CTNF 19/064,946 CTNF 99689 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-7 are currently pending and presented for examination. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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: 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; 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 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) include: Recognition unit (“ configured to… ”) Determination unit (“ configured to… ”) Display controller (“ configured to… ”) Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Support for the limitation(s) are as follows: Figure 1 and Paragraph 0024: The lane-keeping control system 100 includes an electronic control unit (ECU) 10 that comprehensively manages the devices. The ECU 10 is an electronic control unit having a central processing unit (CPU) and a storage unit. The storage unit includes, for example, a read-only memory (ROM), a random-access memory (RAM), an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), or the like. In the ECU 10, for example, various functions are implemented by the CPU executing a program stored in the storage unit. The ECU 10 may include a plurality of electronic units. Thus, the Examiner is interpreting the claim limitations as follows: ECU, CPU, processing circuitry and/or the like. If the applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 3-5 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. Regarding Claim 3 , the claim recites “… wherein the display controller increases the display standby time when the vehicle travels on a general road, as compared with a case where the vehicle travels on a highway ”. The term “ general ” is a relative term which renders that claim indefinite. The term 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 what constitutes a general road as compared to a highway. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill- defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge and consistent with the instant specification (Paragraph 0052, “ …the general road has a complicated road shape, for example, has a sharp curve or includes an intersection, as compared with the highway ”), the general road will be treated as non-highways. Regarding Claim 4 , the claim recites “… wherein the display controller increases the display standby time when a recognition length of the lane marking recognized by the recognition unit is short, as compared with a case where the recognition length of the lane marking is long ”. It is not clear to the examiner what a “ recognition length ” of a lane marking represents, as it can be interpreted as, for example, a physical length of a lane marking, a detection range for image processing, or length of time for detecting lane marking (e.g. dependent on a vehicle speed). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge and consistent with the instant specification (Paragraph 0045, “ The recognition length of the lane marking is a length of the lane marking recognized by the recognition unit 11, and is a length along an extension direction of the own lane) ”, the recognition length of the lane marking will be treated as a physical length of the lane marking. Regarding Claim 5 , the claim recites “… wherein the display controller increases the display standby time when a speed of the vehicle is low, as compared with a case where the speed is high ”. The terms “ low ” and “ high ” are relative terms which renders that claim indefinite. The terms are 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 what constitutes a low speed compared to a high speed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim will be treated as adjusting the standby time based on a speed of the vehicle. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 6 recite: An in-vehicle display device that displays a lane marking of a traveling lane on which a vehicle travels on a display mounted on the vehicle, the in-vehicle display device comprising : a recognition unit configured to recognize the lane marking of the traveling lane based on a captured image of a camera ; a determination unit configured to determine whether or not an operation condition of lane-keeping control of causing the vehicle to travel along the recognized lane marking is satisfied, the operation condition being set based on at least one of a state of the vehicle, a shape of the traveling lane, and a state of a driver of the vehicle ; and (from Claim 1) a display controller configured to display the recognized lane marking on the display, wherein the display controller is configured to display the lane marking after a display standby time set in advance elapses when the determination unit determines that the operation condition is satisfied when the recognition unit starts the recognition of the lane marking / (from Claim 6) a display controller configured to display the recognized lane marking on the display, wherein the display controller is configured to display the lane marking when the execution of the lane-keeping control is started when the determination unit determines that the operation condition is satisfied when the recognition unit starts the recognition of the lane marking . Step 1: Independent claims 1 and 6 are directed to a statutory category of invention. Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations ( represented by bolded font ) constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “ display device”, “ recognition unit”, “ determination unit” and “ controller” , nothing in the claim elements preclude the process from being practically performed in the mind. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of the independent claims under broadest reasonable interpretation may encompass a passenger recognizing lane markings and determining when the driver/vehicle is ready for lane-keeping control. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2: The independent claims recite additional elements ( represented by underlined font ) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “ display device ”, “ recognition unit ”, “ determination unit ” , and “ controller ”, the examiner submits that these elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that the elements are considered mere generic computer components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). Regarding the additional limitation of “ display the recognized lane marking on the display… ” , the examiner submits this amounts to post-solution displaying which is considered a form of extra-solution activity by the office (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) do not add anything that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B: The independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “ display device ”, “ recognition unit ”, “ determination unit ” , and “ controller ” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the components are anything other than generic displays, controllers, etc. Regarding the additional limitations of “ display the recognized lane marking on the display… ”, these encompass generic control steps that apply the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, independent claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible. With respect to dependent claims 2-5 and 7, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the corresponding independent claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well ‐ understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application: Claims 2 and 7 describe determining whether conditions for displaying are satisfied, and is directed to the previously discussed mental process from claims 1/6 (e.g. the passenger can make a determination on whether the driver is being attentive of not). Claims 3-5 describe delaying a display based on the type of road, recognition length, and vehicle speed, which are directed to additional aspects of the mental process (e.g. observing a road and judging whether it is a general road or a highway) and generically claimed control steps (e.g. generally increasing time for recognizing and displaying lane markings based on road complexity). Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 and 7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaka et al. ( US20240286678A1 , filed on February 16, 2024; hereinafter Itaka) in view of Inomata ( US20160272202A1 ; hereinafter Inomata) and Watanabe ( US20170043773A1 ; hereinafter Watanabe) . Regarding Claim 1 , Itaka discloses an in-vehicle display device that displays a lane marking of a traveling lane on which a vehicle travels on a display mounted on the vehicle (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0037, “ The lane viewing assist control unit 28 performs lane viewing assist control of displaying, on the display device 60 ”) , the in-vehicle display device comprising : a recognition unit configured to recognize the lane marking of the traveling lane based on a captured image of a camera (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0026, “ The frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 performs various image processing…and extracts image parts of a left-side lane marking 111f and a right-side lane marking 112f...The frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 then recognizes positions of the lane markings 111f, 112f... ”); a determination unit configured to determine whether or not an operation condition of lane-keeping control of causing the vehicle to travel along the recognized lane marking is satisfied (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0039 describe checking whether a condition (“ Are lane markings ahead recognized? ”) is satisfied before activating lane-keeping control (“ In next step S3, the frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 proceeds the process to step S4 when the lane markings 111f, 112f are recognized, and proceeds the process to step S10 in FIG. 6 when the lane markings 111f, 112f are not recognized ”)); a display controller configured to display the recognized lane marking on the display, wherein the display controller is configured to display the lane marking (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0041, “ In next step S6, the lane viewing assist control unit 28, as described above with reference to FIG. 3, performs the lane viewing assist control of displaying, on the display device 60, the informing image 61 showing the positions of the lane markings 111f, 112f ahead of the vehicle 1 recognized by the frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 ”). While Itaka describes features for checking whether a condition is satisfied before activating lane-keeping control (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0039), Itaka does not explicitly recite: [the operation condition being set based on at least one of a state of the vehicle, a shape of the traveling lane, and a state of a driver of the vehicle] . Nevertheless, Inomata teaches lane-keeping features for a vehicle (see at least Abstract) comprising: [the operation condition being set based on at least one of a state of the vehicle, a shape of the traveling lane, and a state of a driver of the vehicle] (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0040 describes conditions for activating lane-keeping control (“… the lane departure prevention unit 1a determines that the activation condition for the LKA is established” ) based on at least a state of the vehicle (e.g. “ the traveling vehicle speed is