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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action filed 06/29/2026, Applicant amended claims 2, 4, cancelled claim 3, and added NEW claims 8-12. Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “First, as a general matter, the present application discloses lane departure suppression control for keeping a vehicle from departing from a lane. In contrast, although Tsuruta includes some disclosure relating to travel within a lane, Tsuruta is essentially directed to route generation. As described in the Abstract of Tsuruta, "[w]hen a travel path is to be generated for a vehicle, road surface lines (white lines, etc.) delimiting the traffic lane of the vehicle, and also external objects in the vehicle environment, are detected and registered as respective obstacles. Specific points are defined at appropriate locations on each obstacle, and the travel path is generated by connecting respective mid-point positions between opposed pairs of specific points." See Tsuruta, Abstract. Therefore, the description of Tsuruta is different from that of the present application. Second, Tsuruta does not disclose the "start position of the lane departure suppression control" as recited in claim 1. In particular, claim 1 recites "set a second imaginary boundary at which a start position of the lane departure suppression control is set at a position a predetermined distance away in an inside direction of the lane in accordance with a first width of a distance between the first imaginary boundary and the second boundary." However, Tsuruta does not disclose a component corresponding to the "start position of the lane departure suppression control," since Tsuruta does not perform lane departure suppression control. Tsuruta merely describes generating a travel path by connecting mid-point positions between obstacles, which is fundamentally different from setting a start position for lane departure suppression control.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As a first matter, the cited prior art discloses vehicle control which keeps the vehicle within the lane, (i.e. prevents the vehicle from departing a lane) while simultaneously avoiding obstacles located within the lane (¶0041, Fig. 5; “ Next in step 5130, a decision is made as to whether a travel path can be generated which avoids the obstacles that are currently registered, while maintaining the host vehicle within its traffic lane. For example, referring to FIG. 5, this will be the case if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle. If it is judged that all the obstacles that are currently detected can be avoided (YES in step S130), step S260 is then executed, while otherwise (NO in step S130) step S140 is then executed.”). Therefore, despite not expressly stating “lane departure control”, the prior art performs the claimed function to the extent that the claimed function does not patently distinguish from the prior art.
As a second matter, as previously indicated Tsurata discloses set a second imaginary boundary (Fig. 5, 16’ “ registers a region extending rightward from the right-side lane boundary line 16 as an obstacle 16'”; ¶0035) at which a start position of the lane departure suppression control (fig. 5, travel path deviates around obstacle 19’) is set at a position a predetermined distance away in an inside direction of the lane in accordance with a first width of a distance between the first imaginary boundary and the second boundary (Fig. 5, travel path lane control based on virtual obstacle 30 which is larger (e.g. wider) than the actual object 19’)”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Third, Tsuruta does not disclose the "second imaginary boundary set in accordance with the first width" as recited in claim 1. The Office relied on Tsuruta's disclosure of "a region extending rightward from the right-side lane boundary line 16 as an obstacle 16'." See Tsuruta, paragraph [0035]. However, this obstacle 16' in Tsuruta is simply a registered obstacle region for path generation purposes, not a "second imaginary boundary" that is set "in accordance with a first width of a distance between the first imaginary boundary and the second boundary" as recited in claim 1.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As a first matter, as previously indicated, Tsurata further discloses “Next in step 5130, a decision is made as to whether a travel path can be generated which avoids the obstacles that are currently registered, while maintaining the host vehicle within its traffic lane. For example referring to FIG. 5, this will be the case if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle. If it is judged that all of the obstacles that are currently detected can be avoided (YES in step S130), step S260 is then executed” (¶0041). Items 19’ and 16’ are virtual (imaginary) boundaries. As such, secondary imaginary boundary 16’ is determined based on at lesat (e.g. in accordance with) a first width of a distance (e.g. host vehicle width see ¶0041) between the first imaginary boundary (19’) and the second boundary (16).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to remaining claims that depend from Claim 1 are not persuasive for the reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “New claim 8 is an independent claim that incorporates the features of original claims 1 and 3… As also discussed above, Naka describes calculating a lateral movement amount required to avoid an obstacle based on factors such as the position and width of the obstacle, the vehicle width, and a clearance, and shifting the route by that lateral movement amount so as to avoid the obstacle. See Naka, paragraphs [0077]-[0078], Figs. 8A and 8B. This is different from the present application, in which the second imaginary boundary and the start position of the lane departure suppression control are shifted. The second imaginary boundary and the start position of the lane departure suppression control are different from the route of the vehicle for avoiding the obstacle. As a result, the object to which the "offset" is applied is clearly different between the present application and Naka. Accordingly, Naka does not teach or suggest the claimed offsetting of the second imaginary boundary and the start position of the lane departure suppression control. Therefore, new claims 8-12 are patentable over the applied references.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As previously indicated “Regarding Claim 3, Tsurata discloses all the elements of Claim 1 and further discloses wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: if determining that the vehicle strays over the start position in case of securing the clearance distance and avoiding an object, set an offset amount based on the sum of the clearance distance and the vehicle width, move the second imaginary boundary to a position offset by a distance of the offset amount from the second boundary to outside the lane, move the start position based on the second imaginary boundary after movement (Fig. 3; ¶0056; “ in the example of FIG. 3, the travel path can pass over an actual lane boundary line 16, thereby enabling the host vehicle to pass an object (stationary vehicle) 19 is blocking its traffic lane. The position and length of the virtual lane boundary line may be determined based on the type of the object (e.g., automobile, bicycle, motor cycle, pedestrian, etc.) that is within the traffic lane and is to be avoided, and in accordance with the steering angle and speed of the host vehicle, as detected by the vehicle condition quantity detection section 20.” And “the specific width value being the sum of the width of the host vehicle and a predetermined margin”; Claim 9; in other words the distance between the obstacle and the adjusted secondary imaginary boundary line 16’ must be at least the sum of the width of the vehicle plus a predetermined margin in order for the vehicle to generate a path and travel the path around the obstacle).
Tsurata does not explicitly disclose the offset value derived from a differential value of a second width, obtained by adding the clearance distance, a vehicle width of the vehicle, and a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary, minus the first width
Naka discloses the offset value (¶0078; D) derived from a differential value of a second width (¶0078; Dt) , obtained by adding the clearance distance (Fig. 8b; ¶0077; “α represents a clearance distance of the own vehicle 12 from the obstacle 401”), a vehicle width of the vehicle (¶0079;Wm) , and a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary (Wm/2), minus the first width (¶0078; Do) in order “to safely and efficiently avoid an obstacle on a travel road without interfering with the traveling of a vehicle in an adjacent lane provided in parallel with a travel lane of the own vehicle upon avoiding the obstacle on the travel road.” (¶0006).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Naka to include the offset value derived from a differential value of a second width, obtained by adding the clearance distance, a vehicle width of the vehicle, and a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary, minus the first width in order “to safely and efficiently avoid an obstacle on a travel road without interfering with the traveling of a vehicle in an adjacent lane provided in parallel with a travel lane of the own vehicle upon avoiding the obstacle on the travel road.” (¶0006).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tsurata et al. (U.S. 20140200801 A1). Tsurata discloses “When a travel path is to be generated for a vehicle, road surface lines (white lines, etc.) delimiting the traffic lane of the vehicle, and also external objects in the vehicle environment, are detected and registered as respective obstacles. Specific points are defined at appropriate locations on each obstacle, and the travel path is generated by connecting respective mid-point positions between opposed pairs of specific points, each pair defined on respective ones of an opposed (left-side, right-side) pair of the registered obstacles.” (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsurata discloses A vehicle control device (Fig. 1, 1; ¶0023) comprising a processor (40; ¶0031) performing lane departure suppression control (Fig. 7a-7b) for keeping a vehicle (18) from departing a lane (Fig. 5, e.g. lane defined by detected boundaries 14 and 16), in which vehicle control device, the processor makes a computer (Fig. 1, 40 “The data processing section 40 is implemented as a microcomputer, having a CPU, ROM, RAM, I/O interface, etc.”; ¶0031) mounted in the vehicle control device perform the following processing:
recognize a lane between a first boundary (Fig. 5, 14) and a second boundary (Fig. 5, 16) based on detection values detecting an environment of surroundings of the vehicle (Fig. 7a, S110; ¶0037-0038) ,
perform lane departure suppression control so as to run in the lane (Fig. 5, travel path), set a first imaginary boundary (Fig. 5, 19’) at a position of a side surface of an object (Fig. 5, 19; ¶0040 “e.g., stationary automobile, bicycle, etc..”) inside of the lane if recognizing an object present inside of the lane at the first boundary,
set a second imaginary boundary (Fig. 5, 16’ “ registers a region extending rightward from the right-side lane boundary line 16 as an obstacle 16'”; ¶0035) at which a start position of the lane departure suppression control (fig. 5, travel path deviates around obstacle 19’) is set at a position a predetermined distance away in an inside direction of the lane in accordance with a first width of a distance between the first imaginary boundary and the second boundary (Fig. 5, travel path lane control based on virtual obstacle 30 which is larger (e.g. wider) than the actual object 19’ and “Next in step 5130, a decision is made as to whether a travel path can be generated which avoids the obstacles that are currently registered, while maintaining the host vehicle within its traffic lane. For example referring to FIG. 5, this will be the case if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle. If it is judged that all of the obstacles that are currently detected can be avoided (YES in step S130), step S260 is then executed” (¶0041). Items 19’ and 16’ are virtual (imaginary) boundaries. As such, secondary imaginary boundary 16’ is determined based on at lesat (e.g. in accordance with) a first width of a distance (e.g. host vehicle width see ¶0041) between the first imaginary boundary (19’) and the second boundary (16).),
and perform lane departure suppression control in case of securing a clearance distance away from an object (¶0041; “if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle “) and run avoiding the object inside an imaginary lane set between the first imaginary boundary and the second imaginary boundary (¶0041; “Next in step 5130, a decision is made as to whether a travel path can be generated which avoids the obstacles that are currently registered, while maintaining the host vehicle within its traffic lane. For example referring to FIG. 5, this will be the case if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Tsurata discloses A non-transitory storage medium in which is stored a program (¶0031; “ The respective functions of the obstacle registration section 41, specific point setting section 42, travel path generating section 43, impassable location specifying section 44 and obstacle registration contents alteration section 45 are performed by the data processing section 40 in executing a control program which is held in the RAM or ROM.” installed in a vehicle control device (Fig. 1, 1; ¶0023) performing lane departure suppression control (Fig. 7a-7b) keeping a vehicle (18) from departing a lane (Fig. 5, e.g. lane defined by detected boundaries 14 and 16) being run in the non-transitory storage medium makes a computer (Fig. 1, 40 “The data processing section 40 is implemented as a microcomputer, having a CPU, ROM, RAM, I/O interface, etc.”; ¶0031) mounted in the vehicle control device perform the following processing:
recognize a lane between a first boundary (Fig. 5, 14) and a second boundary (Fig. 5, 16) based on detection values detecting an environment of surroundings of the vehicle (Fig. 7a, S110; ¶0037-0038) ,
perform lane departure suppression control so as to run in the lane (Fig. 5, travel path), set a first imaginary boundary (Fig. 5, 19’) at a position of a side surface of an object (Fig. 5, 19; ¶0040 “e.g., stationary automobile, bicycle, etc..”) inside of the lane if recognizing an object present inside of the lane at the first boundary,
set a second imaginary boundary (Fig. 5, 16’ “ registers a region extending rightward from the right-side lane boundary line 16 as an obstacle 16'”; ¶0035) at which a start position of the lane departure suppression control (fig. 5, travel path deviates around obstacle 19’) is set at a position a predetermined distance away in an inside direction of the lane in accordance with a first width of a distance between the first imaginary boundary and the second boundary (Fig. 5, travel path lane control based on virtual obstacle 30 which is larger (e.g. wider) than the actual object 19’; first width is difference between virtual obstacle 30 and actual obstacle 19’ and “Next in step 5130, a decision is made as to whether a travel path can be generated which avoids the obstacles that are currently registered, while maintaining the host vehicle within its traffic lane. For example referring to FIG. 5, this will be the case if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle. If it is judged that all of the obstacles that are currently detected can be avoided (YES in step S130), step S260 is then executed” (¶0041). Items 19’ and 16’ are virtual (imaginary) boundaries. As such, secondary imaginary boundary 16’ is determined based on at lesat (e.g. in accordance with) a first width of a distance (e.g. host vehicle width see ¶0041) between the first imaginary boundary (19’) and the second boundary (16).),
