DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Inventorship
2. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 12-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “selecting the state of the function…” (line 9), renders the claim indefinite; since it is not clear that which state will be able to be selected [activated state or deactivated state will be selected in this circumstance]. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Lines 4-5 states “an activated or deactivated state of a function…”.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 12, 13, 16, 17 and 22, as far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 2018/0229768 A1).
Regarding claim 12, notes Figure 1, Ma invention discloses a method for steering a motor vehicle [host vehicle (12)] travelling on a road [roadway (36)] that comprises at least one traffic lane [travel lane (40)], the method comprising: detecting edges (38) of the traffic lane (40) used by the motor vehicle (12) [para. 0017 teaches the system (10) includes a camera (32) used to capture an image (34) of a roadway (36) traveled by the host-vehicle (12); and para. 0018 teaches the image (34) may include, but is not limited to, a lane-marking (38) on a left-side and a right-side of a travel-lane (40) of the roadway (36) traveled by the host-vehicle (12)]; selecting, by way of a computer of the motor vehicle [para. 0016 teaches the controller (28) may include a processor such as a microprocessor or other control circuitry], an activated or deactivated state of a function for automatically keeping the motor vehicle (12) in said traffic lane (40) [para. 0023 teaches the controller (28) determining that the host-vehicle (12) is approaching the lane-marking (38) when the clearance (56) is less than the adaptive threshold (58). The controller (28) may then activate the steering-actuator (42) to steer the host-vehicle (12) toward centerline (50) of the travel-lane (40). The host-vehicle (12) is shown approaching the left-side of the travel-lane (40) for illustration purposes only. The controller (28) may also activate the steering-actuator (42) to steer the host-vehicle (12) toward the centerline (50) of the travel-lane (40) when the host-vehicle (12) is approaching the lane-marking (38) on the right-side of the travel-lane (40)], and when the activated state is selected, controlling at least one steering actuator (42) of the motor vehicle (12) in order to keep said motor vehicle (12) in the traffic lane (40) [para. 0023], wherein the detecting includes evaluating a width of said traffic lane (40) [para. 0020 teaches the controller (28) determines the lane-width (48) and centerline (50) of the travel-lane (40) based on the lane-marking (38)], and wherein the selecting includes selecting the state of the function for automatically keeping the motor vehicle in the traffic lane according to the evaluated width [para. 0021-0028].
Regarding claim 16, as discussed in claim 12, Ma invention further teaches wherein when the evaluation width is below a minimum threshold, the activated state is suitable for selection [see abstract, Figures 2 and 4].
Regarding claim 17, as discussed in claim 12, Ma invention further teaches wherein when the evaluation width is above a maximum threshold, the deactivated state is selected [abstract, Figures 2 and 4].
Regarding claim 22, see rejection in claim 12; Ma invention further teaches the controller (28) may include a memory (30), including non-volatile memory, such as electrically erasable programmable read-only-memory (EEPROM) for storing one or more routines, threshold
and captured data. The one or more routines may be executed by the processor to perform steps for operating the host-vehicle (12) based on signals received by the controller (28) as described herein [para. 0016].
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 13-15, as far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Ma et al. in view of Tanimoto et al (US 8,825,297 B2).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed in claim 12, Ma invention does not specifically teaches measuring a surface quality of the road.
However, Ma invention teaches the camera (32) used to capture an image (34) of a roadway (36); and the camera (32) suitable for use on the host vehicle (12) are commercially available as will be recognized by those in the art, one such being the APTINA MT9V023 from Micron Technology, Inc. of Moise, Id., USA [para. 0017].
The use of camera (32) to provide the measured quality road surface of roadway (36) to controller (28) is so well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have provided the controller with high quality image of the roadway surface in order to be used as a condition or information for automatically control the autonomous vehicle, such as controlling the steering actuator to improve the safety of the automatic lane keep function of the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed in claim 12, Ma invention does not specifically teaches acquiring a maximum permitted speed on said road.
Tanimoto invention teaches the vehicle (12) includes an electronic control unit (40) receives a signal indicative of a vehicle speed (V) detected by a vehicle speed sensor (44) [Figure 1]; and Tanimoto invention further teaches the trajectory control section of the electronic control unit (40) steers the left and right front wheels (10FL, 10FR) and controls the vehicle speed (V) irrespective of the steering operation by the driver so that the travel trajectory of the vehicle conforms to the target travel trajectory and the vehicle speed (V) conforms to the target vehicle speed (maximum permitted speed). It is to be understood that a kind of travel trajectory control may be executed instead of multiple kinds of travel trajectory controls [col. 7, lines 3-20].
Since the prior art references are both from the same field of endeavor. The purpose disclosed by Tanimoto invention would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Ma invention.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary in the art to have provided the teaching of acquiring a maximum permitted speed as taught by Tanimoto invention into the autonomous vehicle control system and method of Ma invention for the purpose of controlling the steering actuator of an autonomous vehicle in order to improve the safety of the automatic lane keep function of the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed and motivated in claim 14, Tanimoto invention also teaches acquiring a speed-of travel regulation setpoint (also known as target vehicle speed).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 7, and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts fails to teach wherein when the evaluated width is below a minimum threshold, the activated state is suitable for selection, wherein when the evaluated width is above a maximum threshold, the deactivated state is selected, and wherein when the evaluated width is between the minimum threshold and the maximum threshold, the state of the function for automatically keeping the motor vehicle in the traffic lane is selected differently depending on whether: the evaluated width is between two intermediate thresholds that are between the minimum threshold and the maximum threshold, the evaluated width is below the lowest of the two intermediate thresholds, or the evaluated width is above the highest of the two intermediate thresholds.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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, Logan Kraft can be reached on (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/J.H.H./
May 16, 2026
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights