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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 19/097,146 filed on 04/01/2025, in which claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-56282, filed on 04/26/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been submitted as of the date of this Office Action.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract does not describe the disclosure sufficiently
The Abstract recites “The disclosure relates ...”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings, i.e., Fig(s) 3 is/are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(I) and (p)(1) because line quality that is too light to be reproduced, i.e., not durable and not readable.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the first condition is”. It should be “the one or more first conditions are”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1. A steering control angle compensation method for lane keeping performed by a processor [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the steering control angle compensation method comprising:
determining a first offset which is an initial offset to be applied to a steering control angle in a first drive [mental process/step];
determining whether at least one condition of one or more first conditions related to characteristics of a lane on which driving is performed in the first drive, one or more second conditions related to characteristics of a vehicle associated with the lane in the first drive, and one or more third conditions related to driving characteristics of the vehicle in the first drive is satisfied [mental process/step];
determining a second offset which is a candidate offset for the first drive, based on a duration for which the at least one condition is satisfied and the first offset [mental process/step]; and
determining a third offset which is an offset to be applied to a steering angle control of the vehicle, based on one or more reference offsets that are determined in one or more second drives before the first drive, and the second offset [mental process/step].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method(s) for lane keeping that is/are including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determining a first offset which is an initial offset to be applied to a steering control angle in a first drive; determining whether at least one condition of one or more first conditions related to characteristics of a lane on which driving is performed in the first drive, one or more second conditions related to characteristics of a vehicle associated with the lane in the first drive, and one or more third conditions related to driving characteristics of the vehicle in the first drive is satisfied; determining a second offset which is a candidate offset for the first drive, based on a duration for which the at least one condition is satisfied and the first offset; and determining a third offset which is an offset to be applied to a steering angle control of the vehicle, based on one or more reference offsets that are determined in one or more second drives before the first drive, and the second offset.
This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is/are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by a processor”. That is, other than reciting the “processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement or determinations. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) and/or step(s) of by a processor. The “processor” (and the “memory” of claim 2) merely describes how to generally and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer. The processor/ memory system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the calculate and determine steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the processor/ memory elements were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Specification, at least in PG Pub ¶¶109 & 110 recites that the said processor is a general-purpose computer and/or computer program, and the Specification does not provide any indication that the processor/memory is/are anything other than a conventional computer.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the processor and/or memory elements is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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 and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-9 is/are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim(s) 11 & 12 recite(s) similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 11 & 12 is/are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Thus, claim(s) 1-9, 11 & 12 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 & 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by PG Pub./ Patent No. US-2020/0010113-A1 by Watari et al. (hereinafter “Watari”)
As per claim 1, Watari discloses a steering control angle compensation method for lane keeping performed by a processor (Watari, in at least Fig(s). 2, 3 [reproduced here for convenience] & 9, and ¶¶60 & 74, discloses the steering ECU 40 that is connected to a motor driver 41 that is connected to a steering motor 42, wherein the steering motor 42 can change a steering angle of the own vehicle. Watari further discloses the travel support ECU 10, in the lane trace control, determines/ sets a target travel line/ path by using any one of or both of the white lines and a travel trajectory of the preceding vehicle, wherein the travel support ECU 10 applies a steering torque to the steering mechanism to change the steering angle of the own vehicle so that the lateral position of the own vehicle is maintained in a vicinity of the target travel line/ path), the steering control angle compensation method comprising:
determining a first offset which is an initial offset to be applied to a steering control angle in a first drive (Watari, in at least Fig(s). 2, 3 & 9, and ¶¶60, 72-74 &154, discloses the CPU calculates the basic steering control amount Tr*);
PNG
media_image1.png
578
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Watari’s Fig. 3
determining whether at least one condition of one or more first conditions related to characteristics of a lane on which driving is performed in the first drive, one or more second conditions related to characteristics of a vehicle associated with the lane in the first drive, and one or more third conditions related to driving characteristics of the vehicle in the first drive is satisfied (Watari, in at least Fig(s). 2, 3, 9 & 10, and ¶¶54, 60, 72-76, 155-166, 185 & 192, discloses the CPU proceeds to Step 935, and determines whether or not the value of the correction execution flag F2, wherein when the value of the correction execution flag F2 is “0”, the CPU proceeds to Step 940 to execute the steering control/ lane trace control (LTC), using the steering ECU 40, based on the basic steering control amount Tr* as described above. In contrast, when the value of the correction execution flag F2 is not “0”, i.e., when the value is “1”, the CPU sequentially executes the processing of Step 950 and Step 955. Watari further discloses, when the correction execution flag F2 is currently “0”, the CPU proceeds to determine whether or not the specific state has occurred, and to determine whether or not a predetermined abnormality condition is satisfied, i.e., the CPU determines that the own vehicle is in the abnormal state. Watari further discloses calculating shapes of the road, e.g., a curvature of the road, and parameters indicating a positional relationship between the road and the own vehicle, wherein ECU 10 calculates a curve radius Rand a curvature CL (=1/R) of the center line LM of the travel lane, and also calculates a position and a direction of the own vehicle 100 in the travel lane defined/ partitioned by the left white line LL and the right white line RL. Watari also discloses the specific state is a state in which a difference between the steering control amount Tr' in a driver model and the current steering control amount Tr*is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, wherein the driver mode is a standard steering control amount predetermined for a combination of a road shape, e.g., a curvature of a target travel lane and the vehicle speed SPD);
determining a second offset which is a candidate offset for the first drive, based on a duration for which the at least one condition is satisfied and the first offset (Watari, in at least Fig(s). 2, 3, 9 & 10, and ¶¶60, 72-74 & 155-166, discloses specific state has continued for first period threshold value Tm1 or longer, i.e., abnormality condition is satisfied, wherein the CPU calculates the compensation steering control amount Trc); and
determining a third offset which is an offset to be applied to a steering angle control of the vehicle, based on one or more reference offsets that are determined in one or more second drives before the first drive, and the second offset (Watari, in at least Fig(s). 2, 3, 9 & 10, and ¶¶60, 72-74 & 155-166, discloses the CPU adds the compensation steering control amount Trc to the basic steering control amount Tr* to thereby obtain the value (=Tr*+Trc) as the final steering control amount, then the CPU executes the steering control).
As per claim 2, Watari discloses the steering control angle compensation method for lane keeping of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Watari further discloses wherein determining the first offset further includes determining the first offset based on the one or more reference offsets stored in a memory (Watari, in at least Fig(s). 1, and ¶¶78, 78, 100, 123, 177, 184, 190 & 192 , discloses the travel support ECU 10 obtains Tr* by applying the target yaw rate YRc*, the actual yaw rate YRt, and the vehicle speed SPD to a lookup table Map (Yrc*, YRt, SPD). i.e., Tr*=Map (Yrc*, YRt, SPD)) the lookup table, wherein MapTrc is also stored in the ROM 10x).
As per claim 8, Watari discloses the steering control angle compensation method for lane keeping of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Watari further discloses wherein determining the second offset further includes:
when a length of a time period for which the at least one condition is continuously satisfied in a state in which the first offset is applied to the steering control angle exceeds a predetermined threshold length, determining the second offset to be the same value as the first offset (Watari, in at least Fig(s). 2, 3, 9 & 10, and ¶¶13, 60, 72-74, 155-166 & 184-185, discloses the compensation control module is configured to change the second value of the compensation control amount so that the second value has a value for generating, in the vehicle, a tum motion in the same direction as a direction of a tum motion generated in the vehicle by the first value of the compensation control amount determined by the correction control module on an assumption that the correction control is continued after the time point at which the predetermined finish condition is satisfied. Watari further discloses specific state has continued for first period threshold value Tm1 or longer, i.e., abnormality condition is satisfied, wherein the CPU calculates the compensation steering control amount Trc, then when the magnitude of the compensation steering torque Trc is equal to or smaller than the magnitude of the upper limit value Tup, the travel support ECU 10 obtains the compensation steering torque Trc as the post-LTC compensation steering torque Trc' [i.e., the second offset to be the same value as the first offset]. Watari also discloses the specific state is not limited to the abovementioned example. For example, the specific state may be a state in which a difference between the steering control amount Tr' in a driver model and the current steering control amount Tr* is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, wherein the driver mode is a standard steering control amount predetermined for a combination of a road shape, e.g., a curvature of a target travel lane and the vehicle speed SPD).
As per claim 9, Watari discloses the steering control angle compensation method for lane keeping of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Watari further discloses wherein determining the third offset further includes:
determining a representative value of the one or more reference offsets and the second offset in a predetermined method; and
determining the representative value as the third offset (Watari, in at least Fig(s). 2, 3, 9 & 10, and ¶¶60, 72-74 & 155-166, discloses the CPU adds the compensation steering control amount Trc to the basic steering control amount Tr* to thereby obtain the value (=Tr*+Trc) as the final steering control amount, then the CPU executes the steering control).
As per claim 10, Watari discloses the steering control angle compensation method for lane keeping of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Watari further discloses comprising:
after the step of determining the third offset, applying the third offset to the steering angle control of the vehicle (Watari, in at least Fig(s). 2, 3, 9 & 10, and ¶¶60, 72-74 & 155-166, discloses the CPU adds the compensation steering control amount Trc to the basic steering control amount Tr* to thereby obtain the value (=Tr*+Trc) as the final steering control amount, then the CPU executes the steering control, i.e., lane trace control, based on the basic steering control amount, i.e., target steering torque Tr*. Watari further discloses the CPU executes the steering control, i.e., the lane trace control and the correction control, based on the final steering control amount).
As per claim 11, the claim is directed towards a lane keeping control device that recites similar limitations performed by the method for lane keeping of claim 1. The cited portions of Watari used in the rejection of claim 1 disclose the same steps perform the device of claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 12, the claim is directed towards a vehicle comprising a lane keeping control device that recites similar limitations performed by the method for lane keeping of claim 1. The cited portions of Watari used in the rejection of claim 1 disclose the same steps perform the vehicle’s device of claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
However, this/these claim(s) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC §101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Hajika (US-2020/0079372-A1) discloses a lane keeping controller for a vehicle that helps the vehicle stay in its lane by calculating a target steering angle from lane shape and vehicle orientation, wherein the system keeps enough lane-related control to avoid drifting out of the lane. The controller uses lane curvature, yaw angle to lane, vehicle lateral position, and vehicle speed. It can also gradually change its correction values instead of changing them abruptly.
PNG
media_image2.png
396
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hajika’s Fig. 4
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights