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 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
Next, the step of calculating the second angle rate corresponding to a limit value based on the path reliability $144 may be performed. Here, the value of the second angle rate to be limited according to the path reliability may be set experimentally, and the value may be adjusted according to the path reliability.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which input(s) are provided and output(s) result as follows:
Inputs:
Output(s): .
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the Specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
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 2-4 and 14-16 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation, "adding up coefficient reliabilities for a plurality of coefficients." It's not clear how adding coefficients can determine a reliability since the coefficients would each be applied to a separate polynomial. ¶¶69-70 broadly address adding up coefficient reliabilities to get a path reliability and further adding up the coefficient reliabilities for a single nth degree polynomial, however, that is not the same thing as "a plurality of coefficients." For the purposes of examination it is assumed the coefficients are merely used to determine reliability.
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reason as claim 2.
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite base claim.
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) 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2025/0146833 A1)) hereinafter Han, Jo et al. (IDS: Algorithm Development for Lane Estimation Accuracy Improvement) hereinafter Jo, and Kameoka et al. (US 2020/0385018 A1) hereinafter Kameoka.
Claim 1:
Han discloses a method for controlling a vehicle in case of reduction in reliability of lane information, comprising: detecting at least one lane line located ahead in a driving lane of an ego vehicle using a sensor of the ego vehicle; [¶46; sensing system that collects driving environment data] determining a lane-based path
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose (the lane-based path is) represented by an nth degree polynomial; determining a required steering angle rate of the ego vehicle based on the path reliability; and controlling the ego vehicle according to the required steering angle rate.
However, Jo does disclose (the lane-based path is) represented by an nth degree polynomial [p. 418; 2.2.1 specifically points out a third degree polynomial with coefficients C_x].
Further, Kameoka discloses determining a required steering angle rate of the ego vehicle based on the path reliability; and [¶¶2, 9; Fig. 18, especially ST208 which is based on a path determined based on reliability in ST204-ST207] controlling the ego vehicle according to the required steering angle rate. [¶¶2, 9; Fig. 18, especially ST209]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Han with the nth degree polynomial of Jo to provide a known means of mathematically modeling a vehicle path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Han and Jo with the vehicle control of Kameoka to provide a means of controlling the vehicle along a determined path.
Claim 2:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Han also discloses wherein the calculating of the path reliability comprises: calculating a coefficient reliability using the amount of change in each coefficient; and calculating the path reliability by adding up coefficient reliabilities for a plurality of coefficients. [¶48 describes the effective lane line determination subunit checking that each parameter (length, curvature, etc) is above a threshold based on the amount of change being within a threshold and a comparison of each threshold is made to determine reliability]
Claim 3:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Han also discloses wherein the calculating of the coefficient reliability comprises: if the amount of change in each coefficient is smaller than a predetermined threshold value, setting the corresponding coefficient reliability to 1; and if the amount of change in each coefficient is greater than or equal to the threshold value, setting the corresponding coefficient reliability to a value smaller than 1. [¶48 describes the effective lane line determination subunit setting each parameter weight (length, curvature, etc) based on a threshold and ¶55 references setting a weight to zero if it doesn't meet a threshold]
Claim 4:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Han also discloses wherein the calculating of the amount of change in each coefficient comprises calculating the amount of change in each coefficient during a minimum time interval for system operation. [¶48 a minimum time of greater than 0 seconds is required for any readings or measurements]
Claim 6:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Han also discloses wherein the determining of the lane-based path comprises representing coordinates of both lane lines on the driving lane of the ego vehicle
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose as separate nth degree polynomials.
However, Jo does disclose as separate nth degree polynomials. [p. 418; 2.2.1 specifically points out a third degree polynomial with coefficients C_x]
Claim 7:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Han also discloses wherein the calculating of the path reliability comprises: determining a path reliability for a left lane line of the driving lane using amount of change in each coefficient
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose as separate nth degree polynomials.
However, Jo does disclose as separate nth degree polynomials. [p. 418; 2.2.1 specifically points out a third degree polynomial with coefficients C_x]
Claim 8:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Han also discloses wherein the determining of the lane-based path comprises representing lane center coordinates of the driving lane of the ego vehicle
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose nth degree polynomials.
However, Jo does disclose as separate nth degree polynomials. [p. 418; 2.2.1 specifically points out a third degree polynomial with coefficients C_x]
Claim 9:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Han also discloses wherein a first-degree coefficient of the nth degree polynomial is a heading angle of the ego vehicle with respect to the lane-based path.
However, Jo does disclose wherein a first-degree coefficient of the nth degree polynomial is a heading angle of the ego vehicle with respect to the lane-based path. [4. Experimental Results: C_1 is a heading angle]
Claim 10:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a second-degree coefficient of the nth degree polynomial is a curvature of the lane-based path.
However, Jo does disclose wherein a second-degree coefficient of the nth degree polynomial is a curvature of the lane-based path. [4. Experimental Results: C_2 is a curvature]
Claim 11:
Han discloses a system for controlling a vehicle in case of reduction in reliability of lane information, comprising: a sensor configured to detect at least one lane line located ahead in a driving lane of an ego vehicle; and [¶46; sensing system that collects driving environment data] wherein the controller is configured to determine a lane-based path
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose (the lane-based path is) represented by an nth degree polynomial; a controller comprising at least one processor configured to perform control of the ego vehicle based on detection information from the sensor, determine a required steering angle rate of the ego vehicle based on the path reliability, and control the ego vehicle according to the required steering angle rate.
However, Jo does disclose (the lane-based path is) represented by an nth degree polynomial [p. 418; 2.2.1 specifically points out a third degree polynomial with coefficients C_x].
However, Kameoka does disclose a controller comprising at least one processor configured to perform control of the ego vehicle based on detection information from the sensor, [¶¶2, 9; Fig. 18, especially ST209] determine a required steering angle rate of the ego vehicle based on the path reliability, and [¶¶2, 9; Fig. 18, especially ST208 which is based on a path determined based on reliability in ST204-ST207] control the ego vehicle according to the required steering angle rate. [¶¶2, 9; Fig. 18, especially ST209]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Han with the nth degree polynomial of Jo to provide a known means of mathematically modeling a vehicle path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle controller of Han and Jo with the vehicle control of Kameoka to provide a means of controlling the vehicle along a determined path.
Claim 12:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a driving apparatus configured to control a longitudinal driving of the ego vehicle; and a steering apparatus configured to control a lateral driving of the ego vehicle, wherein, the controller is configured to control the steering apparatus so that the lateral driving of the ego vehicle is controlled according to the required steering angle rate.
However, Kameoka does disclose further comprising: a driving apparatus configured to control a longitudinal driving of the ego vehicle; and a steering apparatus configured to control a lateral driving of the ego vehicle, wherein, the controller is configured to control the steering apparatus so that the lateral driving of the ego vehicle is controlled according to the required steering angle rate. [¶¶2, 9; Fig. 18, especially ST209]
Claim 13:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Han also discloses wherein the sensor comprises a front camera. [¶46]
Claim 14:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Han also discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate a plurality of coefficient reliabilities using the amount of change in each coefficient and calculate the path reliability by adding up the plurality of coefficient reliabilities. [¶48 describes the effective lane line determination subunit checking that each parameter (length, curvature, etc) is above a threshold based on the amount of change being within a threshold and a comparison of each threshold is made to determine reliability]
Claim 15:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Han also discloses wherein if the amount of change in each coefficient is smaller than a predetermined threshold value, the corresponding coefficient reliability is set to 1 and, if the amount of change in each coefficient is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the corresponding coefficient reliability is set to a value smaller than 1. [¶48 describes the effective lane line determination subunit setting each parameter weight (length, curvature, etc) based on a threshold and ¶55 references setting a weight to zero if it doesn't meet a threshold]
Claim 16:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 15.
Han also discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate the amount of change in each coefficient during a minimum time interval for system operation. [¶48 a minimum time of greater than 0 seconds is required for any readings or measurements]
Claim 18:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a first-degree coefficient of the nth degree polynomial is a heading angle of the ego vehicle with respect to the lane-based path.
However, Jo discloses wherein a first-degree coefficient of the nth degree polynomial is a heading angle of the ego vehicle with respect to the lane-based path. [4. Experimental Results: C_1 is a heading angle]
Claim 19:
Han, Jo, and Kameoka, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 18.
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a second-degree coefficient of the nth degree polynomial is a curvature of the lane-based path.
However, Jo discloses wherein a second-degree coefficient of the nth degree polynomial is a curvature of the lane-based path. [4. Experimental Results: C_2 is a curvature]
Claim 20:
Han discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program for executing a method for controlling a vehicle in case of reduction in reliability of lane information on a computer, the method comprising: detecting at least one lane line located ahead in a driving lane of an ego vehicle using a sensor of the ego vehicle; [¶46; sensing system that collects driving environment data] determining a lane-based path
Han doesn’t explicitly disclose (the lane-based path is) represented by an nth degree polynomial; determining a required steering angle rate of the ego vehicle based on the path reliability; and controlling the ego vehicle according to the required steering angle rate.
However, Jo does disclose (the lane-based path is) represented by an nth degree polynomial [p. 418; 2.2.1 specifically points out a third degree polynomial with coefficients C_x]
Further, Kameoka discloses determining a required steering angle rate of the ego vehicle based on the path reliability; and [¶¶2, 9; Fig. 18, especially ST208 which is based on a path determined based on reliability in ST204-ST207] controlling the ego vehicle according to the required steering angle rate. [¶¶2, 9; Fig. 18, especially ST209]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US 2026/0138604 A1) discloses correcting an ego vehicle position based on a deviation observed between the vehicle path and a lane centerline. It should be noted this reference does not currently qualify as prior art and would need to first be patented; however, it does have a foreign priority date of 8/16/2023.
Khosla (US 6,718,259 B1) discloses a means of using a Kalman filter to estimate the path in front of a vehicle and to apply weights to different road elements to determine a single fused road geometry prediction output.
Fujii (US 2015/0151786 A1) discloses a steering controller for ensuring consistency between steering a target path and a driver input.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (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 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights