detecting individual lane division lines represented in the temperature distribution signal and setting two lane division lines closest to a position of the vehicle in the temperature distribution signal among the individual lane division lines as lane division lines that divide a host lane of the vehicle (Masakazu, Fig. 6(b) & [0053] regarding extracting the straight-line component corresponding to the edge of the road area & Fig. 10(b) regarding the road area being the lane the vehicle is driving in. The infrared lane line detection determines the edges of the road area, which would be the right and left lane lines of the lane the vehicle is in.).
Regarding claim 2, Masakazu discloses the lane division line detection device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor determines that the temperature sensor is used for detecting the lane division line when the visibility index indicates a state in which the lane division line cannot be visually recognized in the image, and determines that the camera is used for detecting the lane division line when the visibility index indicates a state in which the lane division line can be visually recognized in the image (Masakazu, [0018] regarding using a visible image from a visible image imaging unit (i.e., camera) to identify a lane mark and using an infrared image from an infrared imaging unit (i.e., temperature sensor) to determine an edge when the lane mark cannot be detected in the visible image (i.e., when visibility is good, use the visible image and when visibility is bad, use the infrared image)).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masakazu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii (US 2005/0099527).
Regarding claim 3, Masakazu does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor refers to an index indicating whether or not the road surface is wet as the visibility index, and when the visibility index indicates that the road surface is wet, the processor determines that the temperature sensor is used for detecting the lane division line.
Masakazu instead discloses using a visible image from a visible image imaging unit (i.e., camera) to identify a lane mark and using an infrared image (i.e., a temperature distribution) from an infrared imaging unit (i.e., temperature sensor) to determine an edge when the lane mark cannot be detected in the visible image (i.e., visibility index is lane mark being detected or not in visible image) ([0018]).
Masakazu fails to explicitly disclose or render obvious that the visibility index corresponds to whether or not the road surface is wet.
Fujii teaches that whether lane boundary line may be identifiable using video cameras is based on the road surface is wet or not ([0007]).
Masakazu and Fujii are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line 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 Masakazu to incorporate using an infrared image instead of a visible image when the road is wet, because it is difficult to identify lane line when the road is wet, as taught by Fujii, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to detect the lane lines when the road is both dry and wet.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masakazu in view of Fujii as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 2017/0161570).
Regarding claim 4, Masakazu in view of Fujii teaches the lane division line detection device as claimed in claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor calculates the visibility index by inputting the image to a classifier learned in advance so as to determine whether or not the road surface is wet.
Zhao teaches wherein the processor calculates the visibility index by inputting the image to a classifier learned in advance so as to determine whether or not the road surface is wet (Zhao, [0033] regarding a classifier determining whether a current surface in the image belongs to a wet or dry surface & [0003] regarding the classifier being a trained database).
Masakazu and Zhao 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 Masakazu, as modified, to incorporate determining the road is wet using a classifier, as taught by Zhao, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to determine if the road is wet with increased accuracy.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masakazu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tu (CN 110562251).
Regarding claim 5, Masakazu discloses the lane division line detection device as claimed in claim 1, and using an infrared image from an infrared imaging unit (i.e., temperature sensor) to determine an edge when the lane mark cannot be detected in the visible image ([0018]).
Masakazu does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor, for a plurality of images generated by the camera within a latest predetermined period, calculates as the visibility index, a ratio of a number of images among the plurality of images in which the detection of the lane division line fails to a total number of images in the plurality of images, and determines that the temperature sensor is used for detecting the lane division line when the ratio is equal to or larger than a predetermined ratio.
Tu teaches determining that the number of consecutive lane line extraction failures form an image exceeds a preset number indicating that the lane lines have been unclear for a long time ([0064] & [0099]).
Masakazu and Tu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line 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 Masakazu to incorporate determining there is a lane line detection failure after a period of time, as taught by Tu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the camera is not able to determine the lane lines.
Masakazu, as modified, teaches wherein the processor, for a plurality of images generated by the camera within a latest predetermined period, calculates as the visibility index, a ratio of a number of images among the plurality of images in which the detection of the lane division line fails to a total number of images in the plurality of images, and determines that the temperature sensor is used for detecting the lane division line when the ratio is equal to or larger than a predetermined ratio (After not being able to determine the lane lines in the images after a period of time, determine that the visibility is bad and changing to use the infrared sensor instead (Masakazu & Tu)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masakazu in view of Tu as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Miyake (US 2023/0148097).
Regarding claim 6, Masakazu in view of Tu teaches the lane division line detection device as claimed in claim 5, but does not teach wherein, for each image among the plurality of images in which the lane division line is not detected, the processor counts the image as an image in which detection of the lane division line fails only when the processor determines, by referring to a map and a position of the vehicle at a time of generation of the image, that the lane division line is represented in the map for a road section in which the vehicle was traveling at the time of generation of the image.
Miyake teaches wherein, for each image among the plurality of images in which the lane division line is not detected, the processor counts the image as an image in which detection of the lane division line fails only when the processor determines, by referring to a map and a position of the vehicle at a time of generation of the image, that the lane division line is represented in the map for a road section in which the vehicle was traveling at the time of generation of the image (Miyake, [0158] regarding determining that there is a lane marking deterioration state when the front camera cannot recognize the lane marking in a section where the lane marking is registered on the map. The camera not detecting lane line while the map data indicates there are lane lines is only method disclosed in Miyake for determining there is a lane marking deterioration state.).
Masakazu and Miyake are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line 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 Miyake, as modified, to incorporate determining the camera has failed to detect the lane line when the line is confirmed to exist by map data, as disclosed by Miyake, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing accuracy of the determination that the camera has failed.
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
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights