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 Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 08/06/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding Claim interpretations Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): Applicant amended the claims. Therefore, the claims are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandin (US PGPub 2020/0241523).
Regarding claim 1, Brandin discloses A steering control device configured to execute steering control including steering assistance or automatic steering of a vehicle, comprising an electronic control unit configured to [Brandin ¶ 0002 "An autonomous driving vehicle is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without input from the user/driver." and ¶ 0008 "processor circuitry"]:
generate a target path including a target lateral position in a traveling lane of the vehicle based on a captured image in front of the vehicle [Brandin ¶ 0051 "A default lateral position 20 of the autonomous driving vehicle 1 is represented by the line 20. The default lateral position 20 is the lateral position on the driving lane 6 that the processor circuitry 2 will drive the autonomous driving vehicle 1 along until it receives input from the user of the autonomous driving vehicle 1." and ¶ 0019 "According to an aspect the data generated by the autonomous driving vehicle is generated by one or more of a sensor, a radar, a laser light, a positioning system such as a GPS, an odometer and a computer vision system" The default lateral position is the target lateral position and is based on an image created by a computer vision system or a radar.];
determine whether a driver of the vehicle is performing a manual steering operation while the steering control is being executed [Brandin ¶ 0087 " According to an aspect the user adjust the lateral position by steering the vehicle to the desired position. Put in another way, the user interface is the steering wheel of the autonomous driving vehicle 1 and the input indicative of the off-set 10 of the lateral position of the autonomous driving vehicle 1 is the movement of the steering wheel."];
upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is performing a manual steering operation while the steering control is being executed, calculate an amount of deviation from the target lateral position [Brandin ¶ 0086 "the lateral position corresponding to the input indicative of the off-set 10 of the default lateral position 20 of the autonomous driving vehicle 1"];
determine whether the vehicle is traveling on a straight road [Brandin ¶ 0025-0026 "processor circuitry is arranged to store a plurality of off-set information, which are associated to different driving scenarios determined at least based on data generated by the autonomous driving vehicle" and ¶ 0063 "the data generated by the autonomous driving vehicle 1 is one or more of … a road curvature … hidden curves" The off-set information (learning value) is stored in association with driving scenarios which includes the curvature of the road or lack of curvature. Therefore, the vehicle would have to determine if it is traveling on a straight road or a curved road to determine what off-set value to use based on the driving scenario.];
upon determination that the vehicle is traveling on a straight road, calculate a first learning value for correcting the target lateral position based on the amount of deviation from the target lateral position [Brandin ¶ 0025-0026 "processor circuitry is arranged to store a plurality of off-set information, which are associated to different driving scenarios determined at least based on data generated by the autonomous driving vehicle" and ¶ 0063 "the data generated by the autonomous driving vehicle 1 is one or more of … a road curvature … hidden curves" The off-set information (learning value) is stored in association with driving scenarios (straight or curved road) which includes the curvature of the road or lack of curvature. Therefore, the vehicle would have to determine if it is traveling on a straight road or a curved road to determine what off-set value to use based on the driving scenario.];
upon determination that the vehicle is not traveling on a straight road, calculate a second learning value for correcting the target lateral position based on the amount of deviation from the target lateral position [Brandin ¶ 0025-0026 There would be different offset values (learning values) for a straight versus a curved road because those would be considered different driving scenarios.]; and
execute the steering control based on the target path and one of the first learning value and the second learning value [Brandin ¶ 0058 "The lateral position of the autonomous driving vehicle 1 is further controlled based on the dynamic off-set value and the default lateral position 20 as the autonomous driving vehicle 1 continuous to travel on the road."];
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandin in view of Omikawa (US PGPub 2025/0121813).
Regarding claim 2, Brandin teaches the steering control device according to claim 1. While Brandin does teach different offset values associated with different driving scenarios based road curvature [Brandin ¶ 0025], Brandin does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic control unit calculates a right learning value that is the second learning value when the vehicle is traveling on a right curved road, and a left learning value that is the second learning value when the vehicle is traveling on a left curved road.
However, in a related field of invention, Omikawa does teach wherein the electronic control unit calculates a right learning value that is the second learning value when the vehicle is traveling on a right curved road, and a left learning value that is the second learning value when the vehicle is traveling on a left curved road [Omikawa ¶ 0062 "Note that in FIG. 9, a lateral acceleration when the own vehicle M is traveling on a left curved road may be indicated by a positive value, and a lateral acceleration when the own vehicle M is traveling on a right curved road may be indicated by a negative value."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the autonomous vehicle with different learning values as taught by Brandin with using having a right and a left learning value as taught by Omikawa in order to more accurately keep the vehicle in the proper lateral position.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandin in view of Adachi (JP 2004280521).
Regarding claim 3, Brandin teaches the steering control device according to claim 1. Brandin does not teach wherein the electronic control unit calculates the first learning value and the second learning value so that a learning speed of the second learning value is faster than a learning speed of the first learning value.
However, in a related field of invention, Adachi does teach wherein the electronic control unit calculates the first learning value and the second learning value so that a learning speed of the second learning value is faster than a learning speed of the first learning value [Adachi ¶ 007 "Furthermore, since the sampling point interval is set according to the road shape, when the probe car travels on a road with sharp curves, the sampling point interval becomes shorter, making it possible to accurately reproduce the travel trajectory at the center." and ¶ 0020 "To resolve these inconveniences, the FCD onboard unit switches the resampling section length in stages according to the curvature of the road shape, thereby setting the resampling section length shorter in sharp curve sections than in other sections, as shown in Figure 1." The sampling point interval (learning speed) is shorter (faster) when the car travels on a road with sharp curves.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the autonomous vehicle with different learning values as taught by Brandin with using different learning speeds as taught by Adachi in order to more accurately keep the vehicle in the proper lateral position on different types of roads.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandin in view of Omikawa and in further view of Adachi.
Regarding claim 4, Brandin and Omikawa teach the steering control device according to claim 2. Brandin and Omikawa do not teach wherein the electronic control unit calculates the first learning value and the second learning value so that a learning speed of the second learning value is faster than a learning speed of the first learning value.
However, in a related field of invention, Adachi does teach wherein the electronic control unit calculates the first learning value and the second learning value so that a learning speed of the second learning value is faster than a learning speed of the first learning value [Adachi ¶ 007 "Furthermore, since the sampling point interval is set according to the road shape, when the probe car travels on a road with sharp curves, the sampling point interval becomes shorter, making it possible to accurately reproduce the travel trajectory at the center." and ¶ 0020 "To resolve these inconveniences, the FCD onboard unit switches the resampling section length in stages according to the curvature of the road shape, thereby setting the resampling section length shorter in sharp curve sections than in other sections, as shown in Figure 1." The sampling point interval (learning speed) is shorter (faster) when the car travels on a road with sharp curves.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the autonomous vehicle with different learning values as taught by Brandin and Omikawa with using different learning speeds as taught by Adachi in order to more accurately keep the vehicle in the proper lateral position on different types of roads.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights