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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on May 19, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 19, 2026, with respect to claims 3, 8-10 and 12 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, said claims 3, 8-10 and 12 rejections have been withdrawn.
Further on, claims 3, 8-10 and 12 are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments filed May 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 4-7 and 11 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of YAMAOKA and YAMANAKA under 35 USC 103 as explained below.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
Claims 3, 8-10 and 12 are objected as allowable subject matter.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 11 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8-10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (MIZOO – JP 2020011606 A), in view of (YAMAOKA – US 2016/0107687 A1), in view of (YAMANAKA – JP 2011020666 A).
Regarding claim 1, MIZOO discloses:
A lane keep control device configured to:
perform lane keep control for controlling lateral movement of a vehicle to cause the vehicle to travel along a target path set in an own lane in which the vehicle is traveling ([Abstract]: “A drive assisting device 10 comprises: a steering mechanism that mechanically couples a steering handle and a steering wheel; and a motor 61 provided in the steering mechanism. On the basis of an amount of first steering control for traveling an own vehicle along a target travel line set within a travel lane and an amount of second steering control for assisting an operation of a steering handle by a driver, the drive assisting device calculates an amount of torque control and, on the basis of the amount of torque control, the drive assisting device drives the motor. If a predetermined approach condition is satisfied when it is predicted that the own vehicle has approached a marked lane or an object, the amount of torque is corrected such that an amount of torque control right after the determination that approach condition has been satisfied is equal to a value by which an amount of torque control right before the determination is changed by a torque component in a direction in which the own vehicle is brought near the target travel line”),
the lane keep control device being configured to, when a lane change intention is detected, reduce control strength of the lane keep control as the vehicle deviates from the target path, as compared to when the lane change intention is not detected, the lane change intention being an intention of a driver to make a lane change ([0068, 0096]: “When the white line approach condition (the first condition and the second condition) is satisfied, the driving support ECU 10 determines whether or not the driver intends to cause the own vehicle 100 to deviate from the traveling lane 610. The driving support ECU 10 determines that the driver has an intention to cause the host vehicle 100 to deviate from the traveling lane 610 when a predetermined intention determination condition is satisfied. The intention determination condition is satisfied when at least one of the following conditions A and B is satisfied” and “As described above, when the first device determines that the above-described white line approach condition is satisfied during the execution of the lane keeping control (that is, {{{both the first condition and the second condition are satisfied}}}), the {{{first device sets the assist torque Atr to zero}}}. The first correction control is performed to decrease the value to the torque control amount Trc immediately after the white line approach condition is satisfied (time t2) is a value obtained by excluding the assist torque Atr from the torque control amount Trc immediately before the white line approach condition is satisfied (time t2)”).
But MIZOO does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the control strength of the lane keep control is less at a deviation position from the target path when the lane change intention has been detected than a control strength at the deviation position when the lane change intention is not detected.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, YAMAOKA discloses/teaches the following:
[0063]: On the other hand, when the lane change operation by the driver is recognized (S101: YES), the driving support ECU 2 transitions to step S102. On this occasion, for example, when the steering by the driver is in the lane change direction, the lane keeping assist unit 11 of the driving support ECU 2 lessens the gain of the steering torque for returning the vehicle M to the target lateral position, relative to the ordinary time. Thereby, the driving support apparatus 1 makes it possible to reduce the strength necessary for the driver changing the lane to resist the steering torque by the lane keeping assist. Further, in the lane keeping assist unit 11, when the steering by the driver is not in the lane change direction, the gain of the steering torque may be the same as the ordinary time, or may be greater than the ordinary time.
Further on, regarding limitation (A) above, YAMANAKA discloses/teaches the following:
[0032]: In each of the controllers 1-4 for EPS, VSA, RTC, and right / left driving force distribution, control values (control target values) for the actuators 6-9 are calculated by the control value calculators 21-24, and based on the control values. The actuators 6 to 9 are controlled. In particular, here, multipliers 26 to 29 for multiplying the control values output from the control value calculation units 21 to 24 by the control gains K1 to K4 are provided. The control gains K1 to K4 are obtained by the obstacle avoidance control unit 5 as will be described in detail below. The obstacle avoidance control unit 5 includes an obstacle avoidance determination unit 31, a steered state determination unit 32, and a control gain calculation unit 33. As shown in FIG. 4B, the control gain calculation function is set to a characteristic in which the control gain increases as the control rank increases, that is, the grip strength decreases. This control gain calculation function is prepared for each of the controllers 1 to 4, and the control gain is calculated for each of the controllers 1 to 4. In this case, as shown in FIG. 5, in the steering state determination (ST101) performed by the steering state determination unit 32 of the obstacle avoidance control unit 5, the lane keep assist control is currently activated as shown in FIG. Is determined (ST401), and if it is determined that the lane keep assist control is currently in operation (Yes in ST401), the LKAS flag is set to 1 (ST402) and the grip strength is determined. A control rank is obtained using the control rank function (ST404). The obstacle avoidance control means discriminates the grip strength of the steering wheel by the driver, and sets the control gain for increasing and correcting the control value of the vehicle behavior control device so as to increase as the grip strength decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the lane keep control device of MIZOO incorporating additional controller communications/calculation-unit modules as taught by YAMAOKA and YAMANAKA to improves the turning performance by changing the distribution of driving force between the left and right wheels.
Regarding claim 4, MIZOO discloses:
A lane keep control method in which a computer mounted on a vehicle performs lane keep control for controlling lateral movement of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to travel along a target path set in an own lane in which the vehicle is traveling, the lane keep control method comprising:
detecting a lane change intention by the computer, the lane change intention being an intention of a driver to make a lane change ([Abstract]: “A drive assisting device 10 comprises: a steering mechanism that mechanically couples a steering handle and a steering wheel; and a motor 61 provided in the steering mechanism. On the basis of an amount of first steering control for traveling an own vehicle along a target travel line set within a travel lane and an amount of second steering control for assisting an operation of a steering handle by a driver, the drive assisting device calculates an amount of torque control and, on the basis of the amount of torque control, the drive assisting device drives the motor. If a predetermined approach condition is satisfied when it is predicted that the own vehicle has approached a marked lane or an object, the amount of torque is corrected such that an amount of torque control right after the determination that approach condition has been satisfied is equal to a value by which an amount of torque control right before the determination is changed by a torque component in a direction in which the own vehicle is brought near the target travel line”); and
when the lane change intention is detected, reducing control strength of the lane keep control by the computer as the vehicle deviates from the target path, as compared to when the lane change intention is not detected ([0068, 0096]: “When the white line approach condition (the first condition and the second condition) is satisfied, the driving support ECU 10 determines whether or not the driver intends to cause the own vehicle 100 to deviate from the traveling lane 610. The driving support ECU 10 determines that the driver has an intention to cause the host vehicle 100 to deviate from the traveling lane 610 when a predetermined intention determination condition is satisfied. The intention determination condition is satisfied when at least one of the following conditions A and B is satisfied” and “As described above, when the first device determines that the above-described white line approach condition is satisfied during the execution of the lane keeping control (that is, {{{both the first condition and the second condition are satisfied}}}), the {{{first device sets the assist torque Atr to zero}}}. The first correction control is performed to decrease the value to the torque control amount Trc immediately after the white line approach condition is satisfied (time t2) is a value obtained by excluding the assist torque Atr from the torque control amount Trc immediately before the white line approach condition is satisfied (time t2)”).
But MIZOO does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the control strength of the lane keep control is less at a deviation position from the target path when the lane change intention has been detected than a control strength at the deviation position when the lane change intention is not detected.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, YAMAOKA discloses/teaches the following:
[0063]: On the other hand, when the lane change operation by the driver is recognized (S101: YES), the driving support ECU 2 transitions to step S102. On this occasion, for example, when the steering by the driver is in the lane change direction, the lane keeping assist unit 11 of the driving support ECU 2 lessens the gain of the steering torque for returning the vehicle M to the target lateral position, relative to the ordinary time. Thereby, the driving support apparatus 1 makes it possible to reduce the strength necessary for the driver changing the lane to resist the steering torque by the lane keeping assist. Further, in the lane keeping assist unit 11, when the steering by the driver is not in the lane change direction, the gain of the steering torque may be the same as the ordinary time, or may be greater than the ordinary time.