and perform lane departure suppression control in case of securing a clearance distance away from an object (¶0041; “if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle “) and run avoiding the object inside an imaginary lane set between the first imaginary boundary and the second imaginary boundary (¶0041; “Next in step 5130, a decision is made as to whether a travel path can be generated which avoids the obstacles that are currently registered, while maintaining the host vehicle within its traffic lane. For example referring to FIG. 5, this will be the case if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurata et al. (U.S. 20140200801 A1) in view of Usui (U.S. 2013/0354900A1). Usai discloses “An object of the present invention is to provide a technology of performing assist of warning or auxiliary in an optimal way without bothering the driver. The present invention provides a travel assist apparatus that performs assist of warning or auxiliary for preventing departure of a vehicle in a lateral direction of the vehicle, wherein the value of the estimated time to lane crossing at which assist is to be performed is varied in accordance with the velocity of the vehicle in the lateral direction. This enables to select a value of the estimated time to lane crossing at which assist is to be performed suitable for the velocity of the vehicle in the lateral direction, enabling optimization of the timing of performing assist. Therefore, assist of warning or auxiliary in an optimal way without bothering the driver.” (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsurata discloses al the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: set a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary in accordance with a horizontal movement speed in a lane transverse direction perpendicularly intersecting a lane direction of the lane
Usai teaches wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: set a distance (Fig. 3 B1) between the start position and the second imaginary boundary (Fig. 3, right side traveling lane boundary) in accordance with a horizontal movement speed in a lane transverse direction (¶0066; “V is the lateral velocity of the vehicle”) perpendicularly intersecting a lane direction of the lane “in order for warning not to be provided until a situation occurs in which the distance to the traveling lane boundary becomes smaller than the threshold B1, the situation is considered not to occur in normal traveling” and in order to prevent “the timing to perform assist will be so early that assist of warning bothers the driver” (¶0066)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Usai to include wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: set a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary in accordance with a horizontal movement speed in a lane transverse direction perpendicularly intersecting a lane direction of the lane “in order for warning not to be provided until a situation occurs in which the distance to the traveling lane boundary becomes smaller than the threshold B1, the situation is considered not to occur in normal traveling” and in order to prevent “the timing to perform assist will be so early that assist of warning bothers the driver” (¶0066)
Regarding Clam 5, Tsurata does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: output a predetermined warning from a warning part if the vehicle strays over the start position at the imaginary lane
Usai teaches: wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: output a predetermined warning from a warning part if the vehicle strays over the start position at the imaginary lane (0058-0061) in order to “provide to the driver warning about departure of the vehicle from the traveling lane that is set on the basis of a lane and non-travelable areas such as obstacles and assist the driver in his/her operation for avoiding the departure from the traveling lane.”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Usai to include wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: output a predetermined warning from a warning part if the vehicle strays over the start position at the imaginary lane (0058-0061) in order to “provide to the driver warning about departure of the vehicle from the traveling lane that is set on the basis of a lane and non-travelable areas such as obstacles and assist the driver in his/her operation for avoiding the departure from the traveling lane.”.
Regarding Claim 6, Tsurata does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: control a steering part to keep the vehicle from departing from the imaginary lane if the vehicle strays over the start position in the imaginary lane
Usai teaches: wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: control a steering part(¶0055; “The control amount calculation unit 108 calculates, when a request for actuating the electric power steering (EPS) 14 and/or the electronically controlled brake (ECB) is made by the control determination unit 107, a control amount for the electric power steering (EPS) 14 and/or the electronically controlled brake (ECB) 15 and causes the electric power steering (EPS) 14 and/or the electronically controlled brake (ECB) 15 to operate in accordance with the calculated control amount.”) to keep the vehicle from departing from the imaginary lane if the vehicle strays over the start position in the imaginary lane (Fig. 4, in response to crossing line boundary B1, based on estimated time to lane crossing TLC (¶0074+); the controller is configured to control the EPS 14 to prevent lane departure; see ¶0076) in order to provide “a travel assist apparatus that performs assist of warning or auxiliary for preventing departure of a vehicle in a lateral direction of the vehicle” (Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Usai to include wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: control a steering part to keep the vehicle from departing from the imaginary lane if the vehicle strays over the start position in the imaginary lane in order to provide “a travel assist apparatus that performs assist of warning or auxiliary for preventing departure of a vehicle in a lateral direction of the vehicle” (Abstract)
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurata et al. (U.S. 20140200801 A1) in view of Agnew et al. (U.S. 2015/0210279A1). Agnew discloses “Referring to FIG. 2 with continued reference to FIG. 1, graph 40 illustrates a relationship between vehicle speed 48 and distance from an identified object 34. A safe zone 46 is separated from an unsafe zone depending on velocity 42. A boundary 58 provides a graphical illustration of the relationship between an acceptable separation distance 44 for a current velocity 42. As velocity of the vehicle increases, the safe distance from the identified object also increases. As the velocity 42 decreases, the acceptable safe distance from the object 34 decreases. Accordingly, upon approaching an object, the vehicle 10 may either reduce velocity or increase lateral distance from the object.” (¶0016) and “Referring to FIG. 3 with continued reference to FIG. 1, upon detecting a pedestrian 34 alongside or in the current lane, the vehicle 10 first adjusts its lateral position 50 to provide maximum separation distance indicated at 50 in graph 52 from the pedestrian without incurring additional danger from oncoming traffic or vehicles in adjacent lanes. As appreciated, lateral movement of the vehicle within a given lane is limited and therefore at some vehicle speeds 42 lateral movement as indicated at 50 is not sufficient to create an acceptable lateral separation distance from the pedestrian given the vehicles current speed” (¶0018)
Regarding Claim 4, Tsurata does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: set the clearance distance in accordance with the speed of the vehicle
Agnew teaches: set the clearance distance in accordance with the speed of the vehicle (Fig. 1-2, ¶0016, pedestrian is an exemplary ‘object’ in the roadway) in order to provide a collision avoidance system for a vehicle configured “to provide maximum separation distance indicated at 50 in graph 52 from the pedestrian without incurring additional danger from oncoming traffic or vehicles in adjacent lanes.” (¶0018).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Agnew to include set the clearance distance in accordance with the speed of the vehicle in order to provide a collision avoidance system for a vehicle configured “to provide maximum separation distance indicated at 50 in graph 52 from the pedestrian without incurring additional danger from oncoming traffic or vehicles in adjacent lanes.” (¶0018).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurata et al. (U.S. 20140200801 A1) in view of Naka et al. (U.S. 2017/0236422A1). Naka discloses “On a basis of a relative position of an obstacle 401, a size of the obstacle in an own vehicle 12 width direction and a width of the own vehicle 12, a maximum amount D.sub.t of movement of the own vehicle 12 in the vehicle width direction as required to avoid the obstacle 401 is calculated. A point displaced over the maximum amount of movement toward a side of the adjacent lane from the relative position of the obstacle 401 is determined as an avoiding point 250. If a distance d between the avoiding point 250 and the adjacent lane is greater than the width Wm of the own vehicle 12, an avoiding path is generated for allowing the own vehicle 12 to pass the avoiding point 250.” (Abstract; Fig. 8a/8b).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsurata discloses A vehicle control device (Fig. 1, 1; ¶0023) comprising a processor (40; ¶0031) performing lane departure suppression control (Fig. 7a-7b) for keeping a vehicle (18) from departing a lane (Fig. 5, e.g. lane defined by detected boundaries 14 and 16), in which vehicle control device, the processor makes a computer (Fig. 1, 40 “The data processing section 40 is implemented as a microcomputer, having a CPU, ROM, RAM, I/O interface, etc.”; ¶0031) mounted in the vehicle control device perform the following processing:
recognize a lane between a first boundary (Fig. 5, 14) and a second boundary (Fig. 5, 16) based on detection values detecting an environment of surroundings of the vehicle (Fig. 7a, S110; ¶0037-0038) ,
perform lane departure suppression control so as to run in the lane (Fig. 5, travel path), set a first imaginary boundary (Fig. 5, 19’) at a position of a side surface of an object (Fig. 5, 19; ¶0040 “e.g., stationary automobile, bicycle, etc..”) inside of the lane if recognizing an object present inside of the lane at the first boundary,
set a second imaginary boundary (Fig. 5, 16’ “ registers a region extending rightward from the right-side lane boundary line 16 as an obstacle 16'”; ¶0035) at which a start position of the lane departure suppression control (fig. 5, travel path deviates around obstacle 19’) is set at a position a predetermined distance away in an inside direction of the lane in accordance with a first width of a distance between the first imaginary boundary and the second boundary (Fig. 5, travel path lane control based on virtual obstacle 30 which is larger (e.g. wider) than the actual object 19’ and “Next in step 5130, a decision is made as to whether a travel path can be generated which avoids the obstacles that are currently registered, while maintaining the host vehicle within its traffic lane. For example referring to FIG. 5, this will be the case if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle. If it is judged that all of the obstacles that are currently detected can be avoided (YES in step S130), step S260 is then executed” (¶0041). Items 19’ and 16’ are virtual (imaginary) boundaries. As such, secondary imaginary boundary 16’ is determined based on at lesat (e.g. in accordance with) a first width of a distance (e.g. host vehicle width see ¶0041) between the first imaginary boundary (19’) and the second boundary (16).),
and perform lane departure suppression control in case of securing a clearance distance away from an object (¶0041; “if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle “) and run avoiding the object inside an imaginary lane set between the first imaginary boundary and the second imaginary boundary (¶0041; “Next in step 5130, a decision is made as to whether a travel path can be generated which avoids the obstacles that are currently registered, while maintaining the host vehicle within its traffic lane. For example referring to FIG. 5, this will be the case if the separation between the virtual obstacle 30 and the opposing obstacle (right-side lane boundary line) exceeds the width of the host vehicle.”), if determining that the vehicle strays over the start position in case of securing the clearance distance and avoiding an object, set an offset amount based on the sum of the clearance distance and the vehicle width, move the second imaginary boundary to a position offset by a distance of the offset amount from the second boundary to outside the lane, move the start position based on the second imaginary boundary after movement (Fig. 3; ¶0056; “ in the example of FIG. 3, the travel path can pass over an actual lane boundary line 16, thereby enabling the host vehicle to pass an object (stationary vehicle) 19 is blocking its traffic lane. The position and length of the virtual lane boundary line may be determined based on the type of the object (e.g., automobile, bicycle, motor cycle, pedestrian, etc.) that is within the traffic lane and is to be avoided, and in accordance with the steering angle and speed of the host vehicle, as detected by the vehicle condition quantity detection section 20.” And “the specific width value being the sum of the width of the host vehicle and a predetermined margin”; Claim 9; in other words the distance between the obstacle and the adjusted secondary imaginary boundary line 16’ must be at least the sum of the width of the vehicle plus a predetermined margin in order for the vehicle to generate a path and travel the path around the obstacle).
Tsurata does not explicitly disclose the offset value derived from a differential value of a second width, obtained by adding the clearance distance, a vehicle width of the vehicle, and a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary, minus the first width
Naka discloses the offset value (¶0078; D) derived from a differential value of a second width (¶0078; Dt) , obtained by adding the clearance distance (Fig. 8b; ¶0077; “α represents a clearance distance of the own vehicle 12 from the obstacle 401”), a vehicle width of the vehicle (¶0079;Wm) , and a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary (Wm/2), minus the first width (¶0078; Do) in order “to safely and efficiently avoid an obstacle on a travel road without interfering with the traveling of a vehicle in an adjacent lane provided in parallel with a travel lane of the own vehicle upon avoiding the obstacle on the travel road.” (¶0006).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Naka to include the offset value derived from a differential value of a second width, obtained by adding the clearance distance, a vehicle width of the vehicle, and a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary, minus the first width in order “to safely and efficiently avoid an obstacle on a travel road without interfering with the traveling of a vehicle in an adjacent lane provided in parallel with a travel lane of the own vehicle upon avoiding the obstacle on the travel road.” (¶0006).
Claim(s) 9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurata et al. (U.S. 20140200801 A1) in view of Naka et al. (U.S. 2017/0236422A1). in view of Usui (U.S. 2013/0354900A1). Usai discloses “An object of the present invention is to provide a technology of performing assist of warning or auxiliary in an optimal way without bothering the driver. The present invention provides a travel assist apparatus that performs assist of warning or auxiliary for preventing departure of a vehicle in a lateral direction of the vehicle, wherein the value of the estimated time to lane crossing at which assist is to be performed is varied in accordance with the velocity of the vehicle in the lateral direction. This enables to select a value of the estimated time to lane crossing at which assist is to be performed suitable for the velocity of the vehicle in the lateral direction, enabling optimization of the timing of performing assist. Therefore, assist of warning or auxiliary in an optimal way without bothering the driver.” (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsurata discloses al the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: set a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary in accordance with a horizontal movement speed in a lane transverse direction perpendicularly intersecting a lane direction of the lane
Usai teaches wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: set a distance (Fig. 3 B1) between the start position and the second imaginary boundary (Fig. 3, right side traveling lane boundary) in accordance with a horizontal movement speed in a lane transverse direction (¶0066; “V is the lateral velocity of the vehicle”) perpendicularly intersecting a lane direction of the lane “in order for warning not to be provided until a situation occurs in which the distance to the traveling lane boundary becomes smaller than the threshold B1, the situation is considered not to occur in normal traveling” and in order to prevent “the timing to perform assist will be so early that assist of warning bothers the driver” (¶0066)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Usai to include wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: set a distance between the start position and the second imaginary boundary in accordance with a horizontal movement speed in a lane transverse direction perpendicularly intersecting a lane direction of the lane “in order for warning not to be provided until a situation occurs in which the distance to the traveling lane boundary becomes smaller than the threshold B1, the situation is considered not to occur in normal traveling” and in order to prevent “the timing to perform assist will be so early that assist of warning bothers the driver” (¶0066)
Regarding Clam 11, Tsurata does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: output a predetermined warning from a warning part if the vehicle strays over the start position at the imaginary lane
Usai teaches: wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: output a predetermined warning from a warning part if the vehicle strays over the start position at the imaginary lane (0058-0061) in order to “provide to the driver warning about departure of the vehicle from the traveling lane that is set on the basis of a lane and non-travelable areas such as obstacles and assist the driver in his/her operation for avoiding the departure from the traveling lane.”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Usai to include wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: output a predetermined warning from a warning part if the vehicle strays over the start position at the imaginary lane (0058-0061) in order to “provide to the driver warning about departure of the vehicle from the traveling lane that is set on the basis of a lane and non-travelable areas such as obstacles and assist the driver in his/her operation for avoiding the departure from the traveling lane.”.
Regarding Claim 12, Tsurata does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: control a steering part to keep the vehicle from departing from the imaginary lane if the vehicle strays over the start position in the imaginary lane
Usai teaches: wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: control a steering part(¶0055; “The control amount calculation unit 108 calculates, when a request for actuating the electric power steering (EPS) 14 and/or the electronically controlled brake (ECB) is made by the control determination unit 107, a control amount for the electric power steering (EPS) 14 and/or the electronically controlled brake (ECB) 15 and causes the electric power steering (EPS) 14 and/or the electronically controlled brake (ECB) 15 to operate in accordance with the calculated control amount.”) to keep the vehicle from departing from the imaginary lane if the vehicle strays over the start position in the imaginary lane (Fig. 4, in response to crossing line boundary B1, based on estimated time to lane crossing TLC (¶0074+); the controller is configured to control the EPS 14 to prevent lane departure; see ¶0076) in order to provide “a travel assist apparatus that performs assist of warning or auxiliary for preventing departure of a vehicle in a lateral direction of the vehicle” (Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Usai to include wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: control a steering part to keep the vehicle from departing from the imaginary lane if the vehicle strays over the start position in the imaginary lane in order to provide “a travel assist apparatus that performs assist of warning or auxiliary for preventing departure of a vehicle in a lateral direction of the vehicle” (Abstract)
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurata et al. (U.S. 20140200801 A1) in view of Naka et al. (U.S. 2017/0236422A1) in view of in view of Agnew et al. (U.S. 2015/0210279A1). Agnew discloses “Referring to FIG. 2 with continued reference to FIG. 1, graph 40 illustrates a relationship between vehicle speed 48 and distance from an identified object 34. A safe zone 46 is separated from an unsafe zone depending on velocity 42. A boundary 58 provides a graphical illustration of the relationship between an acceptable separation distance 44 for a current velocity 42. As velocity of the vehicle increases, the safe distance from the identified object also increases. As the velocity 42 decreases, the acceptable safe distance from the object 34 decreases. Accordingly, upon approaching an object, the vehicle 10 may either reduce velocity or increase lateral distance from the object.” (¶0016) and “Referring to FIG. 3 with continued reference to FIG. 1, upon detecting a pedestrian 34 alongside or in the current lane, the vehicle 10 first adjusts its lateral position 50 to provide maximum separation distance indicated at 50 in graph 52 from the pedestrian without incurring additional danger from oncoming traffic or vehicles in adjacent lanes. As appreciated, lateral movement of the vehicle within a given lane is limited and therefore at some vehicle speeds 42 lateral movement as indicated at 50 is not sufficient to create an acceptable lateral separation distance from the pedestrian given the vehicles current speed” (¶0018)
Regarding Claim 10, Tsurata does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor makes the computer perform the following processing: set the clearance distance in accordance with the speed of the vehicle
Agnew teaches: set the clearance distance in accordance with the speed of the vehicle (Fig. 1-2, ¶0016, pedestrian is an exemplary ‘object’ in the roadway) in order to provide a collision avoidance system for a vehicle configured “to provide maximum separation distance indicated at 50 in graph 52 from the pedestrian without incurring additional danger from oncoming traffic or vehicles in adjacent lanes.” (¶0018).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle control device of Tsurata to incorporate the teachings of Agnew to include set the clearance distance in accordance with the speed of the vehicle in order to provide a collision avoidance system for a vehicle configured “to provide maximum separation distance indicated at 50 in graph 52 from the pedestrian without incurring additional danger from oncoming traffic or vehicles in adjacent lanes.” (¶0018).
Conclusion
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
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.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nilsson et al. (U.S. 2022/0227372A1) discloses “The present disclosure relates to a computer implemented method for operating an autonomous vehicle based on sensor data representative of an area in a driving direction of and in the vicinity of the vehicle. The vehicle is equipped with a control unit adapted to determine if a plurality of detailed actions to be performed by the vehicle successfully may be used for fulfilling a desired general action plan for the vehicle. The present disclosure also relates to a corresponding control system and to a computer program product.” (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights