DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2 and 4-16 would be allowable if (#1) rewritten to overcome all pending objection(s) and all pending rejection(s) set forth in this Office action; and (#2) rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority Status
Foreign priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 17 and 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 1 do/does not follow the convention of placing a colon after the first “comprising” to separate the preamble from the claim body.
Claims 17 and 19 contain the same issue as Claim 1 and objected in like manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(B) or (pre-AIA ) Second Paragraph
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/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.
Claims 3 and 20 recite “the emergency vehicle” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore rejected.
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 of this title, 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) 1 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200202713 A1 (“Gesch”) and further in view of US 20200242371 A1 (“Jo”).
As to Claim 1, Gesch discloses A signal processing device (e.g., “vehicle control system”; see at least [0005] – “a vehicle control system for a subject vehicle is disclosed”, [0020] – “The vehicle control system can operate as part of an autonomous vehicle control system or a vehicle being driven by a human driver.”) comprising[:]
a processor (e.g., “one or more processors”; see at least [0006], [0025]) configured
to receive a front image (e.g., “forward-facing”) from a camera (e.g., “sensors 162”) mounted in a vehicle (see at least at least [0027]) and
to process (e.g., “analyzing”, “providing” and/or “organizing”) the received image (see at least [0027]-[0029] – “…analyzing stored data, providing stored data, organizing stored data, and so on”),
wherein the processor is configured (see at least [0006], [0025])
to detect forward region (e.g., “region 210” from Fig. 2) based on the front image from the camera (see at least [0027] and Fig. 2 with associated text), and
to perform a lane decision (e.g., “630” from Fig. 6; see at least Fig. 6 with associated text; in particular, [0054]-[0055]),
wherein
in a first mode, the processor is configured to control a steering driver to maintain a first distance from a first line of first and second lines adjacent to each other (see at least Abstract, [0006], [0025], Fig. 3 and 4C with associated text. The arrow in Fig. 4C represents the centerline of a travel lane and is centered within the two lines representing said travel lane.), and
in a second mode, the processor is configured to control the steering driver to maintain a second distance from the first line, the second distance being different from the first distance (see at least Abstract, [0006], [0025], [0040] – “Modifying the trajectory can include one or more of modifying the speed of the subject vehicle, changing lanes, or shifting to an edge of a current lane”, Fig. 3 and 4B with associated text. The arrow in Fig. 4B represents the centerline of a travel lane which later shifts a bit to the left and is off-centered between the two lines representing said travel lane.).
Gesch does not directly disclose to detect lines, and to perform a lane keeping mode based on the detected lines.
However, Jo teaches:
to detect lines (see at least Abstract, [0011]-[0012] – “…recognize front and rear road-lines of a driving lane of the vehicle using a front camera and a rear camera”, [0054], [0057], [0069], [0071]), and
to perform a lane keeping mode (e.g., “lane-keeping assistance system (LKAS) module 212”, “lane departure warning system (LDWS)” or “Lane-Keeping Assistance (LKA) function”) based on the detected lines (see at least Abstract, [0011]-[0012], [0050], [0069] – “A camera module mounted in the front portion of the vehicle supports long-distance recognition in order to implement a Lane-Keeping Assistance (LKA) function”, [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gesch’s invention by incorporating line detection as taught by Jo in order to implement a lane keeping assistance (LKA) function (see [0069]).
As to Claim 17, Gesch discloses A signal processing device (e.g., “vehicle control system”; see at least [0005] – “a vehicle control system for a subject vehicle is disclosed”, [0020] – “The vehicle control system can operate as part of an autonomous vehicle control system or a vehicle being driven by a human driver.”) comprising[:]
a processor (e.g., “one or more processors”; see at least [0006], [0025]) configured
to receive a front image (e.g., “forward-facing”) from a camera (e.g., “sensors 162”) mounted in a vehicle (see at least at least [0027]) and
to process (e.g., “analyzing”, “providing” and/or “organizing”) the received image (see at least [0027]-[0029] – “…analyzing stored data, providing stored data, organizing stored data, and so on”),
wherein the processor is configured (see at least [0006], [0025])
to detect forward region (e.g., “region 210” from Fig. 2) based on the front image from the camera (see at least [0027] and Fig. 2 with associated text), and
to perform a lane decision (e.g., “630” from Fig. 6; see at least Fig. 6 with associated text; in particular, [0054]-[0055]),
wherein in a first mode, the processor is configured to control a steering driver to stay in a center of a first line and a second line adjacent to each other (see at least Abstract, [0006], [0025], Fig. 3 and 4C with associated text. The arrow in Fig. 4C represents the centerline of a travel lane and is centered within the two lines representing said travel lane.), and
wherein in a second mode, the processor is configured to control the steering driver to be closer to either the first line or (Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) the second line (see at least Abstract, [0006], [0025], [0040] – “Modifying the trajectory can include one or more of modifying the speed of the subject vehicle, changing lanes, or shifting to an edge of a current lane”, Fig. 3 and 4B with associated text. The arrow in Fig. 4B represents the centerline of a travel lane which later shifts a bit to the left and is off-centered between the two lines representing said travel lane.).
Gesch does not directly disclose to detect lines, and to perform a lane keeping mode based on the detected lines.
However, Jo teaches:
to detect lines (see at least Abstract, [0011]-[0012] – “…recognize front and rear road-lines of a driving lane of the vehicle using a front camera and a rear camera”, [0054], [0057], [0069], [0071]), and
to perform a lane keeping mode (e.g., “lane-keeping assistance system (LKAS) module 212”, “lane departure warning system (LDWS)” or “Lane-Keeping Assistance (LKA) function”) based on the detected lines (see at least Abstract, [0011]-[0012], [0050], [0069] – “A camera module mounted in the front portion of the vehicle supports long-distance recognition in order to implement a Lane-Keeping Assistance (LKA) function”, [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gesch’s invention by incorporating line detection as taught by Jo in order to implement a lane keeping assistance (LKA) function (see [0069]).
As to Claim 18, Gesch discloses
wherein in the first mode, the processor is configured to control the steering driver to maintain a first distance from the first line (see at least Abstract, [0006], [0025], Fig. 3 and 4C with associated text. The arrow in Fig. 4C represents the centerline of a travel lane and is centered within the two lines representing said travel lane.), and
wherein in the second mode, the processor is configured to control the steering driver to maintain a second distance from the first line, the second distance being different from the first distance (see at least Abstract, [0006], [0025], [0040] – “Modifying the trajectory can include one or more of modifying the speed of the subject vehicle, changing lanes, or shifting to an edge of a current lane”, Fig. 3 and 4B with associated text. The arrow in Fig. 4B represents the centerline of a travel lane which later shifts a bit to the left and is off-centered between the two lines representing said travel lane. Gesch’s invention maintains the shift for as long as is needed to pass the vehicles on the shoulder.).
Gesch does not direclty disclose lane keeping mode.
However, Jo teaches lane keeping mode (see at least [0050], [0069]). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 1)
Claim 19 repeats the subject matter of Claim 1 and rejected in like manner.
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gesch in view of Jo and further in view of US 9278689 B1 (“Delp”).
As to Claim 3, Gesch discloses wherein the processor is configured (see at least [0006], [0025])
to perform the second mode based on the emergency vehicle located on shoulder as the vehicle passes by (see at least [0019], Fig. 3 and 4B with associated text), and
Gesch does not directly disclose a lane keeping mode; and based on an emergency vehicle approaching from behind, decrease a distance from a first line as a vehicle becomes closer to the emergency vehicle.
However, Jo teaches a lane keeping mode (see at least [0050], [0069]). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 1)
The Gesch + Jo Combination does not directly disclose based on an emergency vehicle approaching from behind, decrease a distance from a first line as a vehicle becomes closer to the emergency vehicle.
However, Delp teaches based on an emergency vehicle approaching from behind, decrease a distance from a first line as a vehicle becomes closer to the emergency vehicle (see at least Fig. 3 with associated text). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify The Gesch + Jo Combination by incorporating automatic emergency response as taught by Delp in order to comply with emergency vehicle right-of-way traffic regulations.
Written Authorization Required for Internet Communication
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is best reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0730-1730 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, ERIN PIATESKI, is available at telephone number (571) 270-7429.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
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 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.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
Prosecution Insights