Further on, regarding limitation (A) above, YAMANAKA discloses/teaches the following:
[0032]: In each of the controllers 1-4 for EPS, VSA, RTC, and right / left driving force distribution, control values (control target values) for the actuators 6-9 are calculated by the control value calculators 21-24, and based on the control values. The actuators 6 to 9 are controlled. In particular, here, multipliers 26 to 29 for multiplying the control values output from the control value calculation units 21 to 24 by the control gains K1 to K4 are provided. The control gains K1 to K4 are obtained by the obstacle avoidance control unit 5 as will be described in detail below. The obstacle avoidance control unit 5 includes an obstacle avoidance determination unit 31, a steered state determination unit 32, and a control gain calculation unit 33. As shown in FIG. 4B, the control gain calculation function is set to a characteristic in which the control gain increases as the control rank increases, that is, the grip strength decreases. This control gain calculation function is prepared for each of the controllers 1 to 4, and the control gain is calculated for each of the controllers 1 to 4. In this case, as shown in FIG. 5, in the steering state determination (ST101) performed by the steering state determination unit 32 of the obstacle avoidance control unit 5, the lane keep assist control is currently activated as shown in FIG. Is determined (ST401), and if it is determined that the lane keep assist control is currently in operation (Yes in ST401), the LKAS flag is set to 1 (ST402) and the grip strength is determined. A control rank is obtained using the control rank function (ST404). The obstacle avoidance control means discriminates the grip strength of the steering wheel by the driver, and sets the control gain for increasing and correcting the control value of the vehicle behavior control device so as to increase as the grip strength decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the lane keep control device of MIZOO incorporating additional controller communications/calculation-unit modules as taught by YAMAOKA and YAMANAKA to improves the turning performance by changing the distribution of driving force between the left and right wheels.
Regarding claim 5, MIZOO discloses:
A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer mounted on a vehicle to:
perform lane keep control for controlling lateral movement of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to travel along a target path set in an own lane in which the vehicle is traveling, the program causing the computer to detect a lane change intention, the lane change intention being an intention of a driver to make a lane change ([Abstract]: “A drive assisting device 10 comprises: a steering mechanism that mechanically couples a steering handle and a steering wheel; and a motor 61 provided in the steering mechanism. On the basis of an amount of first steering control for traveling an own vehicle along a target travel line set within a travel lane and an amount of second steering control for assisting an operation of a steering handle by a driver, the drive assisting device calculates an amount of torque control and, on the basis of the amount of torque control, the drive assisting device drives the motor. If a predetermined approach condition is satisfied when it is predicted that the own vehicle has approached a marked lane or an object, the amount of torque is corrected such that an amount of torque control right after the determination that approach condition has been satisfied is equal to a value by which an amount of torque control right before the determination is changed by a torque component in a direction in which the own vehicle is brought near the target travel line”), and
when the lane change intention is detected, reduce control strength of the lane keep control as the vehicle deviates from the target path, as compared to when the lane change intention is not detected ([0068, 0096]: “When the white line approach condition (the first condition and the second condition) is satisfied, the driving support ECU 10 determines whether or not the driver intends to cause the own vehicle 100 to deviate from the traveling lane 610. The driving support ECU 10 determines that the driver has an intention to cause the host vehicle 100 to deviate from the traveling lane 610 when a predetermined intention determination condition is satisfied. The intention determination condition is satisfied when at least one of the following conditions A and B is satisfied” and “As described above, when the first device determines that the above-described white line approach condition is satisfied during the execution of the lane keeping control (that is, {{{both the first condition and the second condition are satisfied}}}), the {{{first device sets the assist torque Atr to zero}}}. The first correction control is performed to decrease the value to the torque control amount Trc immediately after the white line approach condition is satisfied (time t2) is a value obtained by excluding the assist torque Atr from the torque control amount Trc immediately before the white line approach condition is satisfied (time t2)”).
But MIZOO does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the control strength of the lane keep control is less at a deviation position from the target path when the lane change intention has been detected than a control strength at the deviation position when the lane change intention is not detected.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, YAMAOKA discloses/teaches the following:
[0063]: On the other hand, when the lane change operation by the driver is recognized (S101: YES), the driving support ECU 2 transitions to step S102. On this occasion, for example, when the steering by the driver is in the lane change direction, the lane keeping assist unit 11 of the driving support ECU 2 lessens the gain of the steering torque for returning the vehicle M to the target lateral position, relative to the ordinary time. Thereby, the driving support apparatus 1 makes it possible to reduce the strength necessary for the driver changing the lane to resist the steering torque by the lane keeping assist. Further, in the lane keeping assist unit 11, when the steering by the driver is not in the lane change direction, the gain of the steering torque may be the same as the ordinary time, or may be greater than the ordinary time.
Further on, regarding limitation (A) above, YAMANAKA discloses/teaches the following:
[0032]: In each of the controllers 1-4 for EPS, VSA, RTC, and right / left driving force distribution, control values (control target values) for the actuators 6-9 are calculated by the control value calculators 21-24, and based on the control values. The actuators 6 to 9 are controlled. In particular, here, multipliers 26 to 29 for multiplying the control values output from the control value calculation units 21 to 24 by the control gains K1 to K4 are provided. The control gains K1 to K4 are obtained by the obstacle avoidance control unit 5 as will be described in detail below. The obstacle avoidance control unit 5 includes an obstacle avoidance determination unit 31, a steered state determination unit 32, and a control gain calculation unit 33. As shown in FIG. 4B, the control gain calculation function is set to a characteristic in which the control gain increases as the control rank increases, that is, the grip strength decreases. This control gain calculation function is prepared for each of the controllers 1 to 4, and the control gain is calculated for each of the controllers 1 to 4. In this case, as shown in FIG. 5, in the steering state determination (ST101) performed by the steering state determination unit 32 of the obstacle avoidance control unit 5, the lane keep assist control is currently activated as shown in FIG. Is determined (ST401), and if it is determined that the lane keep assist control is currently in operation (Yes in ST401), the LKAS flag is set to 1 (ST402) and the grip strength is determined. A control rank is obtained using the control rank function (ST404). The obstacle avoidance control means discriminates the grip strength of the steering wheel by the driver, and sets the control gain for increasing and correcting the control value of the vehicle behavior control device so as to increase as the grip strength decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the lane keep control device of MIZOO incorporating additional controller communications/calculation-unit modules as taught by YAMAOKA and YAMANAKA to improves the turning performance by changing the distribution of driving force between the left and right wheels.
Regarding claim 2, MIZOO as combined above disclose the lane keep control device according to claim 1, and further on MIZOO as combined above also discloses:
wherein the lane keep control device is configured to, when the lane change intention is detected and the vehicle enters an adjacent lane adjacent to the own lane, restore the control strength to the control strength that is used when the lane change intention is not detected, as the vehicle approaches a target path set in the adjacent lane (MIZOO [0032-00456, 0068, 0096]).
Regarding claim 6, MIZOO as combined above disclose the lane keep control device according to claim 1, and further on MIZOO as combined above also discloses:
wherein the control strength of the lane keep control is a gain factor that adjusts an initial target steering angle or an input steering angle (YAMAOKA [0063] and YAMANAKA [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, MIZOO as combined above disclose the lane keep control device according to claim 6, and further on MIZOO as combined above also discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine an output target steering angle by multiplying the initial target steering angle by the gain factor (YAMAOKA [0063] and YAMANAKA [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, MIZOO as combined above disclose the lane keep control device according to claim 1, and further on MIZOO as combined above also discloses:
wherein the control strength of the lane keep control is less at a deviation position from the target path when the lane change intention has been detected than a control strength at the deviation position when the lane change intention is not detected (YAMAOKA [0063] and YAMANAKA [0032]).
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 Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. 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.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights