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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-11 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-12, filed 07/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 103 and the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-11 and the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of claim 1 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made of claims 1 and 3-11 under 35 USC 112(b) due to indefiniteness.
A detailed action regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection and statement of allowable subject matter over the prior art follows below.
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 and 3-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite the following limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A determination method configured to cause a computer to execute:
recognizing surrounding conditions including a first dividing line defining a traveling lane of a host vehicle and another vehicle present around the host vehicle on the basis of an output of a detection device configured to detect surrounding conditions of the host vehicle;
recognizing a second dividing line defining a lane around the host vehicle from map information on the basis of position information of the host vehicle; and
performing a correctness determination as to whether or not at least one of the first dividing line and the second dividing line is correct on the basis of at least one of the first dividing line and the second dividing line and a traveling path of the other vehicle,
wherein when a first other vehicle that performs a lateral movement ahead of the host vehicle and a second other vehicle that does not perform a lateral movement ahead of the first other vehicle are present among a plurality of other vehicles recognized, the correctness determination based on a traveling path of the first other vehicle is not performed, and
wherein when the second other vehicle is at the same position as a lateral position of the first other vehicle as a result of the lateral movement of the second other vehicle to behind the first other vehicle or the second other vehicle is present before the lateral movement and is directly ahead of the first other vehicle, the processor does not perform the correctness determination based on the traveling path of the first other vehicle.”
Wherein the bolded limitations render the claims indefinite as they do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claims establish “wherein when a first other vehicle that performs a lateral movement ahead of the host vehicle and a second other vehicle that does not perform a lateral movement ahead of the first other vehicle are present among a plurality of other vehicles recognized” in order to not perform the correctness determination based on the first other vehicle. Which in plain English, establishes that a first vehicle is ahead of the host vehicle, a second vehicle is further ahead of the first vehicle, and that the first vehicle is performing a lateral movement (e.g., a lane change) while the second vehicle does not perform a lateral movement.
However, the claims also recite “and, wherein when the second other vehicle is at the same position as a lateral position of the first other vehicle as a result of the lateral movement of the second other vehicle”, which in plain English, establishes that the second vehicle is positioned adjacent to the first vehicle due to a lateral movement of the second vehicle (e.g., a lane change). However, the limitation continues to recite “to behind the first other vehicle”, which in plain English means that the second vehicle is behind the first vehicle. It is unclear as to how the second vehicle can be adjacent to the first vehicle while also being behind the first vehicle.
Additionally, the recitation of “and” within the bolded limitations above adds further ambiguity to the claims. It is unclear as to how the first vehicle, which has performed a lateral movement (e.g., lane change), and was initially behind the second vehicle, is now adjacent to the second vehicle after the second vehicle performs a lateral movement (e.g., lane change). This also does not resolve the disparity of the second vehicle being adjacent to the first vehicle while also being behind the first vehicle as established above.
Next, the claims recite “or the second other vehicle is present before the lateral movement and is directly ahead of the first other vehicle” wherein it is unclear as to which lateral movement (i.e., the first vehicle lateral movement or the second vehicle lateral movement) that this claim limitation refers to. The recitation of “or” is also ambiguous because it is unclear as to which limitations are specifically included within the “or” statement, and thus whether or not are a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites:
“The determination device according to claim 1, wherein when a third other vehicle whose lateral position reached as a result of a lateral movement or a lateral position before the lateral movement is different from a lateral position of the second other vehicle is present behind the second other vehicle, the processor does not perform the correctness determination based on the traveling path of the first other vehicle and a traveling path of the third other vehicle”
Wherein it is unclear as to which lateral movement the claim is intending to refer to (i.e., the first vehicle lateral movement, the second vehicle lateral movement, or a new third vehicle lateral movement). Additionally, “different from a lateral position of the second other vehicle is present behind the second other vehicle” presents grammatical errors that make it unclear as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would ascertain what is present behind the second other vehicle.
Claim 6 recites:
“The determination device according to claim 5, wherein the third other vehicle is a vehicle whose lateral position reached as a result of the lateral movement or the lateral position before the lateral movement is at the lateral position of the first other vehicle before the lateral movement of the first other vehicle.”
Similarly to the reasonings set forth in regards to claim 5 above, it is unclear as to which lateral movements the claim is intending to refer to.
Claim 7 recites:
“The determination device according to claim 5, wherein the third other vehicle is a vehicle that performs the lateral movement in the same direction as the first other vehicle.”
Similarly to the reasonings set forth in regards to claims 5 and 6 above, it is unclear as to which lateral movements the claim is intending to refer to.
Claim 9 recites:
“The determination device according to claim 1, wherein when only a traveling path in which the traveling path of the second other vehicle is farther away than a point at which the lateral movement of the first other vehicle that performs the lateral movement is completed ahead of the host vehicle is acquired, the processor performs the correctness determination based on the traveling path of the first other vehicle and the traveling path of the second other vehicle.”
The term “farther away” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “farther away” 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. It is unclear as to what metric is utilized to determine where a traveling path of the second other vehicle is farther away than a point of lateral movement of the first other vehicle. It is unknown as to whether “farther away” pertains to lateral positioning, longitudinal positioning, angular positioning, or a combination thereof. Additionally, it is unclear as to which points during the movement are being utilized in the determination of being “farther away”. Thus, dependent claim 9 further in view of the rejection outlined to independent claim 1 above, is rendered indefinite.
In regards to claims 3, 4, and 8, the claims are dependent on rejected claim 1, and are therefore rejected based on dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Kanoh (20200398849) in view of Kumano et al. (20210197828; hereinafter Kumano)teaches a determination device comprising:
a processor that executes instructions to:
recognize surrounding conditions including a first dividing line defining a traveling lane of a host vehicle and another vehicle present around the host vehicle on the basis of an output of a detection device configured to detect surrounding conditions of the host vehicle (Kanoh: “the recognizer 130 recognizes, for example, a lane in which the own vehicle M is traveling (a traveling lane) and a relative position and a posture of the own vehicle M with respect to the traveling lane” ¶ 57);
recognize a second dividing line defining a lane around the host vehicle from map information on the basis of position information of the host vehicle (Kanoh: “The recommended lane determiner 61 divides the route provided from the navigation device 50 into a plurality of blocks ... and determines a recommended lane for each block with reference to the second map information 62. The recommended lane determiner 61 determines in which lane the vehicle travels from the left” ¶ 43); and ...
However, Kanoh fails to teach perform a correctness determination as to whether or not at least one of the first dividing line and the second dividing line is correct on the basis of at least one of the first dividing line and the second dividing line and a traveling path of the other vehicle,
wherein when a first other vehicle that is performing a lateral movement ahead of the host vehicle and a second other vehicle that is not performing a lateral movement ahead of the first other vehicle are present among a plurality of other vehicles recognized, the processor does not perform the correctness determination based on a traveling path of the first other vehicle, and
wherein when the second other vehicle is at the same position as a lateral position of the first other vehicle as a result of the lateral movement of the second other vehicle to behind the first other vehicle or the second other vehicle is present before the lateral movement and is directly ahead of the first other vehicle, the processor does not perform the correctness determination based on the traveling path of the first other vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kumano teaches perform a correctness determination as to whether or not at least one of the first dividing line and the second dividing line is correct on the basis of at least one of the first dividing line and the second dividing line and a traveling path of the other vehicle (Kumano: “When it is assumed that the front vehicle continues to travel in the same lane, the traveling trajectory of the front vehicle estimated by the trajectory estimation portion 205 is within the range of the lane where the front vehicle travels. Accordingly, by using the target lane number information and the lateral direction positional relationship, it may be possible to more accurately estimate the traveling lane of the subject vehicle” ¶ 65, see also ¶ 23),
wherein when a first other vehicle that is performing a lateral movement ahead of the host vehicle and a second other vehicle that is not performing a lateral movement ahead of the first other vehicle are present among a plurality of other vehicles recognized, the processor does not perform the correctness determination based on a traveling path of the first other vehicle (Kumano: “the determination portion 209 may determine that the traveling trajectory is inappropriate for estimating the traveling lane of the subject vehicle when a deviation in a lateral direction and a deviation in a yaw direction between the front vehicle traveling trajectory estimated by the trajectory estimation portion 205 and the link shape in the map data acquired by the map data acquisition portion 202 is equal to or higher than the threshold” ¶ 56, see ¶ 66 regarding a second other vehicle)
...
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the lane detection system of Kanoh so that it also includes the elements of a correctness determination, as taught by Kumano, in order to improve vehicle lane estimation accuracy (Kumano: ¶ 65, 89).
However, Kanoh in view of Kumano fail to teach wherein when the second other vehicle is at the same position as a lateral position of the first other vehicle as a result of the lateral movement of the second other vehicle to behind the first other vehicle or the second other vehicle is present before the lateral movement and is directly ahead of the first other vehicle, the processor does not perform the correctness determination based on the traveling path of the first other vehicle.
The prior Office Action of record, dated 04/29/2026, relies on Kumano to teach of similar limitations disclosed in now canceled claim 2, which recites:
Fig. 7,
“the determination portion 209 may determine that the traveling trajectory is inappropriate for estimating the traveling lane of the subject vehicle when a deviation in a lateral direction and a deviation in a yaw direction between the front vehicle traveling trajectory estimated by the trajectory estimation portion 205 and the link shape in the map data acquired by the map data acquisition portion 202 is equal to or higher than the threshold” ¶ 56,
To teach wherein when the second other vehicle is at the same position as a lateral position of the first other vehicle reached as a result of the lateral movement.
“the traveling trajectory during the lane change, the traveling trajectory during the continuous straddle traveling, and the traveling trajectory during the zigzag traveling are difficult to be associated with one lane among multiple lanes indicated by the target lane number information. Therefore, when the traveling trajectories are used for association with the lane, erroneous estimation of the traveling lane of the subject vehicle easily occurs” ¶ 70,
To teach present there before the lateral movement and is ahead of the first other vehicle, the determiner does not perform the correctness determination based on the traveling path of the first other vehicle.
However, with regards to “when the second other vehicle is at the same position as a lateral position of the first other vehicle as a result of the lateral movement of the second other vehicle” Kanoh does not disclose of not performing the correctness determination based on the traveling path of the first other vehicle when the second other vehicle is at the same lateral position (e.g., adjacent) as the first lateral vehicle, based on lateral movement (e.g., a lane change) of the second other vehicle.
The closest recitation of this limitation is in Fig. 7 and paragraph 66 of Kumano:
PNG
media_image1.png
688
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“when the traveling trajectories of the front vehicle are estimated as traveling trajectories of different lanes from each other and the number of traveling trajectories is same as the number of lanes of the target lane number information, the traveling trajectories can be associated with the multiple lanes ... a lane associated with a traveling trajectory whose lateral direction position is closest to the subject vehicle position among the traveling trajectories is estimated as the traveling lane of the subject vehicle. A dotted line in FIG. 7 indicates the traveling trajectory of the front vehicle, and Ov indicates the subject vehicle position ... a method of estimating the traveling trajectory of the different lane when lateral positions of the traveling trajectories are equal to or higher than a discerning distance may be used” ¶ 66
Which depicts two adjacent vehicles, the first other vehicle being the leftmost dotted line, the second other vehicle being the rightmost dotted line, and the host vehicle being point Ov. It can be seen that Kumano discloses of the second other vehicle being at the same lateral position of the first other vehicle; however, Kumano does not disclose that the same lateral positions are due to a result of the lateral movement of the second other vehicle.
Upon further search and consideration, Masui et al. (20180001894; hereinafter Masui) was found. Masui paragraph 44 discloses of detecting a plurality of forward vehicles, selecting a forward vehicle to use in determinations, and then acquiring boundary information. However, Masui does not disclose of utilizing the detected forward vehicle in boundary determination, nor does Masui disclose of using a second forward vehicle in conjunction with the first forward vehicle for determination.
In regards to claims 10-11, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 1 and are allowable subject matter on the same premise.
In regards to claims 3-9, the claims are dependent upon a claim containing allowable subject matter, and therefore being allowable subject matter as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kastner et al. (20150025784) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of forward vehicle determination.
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
