DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims dated 07/04/2025 are being examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/04/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that elements are conventionally introduced by the article “a” or “an” upon first recitation and thereafter referred to using the article “the”. Appropriate correction is required for claim limitations that do not follow this convention.
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a pair” and “the side” should be “the pair” and “a side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the time of the driver assistance”, “the recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane on which the vehicle is running”, “the recognition level of a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines defining a road with a direction of forward movement on the road the same direction as the vehicle”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations. For examination purposes, “the time…” is interpreted as “a time…”. It is unclear what characteristic constitutes the above recognition levels and for examination purposes absent any further claimed features of how the recognition and predetermined levels are determined, the Examiner interprets cited Kuroda’s YES/NO decision of detection are two recognition levels and the boundary at which YES/NO is determined is a predetermined level (see 103 rejection of claim 1).
Claims 2-4 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1. It is noted claim 4 recites “a recognition level…” and appropriate correction is required based on changes to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “the time of the driver assistance”, “the recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane on which the vehicle is running”, “the recognition level of a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines defining a road with a direction of forward movement on the road the same direction as the vehicle”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations. Examination of the limitations is performed similar to as stated above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the time of the driver assistance”, “the recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane on which the vehicle is running”, “the recognition level of a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines defining a road with a direction of forward movement on the road the same direction as the vehicle”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations. Examination of the limitations is performed similar to as stated above for claim 1 and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (JP-2021109559-A) and herein after will be referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches a driver assistance method performed by a control device, the driver assistance method comprising:
performing driver assistance making a vehicle stop if it is judged a driver of the vehicle is in an abnormal state in which continued driving of the vehicle would be difficult; and ([0005] In other words, one of the objectives of the present invention is a vehicle driving control device (hereinafter also referred to as "the present invention control device") that can automatically stop a vehicle while driving it along its lane, even when the driver is in an abnormal state of being unable to drive and is unable to recognize the white lines; [0034] One type of driver assistance control is abnormal deceleration and stop control, which determines whether the driver is in an abnormal state where they have lost the ability to drive the vehicle (i.e., an inability to drive abnormal state), and if it is determined that the driver is in an abnormal state, it decelerates the vehicle and then keeps the vehicle in a stopped state)
making the vehicle stop between a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines when, at the time of driver assistance, the recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane on which the vehicle is running is less than a predetermined level and the recognition level of a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines defining a road with a direction of forward movement on the road the same direction as the vehicle is greater than or equal to the predetermined level (see Examiner Note on conditional nature of this limitation).
Examiner Note: the method step(s) of “making the vehicle stop between a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines” is written in a conditional manner such that this limitation does not need to occur when the conditions above are not satisfied. It has been held that if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See Also MPEP § 2111. Accordingly, the claimed method is encompassed by Wang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Kuroda et al. (US-20240067230-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Kuroda.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a driver assistance control device for a vehicle, the driver assistance control device configured ([0011] … As shown in Figure 1, this implementation device includes a driver assistance ECU 10):
so that if it is judged that a driver of the vehicle is in an abnormal state where continued driving of the vehicle would be difficult, it makes the vehicle stop as driver assistance ([0005] In other words, one of the objectives of the present invention is a vehicle driving control device (hereinafter also referred to as "the present invention control device") that can automatically stop a vehicle while driving it along its lane, even when the driver is in an abnormal state of being unable to drive and is unable to recognize the white lines; [0034] One type of driver assistance control is abnormal deceleration and stop control, which determines whether the driver is in an abnormal state where they have lost the ability to drive the vehicle (i.e., an inability to drive abnormal state), and if it is determined that the driver is in an abnormal state, it decelerates the vehicle and then keeps the vehicle in a stopped state).
Wang does not explicitly teach: so that at the time of the driver assistance, when the recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane on which the vehicle is running is less than a predetermined level and the recognition level of a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines defining a road with a direction of forward movement on the road the same direction as the vehicle is greater than or equal to the predetermined level, it makes the vehicle stop between the pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines.
However, Kuroda teaches: so that at the time of the driver assistance, when the recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane on which the vehicle is running is less than a predetermined level (FIG. 4 when vehicle traveling at speed Vii cannot detect lane lines L11 and L12 from surrounding image; [0008] …no lane line is detected…)
and the recognition level of a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines defining a road with a direction of forward movement on the road the same direction as the vehicle is greater than or equal to the predetermined level (FIG. 4 but vehicle can still detect road shoulder RS1 and SE12, DP2, and M from surrounding image; [0049] The classifier used by the detection unit 632 to detect the road edge; [0052] The determination unit 633 estimates the distance from the vehicle to the road edge by adding ½ of the width of the current lane indicated in the map information of the surroundings of the current position acquired from the storage device 5, the width of the lane between the current lane and the road shoulder, and the width of the road shoulder)
it makes the vehicle stop between the pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines (FIG. 4 stopping at area inside road shoulder RS1; [0008] when there is a possibility of the vehicle reaching the road edge and no lane line is detected from the surrounding data, perform a stopping control of acceleration, deceleration, and steering of the vehicle so that the vehicle stops at a road shoulder included in the road).
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, absent any further claimed features of how the recognition and predetermined levels are determined, the Examiner interprets Kuroda’s YES/NO decision of detection are two recognition levels and the boundary at which YES/NO is determined is a predetermined level (NO detection corresponds a recognition level less than predetermined level and YES detection corresponds to a recognition level greater than or equal to the predetermined level).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the location of stopping as taught in Wang to incorporate the teachings of Kuroda to include so that at the time of the driver assistance, when the recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane on which the vehicle is running is less than a predetermined level and the recognition level of a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines defining a road with a direction of forward movement on the road the same direction as the vehicle is greater than or equal to the predetermined level, it makes the vehicle stop between the pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines, with a reasonable expectation of success for safety as stopping at a shoulder is generally better than stopping in the road.
Regarding claim 4, Wang, as modified, teaches the driver assistance control device according to claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly teach configured to: recognize dividing objects and dividing lines on the road based on images captured by an imaging device; and setting a recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane and a recognition level of the road dividing objects or road dividing lines based on results of recognition of the dividing objects and dividing lines.
However, Kuroda teaches configured to:
recognize dividing objects and dividing lines on the road based on images captured by an imaging device; and ([0024] The surrounding camera 2 is an example of surrounding sensor for generating surrounding images representing surroundings of the vehicle)
setting a recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane and a recognition level of the road dividing objects or road dividing lines based on results of recognition of the dividing objects and dividing lines ([0049] The classifier used by the detection unit 632 to detect the road edge and the departure preventer from the surrounding images may further detect lane lines demarcating one or more lanes included in the road from the surrounding images; where as indicated in the rejection of claim 1, a recognition level is interpreted under BRI as two levels – YES/NO detection in Kuroda).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Kuroda to include configured to: recognize dividing objects and dividing lines on the road based on images captured by an imaging device; and setting a recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane and a recognition level of the road dividing objects or road dividing lines based on results of recognition of the dividing objects and dividing lines, with a reasonable expectation of success for safety as stopping at a shoulder is generally better than stopping in the road.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches a non-transitory computer storage medium including a computer program making a computer perform processing comprising ([0011] … As shown in Figure 1, this implementation device includes a driver assistance ECU 10; [0012] A microcomputer includes a CPU, ROM, RAM, read/write non-volatile memory, and an interface I/F, among other things. The CPU implements various functions by executing instructions (programs, routines) stored in ROM.):
performing driver assistance making a vehicle stop if it is judged a driver of the vehicle is in an abnormal state in which continued driving of the vehicle would be difficult ([0005] In other words, one of the objectives of the present invention is a vehicle driving control device (hereinafter also referred to as "the present invention control device") that can automatically stop a vehicle while driving it along its lane, even when the driver is in an abnormal state of being unable to drive and is unable to recognize the white lines; [0034] One type of driver assistance control is abnormal deceleration and stop control, which determines whether the driver is in an abnormal state where they have lost the ability to drive the vehicle (i.e., an inability to drive abnormal state), and if it is determined that the driver is in an abnormal state, it decelerates the vehicle and then keeps the vehicle in a stopped state).
Wang does not explicitly teach: making the vehicle stop between a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines when, at the time of driver assistance, the recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane on which the vehicle is running is less than a predetermined level and the recognition level of a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines defining a road with a direction of forward movement on the road the same direction as the vehicle is greater than or equal to the predetermined level.
However, Kuroda teaches: making the vehicle stop between a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines (FIG. 4 stopping at area inside road shoulder RS1; [0008] when there is a possibility of the vehicle reaching the road edge and no lane line is detected from the surrounding data, perform a stopping control of acceleration, deceleration, and steering of the vehicle so that the vehicle stops at a road shoulder included in the road)
when, at the time of driver assistance, the recognition level of dividing lines of the current running lane on which the vehicle is running is less than a predetermined level (FIG. 4 when vehicle traveling at speed Vii cannot detect lane lines L11 and L12 from surrounding image; [0008] …no lane line is detected…)
and the recognition level of a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines defining a road with a direction of forward movement on the road the same direction as the vehicle is greater than or equal to the predetermined level (FIG. 4 but vehicle can still detect road shoulder RS1 and SE12, DP2, and M from surrounding image; [0049] The classifier used by the detection unit 632 to detect the road edge; [0052] The determination unit 633 estimates the distance from the vehicle to the road edge by adding ½ of the width of the current lane indicated in the map information of the surroundings of the current position acquired from the storage device 5, the width of the lane between the current lane and the road shoulder, and the width of the road shoulder).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Kuroda, in view of Yashiro et al. (US-20220203985-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Yashiro.
Regarding claim 2, Wang, as modified, teaches the driver assistance control device according to claim 1.
Wang, as modified, also teaches configured so that when making the vehicle stop between a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines, it makes the vehicle stop along the road dividing object or road dividing line (see rejection of claim 1 cited to Kuroda FIG. 4 stopping at area inside road shoulder RS1).
Wang does not explicitly teach that there is “a sidewalk” near the road dividing object or road dividing line, so Wang does not explicitly teach at the side near a sidewalk.
However, it is a well-known structural design that sidewalks may be near roadway shoulders. As evidence, Yashiro teaches a roadway shoulder at a side near a sidewalk ([0117] The road shoulder is, for example, an area provided between the roadway and the sidewalk).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the roadway shoulder where the vehicle stops as taught in Wang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Yashiro to include being at a side near a sidewalk, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of allowing pedestrians to walk safely.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Kuroda, in view of Non-Patent Literature: ArizonaBikeLaw (ArizonaBikeLaw, Street Highway Sidewalk Roadway Shoulder Definitions, Febuary 1, 2014, page 1, https://azbikelaw.org/definitions/) and herein after will be referred to as ArizonaBikeLaw.
Regarding claim 3, Wang, as modified, teaches the driver assistance control device according to claim 1.
Wang, as modified, also teaches configured so that when making the vehicle stop between a pair of left and right road dividing objects or road dividing lines, it makes the vehicle stop along the road dividing object or road dividing line (see rejection of claim 1 cited to Kuroda FIG. 4 stopping at area inside road shoulder RS1).
Wang does not explicitly teach that there is “a sidewalk”, so Wang does not explicitly teach at the side far from a sidewalk.
However, it is a well-known structural design that sidewalks may be far from roadway shoulders. As evidence, Non-Patent Literature ArizonaBikeLaw teaches a roadway shoulder at a side opposite/far from a sidewalk (FIG. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
233
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[FIG. 1 of ArizonaBikeLaw showing sidewalk is far from road shoulder]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the roadway shoulder where the vehicle stops as taught in Wang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Yashiro to include being at a side far from a sidewalk, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of allowing pedestrians to walk safely.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20240140489-A1: Min teaches, see FIG. 4 different stopping maneuvers for a vehicle performing a minimal risk maneuver.
US-20190266418-A1: Xu teaches detection of lane and boundaries
US-20220032923-A1: Park teaches detection of driver physical condition abnormality and moving vehicle to safe zone
US-20210253133-A1: Miyamoto teaches warning a driver to monitor the surroundings. [0085] In a case where the driver does not comply, degraded control is performed with the ECU 20A remaining the main processing unit. In this case, when the driving is not switched to the driver within a predetermined amount of time, the automated driving system maneuvers the vehicle to a shoulder of the road and stops the vehicle.
US-20200189618-A1: Ochida teaches in response to deterioration of sensors, pulling over to a shoulder
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights