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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/25/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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.
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(s) 1-4, 8-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Sugano (US20150015383A1 in view of Lim (US20210316721A1) and Broll (US20190325233A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugano teaches;
A rear lateral sensing system of a vehicle (taught as a surrounding information acquisition unit, element 22), comprising:
at least one sensor setting a monitoring area in a rear or on a rear lateral side of the vehicle and detecting an obstacle (taught as rear and side obstacle detection sensor(s), elements 13a-h and 19a-d, detecting/monitoring areas exemplified in Fig 6, sections KR 1-7);
a warning transmission device generating a warning signal when the at least one sensor detects the obstacle (taught as an alarm device, element 33, which issues a warning/alarm to a driver of the approach of an obstacle, paragraph 0022);
a determination device calculating a generation time of the warning signal according to a tracked location of the obstacle (taught as the control decision information calculation unit, including a second risk calculation unit, Fig 5 elements 24 and 49 respectively, determining a second risk value based on the distance, in determining whether or not to suppress a warning condition, paragraph 0031); and
a controller setting a determination target [interpreted to be any location from among the detected information tracking the obstacle, based on paragraph 0040 of the specification] according to the tracked location of the obstacle, setting a determination area in the monitoring area based on the tracked location of the obstacle (taught as setting the tracked areas, for example KR1-7 shown in Fig 6, and using obstacle position/motion information to determine whether to enact a warning, paragraph 0033), and causing the determination device to adjust the generation time of the warning signal to last longer [interpreted to be a comparison of a duration of a warning] when the determination target is located in the determination area [interpreted to indicate that the warning produced lasts longer if the detected object is in the monitoring area rather than if it is/moves outside of it] (taught as cases where warnings are required/generated occur by canceling the suppression of a warning signal, Fig 7 S5, such as a case in which the obstacle transitions from being detected in KR6 and KR7, to only being detected in KR7, to no longer being detected in the detection angles, wherein the system issues a proper warning “longer” than a suppressed warning, paragraph 0038),
wherein the controller sets monitoring points [interpreted to be areas of interest for monitoring] based on the tracked location of the obstacle, taking longitudinal and lateral preset setting distances in longitudinal and lateral directions, respectively, into consideration (taught as monitoring preset locations KR1-7, shown in Fig 6, establishing certain angles/distances for monitored areas, paragraph 0027, and establishing a risk value based on the distance to obstacle [creating a threshold distance to prioritize/enact warnings vs ignoring obstacles], paragraph 0031), and
wherein the controller further receives information on an entry angle of the obstacle through the at least one sensor and adjusts the respective monitoring points based on the entry angle of the obstacle (taught as detecting the approach time, direction or angle of the obstacle, paragraph 0025) and adjusts the respective monitoring points based on the entry angle of the obstacle (taught as monitoring areas KR1-7, where the order of detection [based on obstacle approach, position and direction of motion] of the obstacle helps define whether or not to suppress a warning, paragraph 0033).
However, Sugano does not explicitly teach;
wherein among the set monitoring points, the controller sets a first monitoring point that is closest to the rear or the rear lateral side of the vehicle, a second monitoring point that is spaced apart from the first monitoring point in the longitudinal direction by the longitudinal preset setting distance, a third monitoring point that is spaced apart from the first monitoring point in the lateral direction by the lateral preset setting distance, and a fourth monitoring point that is spaced apart from the third monitoring point in the longitudinal direction by the longitudinal preset setting distance,
wherein the controller sets the determination area defined by determination lines connecting the first to fourth monitoring points to each other, and wherein the controller rotates the determination area, by the entry angle, around the first monitoring point without mechanically rotating the at least one sensor, and wherein the rotated determination area is located within the monitoring area of the at least one sensor and is smaller than the monitoring area of the at least one sensor.
Lim teaches; wherein among the set monitoring points, the controller sets
a first monitoring point that is closest to the rear or the rear lateral side of the vehicle,
a second monitoring point that is spaced apart from the first monitoring point in the longitudinal direction by the longitudinal preset setting distance,
a third monitoring point that is spaced apart from the first monitoring point in the lateral direction by the lateral preset setting distance, and
a fourth monitoring point that is spaced apart from the third monitoring point in the longitudinal direction by the longitudinal preset setting distance (taught as a set collision region, A2, Fig 7, shown as a rectangle with a corner [monitoring points that define the area] at a rear lateral portion of the vehicle and further spacing the corners based on prediction based on characteristics, such as the steering angle of the vehicle and a driving path of the first vehicle, paragraphs 0108-0109; while not defining points, the exemplified collision region effectively creates the shape created by the claimed method of essentially defining corners based on setting distances).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit considerations of collision to an area as taught by Lim in the system taught by Sugano in order to improve the efficiency of calculations. By limiting the focus of calculations to relevant areas that would directly impact the vehicle, one can reduce the calculations required in potential collision scenarios. As argued in Lim, such considerations additionally improve convenience, satisfaction in preventing collisions with other vehicles driving in the rear or lateral side, paragraph 0147.
However, Lim does not explicitly teach; wherein the controller sets the determination area defined by determination lines connecting the first to fourth monitoring points to each other, and wherein the controller rotates the determination area, by the entry angle, around the first monitoring point without mechanically rotating the at least one sensor, and wherein the rotated determination area is located within the monitoring area of the at least one sensor and is smaller than the monitoring area of the at least one sensor.
Broll teaches; wherein the controller sets the determination area defined by determination lines connecting the first to fourth monitoring points to each other, and wherein the controller rotates the determination area, by the entry angle, (taught as an adjustment variable being applied to a monitoring area within a detection region, paragraph 0020, rotating to proportionally counter the steering angle, paragraph 0029) around the first monitoring point without mechanically rotating the at least one sensor, and wherein the rotated determination area is located within the monitoring area of the at least one sensor and is smaller than the monitoring area of the at least one sensor taught as the camera during operation is fixed in a non-rotatable manner, paragraph 0039, and wherein the monitoring area is defined as part of the detection region to be detected by the camera, paragraph 0042).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust monitoring areas by rotation as suggested by Broll in the system taught by Sugano as modified by Lin in order to improve detection. As taught by Broll, such behavior of adjusting a monitoring system allows for monitoring of critical objects that could risk collision (paragraph 0010). Additionally, Broll suggests that a change in the orientation of the detection region by mechanical adjustment is unideal and would require extensive retrofitting/modification (paragraph 0008), thus incentivizing an internal transformation rather than mechanical rotation.
Regarding claim 2, Sugano as modified by Lim and Broll teaches;
The rear lateral sensing system of the vehicle according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Sugano further teaches; further comprising a gear controller checking a gear position of the vehicle (taught as the shift position of the vehicle, where ‘R’ indicates rearward movement, paragraph 0065), wherein the at least one sensor detects the obstacle when the gear is shifted into an R position [interpreted to be a reversing position based on paragraph 0033 of the specification] by the gear controller (taught as detecting obstacles when the vehicle moves rearward, paragraph 0064) .
Regarding claim 3, Sugano as modified by Lim and Broll teaches;
The rear lateral sensing system of the vehicle according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Sugano further teaches; wherein the controller sets a determination target based on the tracked location of the obstacle where [interpreted to indicate setting a condition to enact a warning after suppressing it] the warning signal is turned off (taught as, when in the process of suppressing the warning [turning it off], addressing the risk, Fig 7 S1-S3, where cancelation can occur for the warning when certain conditions are met, paragraph 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 4, Sugano as modified by Lim and Broll teaches;
The rear lateral sensing system of the vehicle according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Sugano further teaches; wherein the controller adjusts the generation time of the warning signal when a lateral area does not satisfy a preset set area in the monitoring area of the at least one sensor (taught as enacting/canceling the suppression of the warning in certain conditions [effectively changing the generation time], wherein area conditions are given as an example when an obstacle is no longer detected in the defined areas, issuing a warning, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 8, Sugano as modified by Lim and Broll teaches;
The rear lateral sensing system of the vehicle according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Sugano further teaches; wherein, when the determination target is located in the determination area, the controller rechecks at fixed intervals whether the determination target remains in the determination area (taught as periodically detecting the obstacle and where its located, suggested in the examples of changing locations from KR6 to KR7 such as in paragraph 0034, using an allowable le time lag to start detecting the obstacle, paragraph 0035), maintains an extended generation time of the warning signal when the determination target remains in the determination area (taught as presenting a warning when the determination target fulfills conditions, such as being in a rearward motion and an obstacle is detected for a predetermined time or longer in a monitored area such as KR6-7, paragraph 0036), and does not generate the warning signal when the determination target is no longer present in the determination area (taught as suppressing the warning when a warning is deemed unnecessary, paragraph 0033; when the obstacle no longer is detected, a risk/warning state is no longer achieved and thus no warning pertaining to the case of that obstacle would be generated; such a case would follow Fig 7 S1-S2, where warning is decided ‘No’, and not perform warning control).
Regarding claims 9-12 and 16, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1-4 and 8. Therefore, claims 9-12 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-4 and 8 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in pages 1-3 of the remarks that Sugano does not teach rotating the determination area specifically without rotating a sensor as cited in the amended claim language.
The examiner agrees that the amended material precludes the use of Lai by not using a rotation/mechanical adjustment of a sensor, and withdraws the previous rejection. However, a new rejection in light of Broll is presented above to address the rotation of a monitoring area about an angle using a camera fixed in a non-rotatable state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further monitoring for obstacles on side/rear of vehicles; US20200284872A1 US20150015714A1
For further rotation of detection/monitoring areas about a vehicle; US20200081456A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662