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 is the First Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 09/24/2025 and 04/06/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDSs are enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “201” has been used to designate to a “processor”, “identification unit”, “determination unit” and “a warning unit”. 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 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “the identification unit uses, as the lane marking, at least one of” should read as “the identification unit uses, as the lane marking, at least one of :” .
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 1-5 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “determine whether the vehicle is likely to depart from
a travel lane. . . ”. The term “likely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “. . . traveling in an identical lane is shorter than a threshold period of time . . .”. It is unclear to the Examiner what the “an identical lane” is intended to be identical to. For example, is the “identical lane” referring to the same “travel lane” recited in claim 1?
As to claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the identification unit uses, as the lane marking, at least one of a right lane marking . . . and left lane marking . . . ”. It is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by “the identification uses, as the lane marking, at least one of a right lane marking . . . and a left lane marking . . .”. For example, what is the “right lane marking . . .” and “left lane marking . . .” being used for in the context of this claim ?
As to claim 5, the claim is rejected for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an identification unit configured to identify”, “a determination unit configured to
determine” and “a warning unit configured to output a warning” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward an apparatus which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “an identification unit configured to identify, based on the image, a lane marking of a road on which the vehicle is traveling”, and “a determination unit configured to determine whether the vehicle is likely to depart from a travel lane, based on a change amount per unit time in a distance between the drive recorder and the lane marking” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper and/or mathematical concepts grouping (2019 PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations, and data structure). For example, a human mind could reasonably identify lane markings from an image and determine whether the vehicle is deviating/departing from a travel lane. The mere nominal recitation of “a driver recorder, “a camera”, “an identification unit”, “a determination unit” and “a warning unit” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “a camera configured to generate an image ahead of a vehicle to which the drive recorder is attached” and “a warning unit configured to output a warning upon determination that the vehicle is likely to depart from the travel lane” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to mere pre- or post-solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a camera”, “an identification unit”, “a determination unit” and “a warning unit” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a camera”, “an identification unit”, “a determination unit” and “a warning unit” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose or generic computer. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally links the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “a camera configured to generate an image ahead of a vehicle to which the drive recorder is attached” and “a warning unit configured to output a warning upon determination that the vehicle is likely to depart from the travel lane” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of the “a drive recorder”, “a camera”, “an identification unit”, “a determination unit” and “a warning unit” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose or generic computer. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally links the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 5 recites similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim is not eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 2-4 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward
additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the limitation of claim 4 “wherein the warning unit further outputs a warning when the distance between the drive recorder and the lane marking falls within a threshold distance” is recited at a high-level of generality and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano Hiroaki (JP 2016040726 A) in view of Kato Tetsuhiro (EP 2879117 B1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 5, Sano Hiroaki discloses A drive
recorder comprising: a camera configured to generate an image ahead of a vehicle to which the drive recorder is attached; (8, figure 1, and [0020] “In the drive recorder, the drive recorder 2 is configured to be able to input an image outside the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1 captured by the imaging unit 8 via the communication cable.”)
an identification unit configured to identify, based on the image, a lane marking of a road
on which the vehicle is traveling; ([0033] “the first control unit 4 derives the distance between a part of the vehicle 1 included in the external image input from the imaging unit 8 and a line that divides the traveling lane on the road.”, [0034] “A line dividing a traveling lane on the road in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1 is included in a predetermined area outside the vehicle shown in the outside image obtained by the imaging unit 8.” and [0035] “The predetermined area shown in the image outside the vehicle is an area including a position at least 2 m apart in the left-right direction from the point C at the left-right center of the front end of the bonnet B of the vehicle 1 as shown in FIG. As a result, as shown in FIG. 5, the left side line LL and the right side line RL indicating the boundary between the traveling lane on the road on which the vehicle 1 travels and the adjacent traveling lane are shown in the outside-of-vehicle image.”, see at least [0036])
a determination unit configured to determine whether the vehicle is likely to depart from
a travel lane, ([0040] “the first control unit 4 determines whether the vehicle 1 deviates from the line based on the calculated relative distance D and the lateral acceleration G in the lateral direction. Note that the deviation of the line of the vehicle 1 determined in this manner is hereinafter referred to as "vehicle deviation". The “vehicle deviation” is a concept including both the case where the vehicle 1 is likely to deviate from the line and the case where the vehicle 1 actually deviates from the line. “) based ([0038] “The first control unit 4 transmits the calculated relative distance D to the second control unit 5. Next, the process proceeds to step S2.”, [0039] “In step S2, the first control unit 4 calculates the acceleration G when the vehicle 1 moves in the lateral direction, based on the relative distance D calculated this time and the relative distance D calculated in the past.”, and [0040] “the first control unit 4 determines whether the vehicle 1 deviates from the line based on the calculated relative distance D and the lateral acceleration G in the lateral direction. Note that the deviation of the line of the vehicle 1 determined in this manner is hereinafter referred to as "vehicle deviation". The “vehicle deviation” is a concept including both the case where the vehicle 1 is likely to deviate from the line and the case where the vehicle 1 actually deviates from the line.”)
a warning unit configured to output a warning upon determination that the vehicle is
likely to depart from the travel lane. ([0046] “the first control unit 4 transmits a signal indicating that the vehicle departure has been determined to the second control unit, and causes the second control unit to turn on the vehicle departure flag to a non-volatile storage unit (not shown). Next, the process proceeds to step S5” and [0047] “the first control unit 4 controls the sound output unit 11 to output a sound. Thereby, the first control unit 4 notifies the driver or the like that the vehicle 1 may deviate from the line or that the vehicle 1 deviates from the line.”)
However, Sano Hiroaki fails to explicitly disclose determine whether the vehicle is likely to
depart from a travel lane, based on a change amount per unit time in a distance between the drive recorder and the lane marking;
Kato Tetsuhiro teaches determine whether the vehicle is likely to depart from a travel
lane, based on a change amount per unit time in a distance between the drive recorder and the lane marking; (Figures 3, 5, 8 and 10, [0026] “accurate calculation of the distance M (for example, with a margin of error of 10 cm) when a lane departure determination is conducted. Highly accurate calculation of the mounting angle Θ0 of the camera 101 allows the distance M to be calculated with a high degree of accuracy.”, [0073] “Based on parameters including the distance E and the angle Θd calculated by the parameter estimating unit 123 and the angle Θ0 estimated by the angle estimating unit 125, the departure determining unit 126 calculates the distance M from the vehicle C to the lane marking (see equation (1) above). The departure determining unit 126 determines whether the vehicle C begins to cross out of the lane based on the calculated distance M. If the distance M is large, the vehicle C is less likely to cross out of the lane. On the other hand, if the distance M is small, the vehicle C is likely to cross out of the lane.” and [0074] “When determining that the vehicle C begins to cross out of the lane, the departure determining unit 126 notifies the warning output unit 127 accordingly. Upon receiving the notification, the warning output unit 127 notifies the driver of the vehicle C beginning to cross out of the lane. For example, the warning output unit 127 alerts the driver with an audible alarm or a visual image or text display.”, see at least [0027])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Sano Hiroaki to incorporate distance from camera to lane over time as taught by Kato Tetsuhiro for the purpose of increasing the accuracy of determining the vehicle’s changes in position to accurately determine lane departure.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano Hiroaki (JP 2016040726 A) in view of Kato Tetsuhiro (EP 2879117 B1) and further in view of Matsuno Atsushi (JP 2020201766 A).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood by the Examiner, Sano Hiroaki in view of Kato
Tetsuhiro discloses The drive recorder according to claim 1,
Kato Tetsuhiro teaches the warning unit
amount per unit time in the distance between the drive recorder and the lane marking. (Figures 3, 5, 8 and 10, [0026] “accurate calculation of the distance M (for example, with a margin of error of 10 cm) when a lane departure determination is conducted. Highly accurate calculation of the mounting angle Θ0 of the camera 101 allows the distance M to be calculated with a high degree of accuracy.”, [0073] “Based on parameters including the distance E and the angle Θd calculated by the parameter estimating unit 123 and the angle Θ0 estimated by the angle estimating unit 125, the departure determining unit 126 calculates the distance M from the vehicle C to the lane marking (see equation (1) above). The departure determining unit 126 determines whether the vehicle C begins to cross out of the lane based on the calculated distance M. If the distance M is large, the vehicle C is less likely to cross out of the lane. On the other hand, if the distance M is small, the vehicle C is likely to cross out of the lane.” and [0074] “When determining that the vehicle C begins to cross out of the lane, the departure determining unit 126 notifies the warning output unit 127 accordingly. Upon receiving the notification, the warning output unit 127 notifies the driver of the vehicle C beginning to cross out of the lane. For example, the warning output unit 127 alerts the driver with an audible alarm or a visual image or text display.”, see at least [0027])
However Sano Hiroaki in combination with Kato Tetsuhiro fails to explicitly disclose wherein
in a case where a period of time while the vehicle is continuously traveling in an identical lane is shorter than a threshold period of time, the warning unit ceases to issue a warning
Matsuno Atsushi teaches wherein in a case where a period of time while the vehicle is
continuously traveling in an identical lane is shorter than a threshold period of time, the warning unit ceases to issue a warning ([0056] “the arithmetic processing unit 11 determines whether or not the white line is continuously detected for a certain period of time or longer (step S43). In other words, it is determined whether or not the elapsed period from the start of detection of the white line is a certain period or longer. If the detection is continuous for a certain period of time or longer (step S43: YES), the arithmetic processing unit 11 proceeds to step S44. If the fixed period has not been reached (step S43: NO), the arithmetic processing unit 11 does not perform the alert at that time, and ends the lane departure driving alert processing. Therefore, for example, when a vehicle crosses a lane in a short period of time, no warning is given to the driver.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Sano Hiroaki in combination with Kato Tetsuhiro to incorporate a period of time after detection of a lane where the alert is not performed as taught by Matsuno Atsushi for the purpose of preventing unintended alerts “when a vehicle crosses a lane” ([0056], Matsuno Atsushi).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano Hiroaki (JP 2016040726 A) in view of Kato Tetsuhiro (EP 2879117 B1) and further in view of Yamada Katsunori (JP 2004034792 A).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood by the Examiner, Sano Hiroaki in view of Kato
Tetsuhiro discloses The drive recorder according to claim 1,
Sano Hiroaki discloses wherein the identification unit uses, as the lane marking, at least
one of a right lane marking located on a right side of the drive recorder(RL, LL, Figure 5, ([0033] “the first control unit 4 derives the distance between a part of the vehicle 1 included in the external image input from the imaging unit 8 and a line that divides the traveling lane on the road.”, [0034] “A line dividing a traveling lane on the road in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1 is included in a predetermined area outside the vehicle shown in the outside image obtained by the imaging unit 8.” and [0035] “The predetermined area shown in the image outside the vehicle is an area including a position at least 2 m apart in the left-right direction from the point C at the left-right center of the front end of the bonnet B of the vehicle 1 as shown in FIG. As a result, as shown in FIG. 5, the left side line LL and the right side line RL indicating the boundary between the traveling lane on the road on which the vehicle 1 travels and the adjacent traveling lane are shown in the outside-of-vehicle image.”, see at least [0036])
However, Sano Hiroaki in combination with Kato Tetsuhiro fails to explicitly disclose
Yamada Katsunori teaches
predetermined angle, ([0011] “The image processing unit 5A detects the lane markings 20 and 21 such as white lines, for example, from the captured image in front of the vehicle 23 captured by the CCD camera 6 to detect the traveling lane 22 and also detects the traveling vehicle lane 22 with respect to the traveling lane 22. It is possible to calculate the direction θV (yaw angle) of the traveling direction VL of the vehicle 23, the lateral position of the vehicle 23 in the traveling lane 22 (the position in the road width direction), the curvature of the traveling lane 22, the width of the traveling lane 22, and the like.”, [0022] “a deviation Δθ between the target traveling direction ML and the traveling direction VL of the host vehicle 23 is determined. This Δθ is (the direction θT of the target traveling direction ML) − (the direction θV of the traveling direction VL of the own vehicle 23) and is a value corresponding to the intersection angle between the target traveling direction ML and the traveling direction VL of the own vehicle 23. is there. The directions θT and θV are indicated by inclinations with respect to the same reference direction.”, [0023] “it is determined whether the deviation Δθ is equal to or smaller than a set value δθ. If it is determined that the value is equal to or smaller than the set value δθ, the process is terminated and the process returns. On the other hand, if it is larger than the set value δθ, the process moves to step S220. The set value δθ is, for example, 5 degrees.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Sano Hiroaki in combination with Kato Tetsuhiro to incorporate calculating a direction angle of the traveling direction as taught by Yamada Katsunori for the purpose of increasing the accuracy of determining the vehicle’s changes in position to accurately determine lane departure.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano Hiroaki (JP 2016040726 A) in view of Kato Tetsuhiro (EP 2879117 B1) and further in view of Imai et al. (US 20140009618 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sano Hiroaki in view of Kato Tetsuhiro discloses The drive recorder
according to claim 1,
However, Sano Hiroaki in combination with Kato Tetsuhiro fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the warning unit further outputs a warning when the distance between the drive recorder and the lane marking falls within a threshold distance.
Imai et al. teaches wherein the warning unit further outputs a warning when the distance
between the drive recorder and the lane marking falls within a threshold distance. ([0051] “Note that vehicle yaw angles θ can be obtained by a method using a least-square method in which an angle of compartment line is obtained from a plurality of pieces of information about distances d1, d2 to right and left compartment lines in the past, a method in which an angle of compartment line is calculated directly from a sheet of captured image, and so on.”, [0052] “the departure judgment unit 3 judges whether or not the possibility that the vehicle 60 will depart from the compartment line is high using the distances D1 and D2 to the compartment line obtained according to the equations (1) and (2), respectively. Specifically, whether or not the distance D1 (or D2) to the compartment line is less than a predetermined threshold value for departure judgment Ds (D1<Ds) is judged. When an affirmative judgment is made, it is judged that the possibility that the vehicle 60 will depart from the compartment line is high and this is notified to the driver in a subsequent processing”, see at least figure 6, and paragraphs [0049] – [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Sano Hiroaki in combination with Kato Tetsuhiro to incorporate a distance threshold as taught by Imai et al. for the purpose of accurately making a judgment on the possibility that the vehicle will depart from its travel lane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights