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 .
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim foreign priority based on a application filed in JAPAN on 03/28/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/21/25 and 12/08/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al (U.S. 2022/0306150) and further in view of Tamura et al (U.S. 2022/0067398).
As per claims 1,5 and 6 Inoue disclosed a mobile object control device comprising:
A processor that executes instructions to:
recognize a surrounding situation including a first marking line for defining a movement path along which a mobile object is moving, on the basis of an output of a detection device that detects a surrounding situation of the mobile object [a first recognizer configured to recognize a road marking for partitioning a traveling lane of a vehicle on the basis of an output of a detection device that has detected a surrounding situation of the vehicle] (Paragraph. 0007);
recognize a second marking line for defining a movement path around the mobile object from map information on the basis of positional information of the mobile object [second recognizer configured to recognize a road marking for partitioning the traveling lane on the basis of map information] (Paragraph. 0007);
determine whether the first marking line and the second marking line deviate from each other [a determiner configured to determine whether or not there is misrecognition in the first recognizer on the basis of one or both of a curvature change quantity of a first road marking recognized by the first recognizer and an angle formed by the first road marking and a second road marking recognized by the second recognizer] (Paragraph. 0007);
select at least one of the first marking line and the second marking line on the basis of a determination result [a process of determining that there is misrecognition in one or both of the first recognizer 132 and the second recognizer 134 when there is a difference between the recognition result of the first recognizer 132 (the first road marking) and the recognition result of the second recognizer 134 (the second road marking) in a comparison result of the comparator 152 and the like] (Paragraph. 0066); and
control movement of the mobile object on the basis of the marking line selected [an object recognition device 16, a communication device 20, a human machine interface (HMI) 30, a vehicle sensor 40, a navigation device 50, a map positioning unit (MPU) 60, a driver monitor camera 70, driving operation elements 80, an automated driving controller 100, a travel driving force output device 200, a brake device 210, and a steering device 220. Such devices and equipment are connected to each other by a multiplex communication line such as a controller area network (CAN) communication line, a serial communication line, or a wireless communication network] (Paragraph. 0031),
wherein the processor, when determination is made that the first marking line and the second marking line deviate from each other, selects the first marking line when a degree of parallelism of a plurality of first marking lines recognized simultaneously present in a moving direction of the mobile object is equal to or greater than a threshold [when a determination process is performed using the markings LL1 and LL2, the misrecognition determiner 154 determines that the markings match if a degree of deviation between the markings is less than a threshold value and determines that the markings do not match (or that there is a difference) if the degree of deviation between the markings is greater than or equal to the threshold value] (Paragraph. 0068), and a height of a road surface is decreasing and [a branch point-related movement event for causing the vehicle M to move to a lane in a destination direction at a branch point of a road, a merge point-related movement event for causing the vehicle M to move to a lane of a main road at a merge point, a takeover event for ending automated driving and performing switching to manual driving, and the like] (Paragraph. 0050), and
select the second marking line when [ the determiner determines that there is misrecognition in the first road marking when the degree of deviation of the curvature change quantity is greater than or equal to a prescribed value or the angle is greater than or equal to a prescribed angle] (Paragraph. 0009); the degree of parallelism is equal to or greater than the threshold [determines that the markings match if a degree of deviation between the markings is less than a threshold value and determines that the markings do not match (or that there is a difference) if the degree of deviation between the markings is greater than or equal to the threshold value] (Paragraph. 0068) Examiner interpreted the “Parallelism” as markings match.
selects the second marking line when the degree of parallelism of a plurality of first marking lines recognized simultaneously is less than the threshold
However, Inoue did not disclose the height of the road surface of the is decreasing.
In the same field of endeavor Tamura disclosed, “In addition, the positions of the left and right front wheels FW and the left and right rear wheels RW are specified using the positional relationship between the position measurement unit 4 and the front wheels FW and the rear wheels RW stored in advance in the memory unit 52. Then, among the road map information stored in the memory unit 52, from the information on the road surface profile within a range forward of the current position by a predetermined distance L1 (for example, 200 m), information of a place having a height difference of the road surface on which the front wheel FW and the rear wheel RW are in contact with the ground, that is, information of a place having a vertical gradient, and information of a place having a height difference of the road surface on which the right wheel and the left wheel are in contact with the ground, that is, information of a place having a horizontal gradient, are extracted” (Paragraph. 0053).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated In addition, the positions of the left and right front wheels FW and the left and right rear wheels RW are specified using the positional relationship between the position measurement unit 4 and the front wheels FW and the rear wheels RW stored in advance in the memory unit 52. Then, among the road map information stored in the memory unit 52, from the information on the road surface profile within a range forward of the current position by a predetermined distance L1 (for example, 200 m), information of a place having a height difference of the road surface on which the front wheel FW and the rear wheel RW are in contact with the ground, that is, information of a place having a vertical gradient, and information of a place having a height difference of the road surface on which the right wheel and the left wheel are in contact with the ground, that is, information of a place having a horizontal gradient, are extracted as taught by Tamura in the method and system of Inoue to increase the efficiency of the automation of the vehicle.
4. As per claim 2 Inoue-Tamura disclosed wherein the map information includes height information and curve degree information of the movement path, and
the processor is configured to select the second marking line when the height of the road surface of the movement path is decreasing according to a road slope based on the height information and the curve degree information (Tamura, Paragraph. 0030). Claim 2 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
5. As per claim 3 Inoue-Tamura disclosed wherein the height information is a height at a center of the movement path (Tamura, Paragraph. 0030). Claim 3 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
6. As per claim 4 Inoue-Tamura disclosed wherein the processor is configured to select the second marking line when the first marking line recognized deviates from the second marking line to an inside of a turn (Paragraph. 0009) and when the height of the road surface of the movement path is decreasing even when the degree of parallelism of the plurality of first marking lines is equal to or greater than the threshold (Tamura, Paragraph. 0053). Claim 4 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first recognizer configured to” in at least claim 1
“a second recognizer configured to” in at least claim 1
“a determiner configured to” in at least claim 1
“a selector configured to” in at least claim 1
“a movement controller configured to” in at least claim 1
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically, corresponding structure in the specification includes:
There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification.
There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification.
There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification.
There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification.
There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification.
If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). See MPEP 2163.03, section VI.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument as follows.
A. Applicant argued that prior did not disclose, “selecting the first marking line when a degree of parallelism of a plurality of first marking lines recognized simultaneously present in moving direction of the mobile object is equal to or greater than a threshold and a height of a road surface of the movement path of the mobile object is not decreasing”.
As to applicant’s argument Inoue disclosed, “a control device includes a first recognizer configured to recognize a road marking for partitioning a traveling lane of a vehicle on the basis of an output of a detection device that has detected a surrounding situation of the vehicle, a second recognizer configured to recognize a road marking for partitioning the traveling lane on the basis of map information, and a determiner configured to determine whether or not there is misrecognition in the first recognizer on the basis of one or both of a curvature change quantity of a first road marking recognized by the first recognizer and an angle formed by the first road marking and a second road marking recognized by the second recognizer” (Abstract).
B. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose selecting the second marking line when the degree of parallelism of a plurality of first marking lines recognized simultaneously is equal to or greater than the threshold and the height of the road surface is decreasing.
As to applicant’s argument Inoue disclosed, “the misrecognition determiner 154 determines that the markings match if a degree of deviation between the markings is less than a threshold value and determines that the markings do not match (or that there is a difference) if the degree of deviation between the markings is greater than or equal to the threshold value. The deviation may be, for example, deviation at a horizontal position (in the Y-axis direction in FIG. 4) (for example, a deviation quantity W1 between the markings LL1 and LL2 in FIG. 4), a difference at a vertical position (a length of a distance in the X-axis direction), or a combination thereof. The deviation may be a curvature change quantity difference between the markings LL1 and LL2 or an angle formed by the markings LL1 and LL2 (hereinafter referred to as a separation angle)” (Paragraph. 0068).
C. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “selecting the second marking line when the degree of parallelism of a plurality of first marking lines recognized simultaneously is less than the threshold when a determination is made that the first marking lines and the second marking line deviate from each other.
As to applicant’s argument Inoue disclosed, the misrecognition determiner 154 compares degrees of deviation between the curvature change rates of the markings LL1 and LL2. In this case, the misrecognition determiner 154 acquires how much the marking LL1 deviates from the marking LL2 as a reference. For example, the misrecognition determiner 154 derives an absolute value of a value obtained by subtracting the curvature change rate of the marking LL1 from the curvature change rate of the marking LL2 on the basis of the position (X1, Y1) of the vehicle M as a degree of deviation in the curvature change rate. The misrecognition determiner 154 derives the degree of deviation in the above-described curvature change rate using the curvature change rates of the markings RL1 and RL2. The comparator 152 may derive the above-described degree of deviation (Paragraph. 0075).
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
10. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
11. 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 un published 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).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