within a predetermined range )”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Itaka invention to expand the features for conditionally activating lane-keeping control (Paragraph 0039) to include conditions based on a state of the vehicle, as taught by Inomata, for the well-known benefit of improving safety of vehicle control handovers (e.g. by preventing abrupt steering control when the vehicle is traveling too fast). While Itaka as currently modified teaches determining [when the determination unit determines that the operation condition is satisfied when the recognition unit starts the recognition of the lane marking] (Inomata, Paragraph 0040, “… the lane departure prevention unit 1a determines that the activation condition for the LKA is established” ), Itaka as currently modified still does not explicitly teach displaying [after a display standby time set in advance elapses]. Nevertheless, Watanabe also teaches lane-keeping features for a vehicle (Paragraph 0015, “ The driving assistant control may include, without limitation, lane deviation prevention, lane keeping, and automatic obstacle avoidance ”) comprising: displaying [after a display standby time set in advance elapses] (Paragraph 0026, “ …even when a determination is made that the lane line is recognized properly, the recognition state monitor 13 may not cause the recognized line segment L on one side to be displayed at once as illustrated in a screen D2, and perform waiting for a predetermined time ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Itaka invention to expand the features for displaying lane markings (Paragraph 0041) to include a predetermined wait time, as taught by Watanabe, for the benefit of allowing sufficient recognition processing of lane markings before determining amount of information to display (Paragraph 0027, “ When the predetermined waiting time is elapsed, the recognition state monitor 13 may cause only the lane line in which the recognition has been completed to be displayed. Hence, it is possible to prevent the driver from receiving the impression as if there is variation in recognition between the left and the right lane lines upon displaying those lane lines, and thereby to display the lane lines without involving a sense of discomfort ”). Regarding Claim 2 , Itaka as currently modified teaches claim 1. Itaka further discloses: wherein the display controller is configured to not display the recognized lane marking when the determination unit does not determine that the operation condition is satisfied when the recognition unit starts the recognition of the lane marking (Figures 5-6 and Paragraphs 0039-0042 describe not displaying lane markings if a condition is not satisfied (“ In next step S3, the frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 proceeds the process to step S4 when the lane markings 111f, 112f are recognized, and proceeds the process to step S10 in FIG. 6 when the lane markings 111f, 112f are not recognized …In next step S12, the rearward lane edge part recognition unit 23 proceeds the process to step S13 when the lane markings 111r, 112r are recognized, and proceeds the process to step S20 when the lane markings 111r, 112r are not recognized . In step S20, the rearward lane edge part recognition unit 23 displays an image informing a recognition error on the display device 60 and proceeds the process to step S7 in FIG. 5 ”)). While Itaka further discloses: display, when it is determined that the operation condition is satisfied thereafter, the lane marking [after it is determined that the operation condition is satisfied] (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0039-0041 describe displaying recognized lane markings (in Step 6) after a condition is satisfied (in Step 3) (“ In next step S3 , the frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 proceeds the process to step S4 when the lane markings 111f, 112f are recognized …In next step S6 , the lane viewing assist control unit 28, as described above with reference to FIG. 3, performs the lane viewing assist control of displaying, on the display device 60, the informing image 61 showing the positions of the lane markings 111f, 112f ahead of the vehicle 1 recognized by the frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 ”), Itaka does not explicitly disclose displaying [after the display standby time elapses]. Nevertheless, Watanabe teaches: displaying [after the display standby time elapses] (Paragraph 0026, “ …even when a determination is made that the lane line is recognized properly, the recognition state monitor 13 may not cause the recognized line segment L on one side to be displayed at once as illustrated in a screen D2, and perform waiting for a predetermined time ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Itaka invention to expand the features for displaying lane markings (Paragraph 0041) to include a predetermined wait time, as taught by Watanabe, for the benefit of allowing sufficient recognition processing of lane markings before determining amount of information to display (Paragraph 0027, “ When the predetermined waiting time is elapsed, the recognition state monitor 13 may cause only the lane line in which the recognition has been completed to be displayed. Hence, it is possible to prevent the driver from receiving the impression as if there is variation in recognition between the left and the right lane lines upon displaying those lane lines, and thereby to display the lane lines without involving a sense of discomfort ”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaka in view of Inomata, Watanabe, and Kitani et al. ( US20200143670A1 ; hereinafter Kitani) . Regarding Claim 3 , Itaka as currently modified teaches claim 1. Itaka does not explicitly disclose: wherein the display controller increases the display standby time when the vehicle travels on a general road, as compared with a case where the vehicle travels on a highway (Examiner notes that “ increases the display standby time ” is being interpreted as increasing time for recognizing/processing lane markings, which is consistent with the closest support from the specification (Paragraph 0010, “… by increasing the display standby time when the vehicle is traveling on the general road, it is possible to secure an increased time for the recognition processing from the start of the recognition of the lane marking to the display of the lane marking, and it is possible to increase the stability of the recognition of the lane marking ”); Also see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for interpretation of “ when the vehicle travels on a general road, as compared with a case where the vehicle travels on a highway ”). Nevertheless, Kitani teaches features for adaptive processing based on an acquired status of a vehicle (see at least Abstract) comprising: wherein the display controller increases the display standby time when the vehicle travels on a general road, as compared with a case where the vehicle travels on a highway (Paragraph 0051 describes a greater recognition processing time for general roads (“ open road ”) as compared to highways (“ The driving scene 611 shown in FIG. 3(b) shows information relating to the driving lane of the host vehicle. For example, an example is considered in which when the processing period of actuator control involved in driving is the same between the expressway and the open road, the breakdowns of processing time for automatic operation logic are changed. Since the drive track generation processing of the host vehicle in open road driving meets more complicated driving lanes, compared with expressways, processing time is greatly reserved, compared with in expressway driving ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Itaka invention to expand the features for performing lane recognition (Paragraph 0026) to allocate more processing for general roads as compared to highways, as taught by Kitani, for the well-known benefit of maintaining an acceptable recognition accuracy by adjusting a processing time based on situational complexity . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaka in view of Inomata, Watanabe, and Takemura et al. ( US20120216208A1 ; hereinafter Takemura) . Regarding Claim 4 , Itaka as currently modified teaches claim 1. Itaka does not explicitly recite: wherein the display controller increases the display standby time when a recognition length of the lane marking recognized by the recognition unit is short, as compared with a case where the recognition length of the lane marking is long (Examiner notes that “ increases the display standby time ” is being interpreted as increasing time for recognizing/processing lane markings, which is consistent with the closest support from the specification (Paragraph 0013, “ By increasing the display standby time when the recognition length of the lane marking is short, it is possible to secure increased time for the recognition processing of the lane marking from the start of the recognition of the lane marking to the display of the lane marking ”); Also see section 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for interpretation of “ when a recognition length of the lane marking recognized by the recognition unit is short, as compared with a case where the recognition length of the lane marking is long ”). Nevertheless, Takemura teaches features for performing lane recognition (Paragraph 0055, “ The lane recognition application 130 ”) comprising: wherein the display controller increases the display standby time when a recognition length of the lane marking recognized by the recognition unit is short, as compared with a case where the recognition length of the lane marking is long (Paragraph 0138 describes the processing time for image recognition taking longer for short/broken lane markings (e.g. Botts’ dots) as compared to long/solid lane markings (“ …information on road situations may be acquired from the navigation system of the travel environment information. The information is on whether the road is a smooth road as with continuation of a solid line or a road unlikely to be detected due to difficulty of recognition such as Botts' dots. The processing time may be predicted such that, in the case of the smooth solid line, the recognition result is stable and can be tacked and thereby the processing time is short , and, in the case of the Botts' dots, detection is impossible or stable detection is difficult and thereby the processing time is long ”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Itaka invention to expand the features for performing lane recognition (Paragraph 0026) to allocate more processing for short lane markings as compared to long lane markings, as taught by Takemura, for the well-known benefit of maintaining an acceptable recognition accuracy by adjusting a processing time based on situational complexity . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaka in view of Inomata, Watanabe, and Otsuka et al. ( US20030072471A1 ; hereinafter Otsuka) . Regarding Claim 5 , Itaka as currently modified teaches claim 1. Itaka does not explicitly disclose: wherein the display controller increases the display standby time when a speed of the vehicle is low, as compared with a case where the speed is high (Examiner notes that “ increases the display standby time ” is being interpreted as increasing a time for recognizing/processing lane markings, which is consistent with the closest support from the specification (Paragraph 0015, “ By increasing the display standby time when the speed of the vehicle is low, it is possible to secure increased time for the recognition processing of the lane marking from the start of the recognition of the lane marking to the display of the lane marking ”); Also see section 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for interpretation of “ when a speed of the vehicle is low, as compared with a case where the speed is high ”). Nevertheless, Otsuka teaches features for dynamic lane recognition processing (see at least Abstract) comprising: wherein the display controller increases the display standby time when a speed of the vehicle is low, as compared with a case where the speed is high (Paragraph 0087 describes increasing processing of lane markings (e.g. executable algorithms for image recognition) when traveling at a low speed (“ …the recognition result can be output within an allowable processing time by limiting number of processing times at high speed driving, and the recognition accuracy can be improved by increasing number of processing times at low speed driving ”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Itaka invention to expand the features for performing lane recognition (Paragraph 0026) to increase processing times of lane markings when traveling at a low speed, as taught by Otsuka, for the benefit of improving accuracy recognition results of lane-keeping control when time allows (Paragraph 0087, “… since it takes a very long time to execute all the algorithms, a trouble may occur in control of the lane keeping control part 2 during running of the vehicle at high speed …the recognition accuracy can be improved by increasing number of processing times at low speed driving ”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaka in view of Inomata . Regarding Claim 6 , Itaka discloses an in-vehicle display device that displays a lane marking of a traveling lane on which a vehicle travels on a display mounted on the vehicle (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0037, “ The lane viewing assist control unit 28 performs lane viewing assist control of displaying, on the display device 60 ”) , the in-vehicle display device comprising : a recognition unit configured to recognize the lane marking of the traveling lane based on a captured image of a camera (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0026, “ The frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 performs various image processing…and extracts image parts of a left-side lane marking 111f and a right-side lane marking 112f...The frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 then recognizes positions of the lane markings 111f, 112f... ”); a determination unit configured to determine whether or not an operation condition of lane-keeping control of causing the vehicle to travel along the recognized lane marking is satisfied (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0039 describe checking whether a condition (“ Are lane markings ahead recognized? ”) is satisfied before activating lane-keeping control (“ In next step S3, the frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 proceeds the process to step S4 when the lane markings 111f, 112f are recognized, and proceeds the process to step S10 in FIG. 6 when the lane markings 111f, 112f are not recognized ”)); a display controller configured to display the recognized lane marking on the display, wherein the display controller is configured to display the lane marking when the execution of the lane-keeping control is started (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0040-0041 describe displaying recognized lane markings (in Step 6) once the lane-keeping control has started (in Step 5) (“ In subsequent step S5 , the lane keeping assist control unit 27, as described above, performs the lane keeping assist control of causing the steering device 70…In next step S6 , the lane viewing assist control unit 28, as described above with reference to FIG. 3, performs the lane viewing assist control of displaying, on the display device 60, the informing image 61 showing the positions of the lane markings 111f, 112f ahead of the vehicle 1 recognized by the frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 ”). While Itaka describes checking whether a condition is satisfied before activating lane-keeping control (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0039), Itaka does not explicitly recite: [the operation condition being set based on at least one of a state of the vehicle, a shape of the traveling lane, and a state of a driver of the vehicle] nor determining [when the determination unit determines that the operation condition is satisfied when the recognition unit starts the recognition of the lane marking]. Nevertheless, Inomata teaches features for lane-keeping control (see at least Abstract) comprising [the operation condition being set based on at least one of a state of the vehicle, a shape of the traveling lane, and a state of a driver of the vehicle] (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0040 describes operation conditions for lane-keeping control (“ the lane departure prevention unit 1a determines that the activation condition for the LKA is established ”) based on at least a state of the vehicle (“… the traveling vehicle speed is within a predetermined range …” )); determining [when the determination unit determines that the operation condition is satisfied when the recognition unit starts the recognition of the lane marking] (Paragraph 0040, “… the lane departure prevention unit 1a determines that the activation condition for the LKA is established” ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Itaka invention to expand the features for conditionally activating lane-keeping control (Paragraph 0039) to include conditions based on at least a state of the vehicle, as taught by Inomata, for the well-known benefit of improving safety of vehicle control handovers (e.g. preventing abrupt steering control when the vehicle is traveling too fast). Regarding Claim 7 , Itaka as currently modified teaches claim 6. Itaka further discloses: wherein the display controller is configured to not display the recognized lane marking when the determination unit does not determine that the operation condition is satisfied when the recognition unit starts the recognition of the lane marking (Figures 5-6 and Paragraphs 0039-0042 describe not displaying lane markings if a condition is not satisfied (“ In next step S3, the frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 proceeds the process to step S4 when the lane markings 111f, 112f are recognized, and proceeds the process to step S10 in FIG. 6 when the lane markings 111f, 112f are not recognized …In next step S12, the rearward lane edge part recognition unit 23 proceeds the process to step S13 when the lane markings 111r, 112r are recognized, and proceeds the process to step S20 when the lane markings 111r, 112r are not recognized . In step S20, the rearward lane edge part recognition unit 23 displays an image informing a recognition error on the display device 60 and proceeds the process to step S7 in FIG. 5 ”)) display, when it is determined that the operation condition is satisfied thereafter, the lane marking when the execution of the lane-keeping control is started (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0040-0041 describe displaying recognized lane markings (in Step 6) once the lane-keeping control has started (in Step 5) (“ In subsequent step S5 , the lane keeping assist control unit 27, as described above, performs the lane keeping assist control of causing the steering device 70…In next step S6 , the lane viewing assist control unit 28, as described above with reference to FIG. 3, performs the lane viewing assist control of displaying, on the display device 60, the informing image 61 showing the positions of the lane markings 111f, 112f ahead of the vehicle 1 recognized by the frontward lane edge part recognition unit 22 ”) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure : Bergmann (US20080056535A1) teaches features for performing image recognition of lane markings (see at least Abstract) and steps for switching between simple and complex models for recognizing lane markings depending on the type of road (Paragraphs 0054-0056, “ While a straight road or straight road segments may be approximated by a pair of essentially parallel lines in the digital map representation, a curved road such as is shown in FIG. 4 may require complex modeling . In one example, a curved road may be approximated by a series of short and essentially straight road segment portions, the longitudinal axes of each of which may be tilted relative to one another ”). Shimizu (US20180181821A1) teaches features for recognizing different types of lane markings (Paragraph 0007, “The recognition unit is configured to recognize the solid lane marking or the dashed lane marking in the captured image ”) and a lane marking detection process that performs additional processing steps when a lane marking is determined to be non-solid/broken/Botts’ dots and adjusts selection of feature points accordingly for performing lane marking recognition (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0056) Hunt (US20220058402A1) teaches adaptive processing based on complexity of a surrounding environment (Paragraph 0016, “ …tradeoffs between computational costs, speed, and accuracy may occur when using sensors, such as a camera, to perceive the surrounding environment. For example, because high-resolution images can consume more computational bandwidth, the use of such images may be best suited for instances where higher accuracy is desired instead of all circumstances. Moreover, various driving contexts may benefit from higher precision and/or faster processing, such as complex urban environments, whereas other contexts may not (e.g., highway driving). Therefore, a static approach to sensor configuration is generally not optimal ”) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST. 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 Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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. /EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 2 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 3 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 4 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 5 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 6 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 7 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 8 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 9 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 10 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 11 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 12 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 13 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 14 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 15 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 16 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 17 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 18 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 19 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 20 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 21 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 22 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/064,946 Page 23 Art Unit: 3669
Prosecution Insights