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 a nonfinal in response to an RCE filed on 03/02/2026. Claims 1-17 remain pending. Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/17/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 13 recite “wherein the guideline further include an auditory guideline proving a trajectory,”. The claim should be amended to read “wherein the guideline further includes an auditory guideline providing a trajectory,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 11, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignaczak et al (US 20150266509 A1) in view of Shipley et al (US 20200132473 A1), Kim et al (US 20190031105 A1), and Koh et al (US 20220410922 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Ignaczak, Shipley, Kim, and Koh respectively)
Regarding Claim 1, Ignaczak teaches a system for a vehicle to avoid a collision (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0016, 0041-0043, and Figure 1, the system for the vehicle avoids collisions with curbs), the system comprising:
an operation determining device to determine whether the vehicle has entered a parking lot based on location information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0020 and 0031, the computer, which is interpreted to include the operation determining device, determines if the vehicle is in the parking based on the GPS/location information)…and
a controller configured to:
generate a virtual map about an obstacle on a…road in the parking lot based on image information and distance information when it is determined that the vehicle has entered the parking lot (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0032-0036, the virtual map about obstacles like a curb is generated by the computer/controller using image data and distance information from an ultrasonic sensor);
generate an expected movement trajectory that indicates a future travel path of the vehicle based on steering information and speed information of the vehicle (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0040-0043, the expected movement trajectory of the vehicle is predicted based on the velocity and steering angle); and
predict the collision between the obstacle in the virtual map and the vehicle (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0040-0043 and Figure 5, a collision between the vehicle and the obstacle/curb in the virtual map is predicted)…; and
provide a guideline that avoids the collision to a notification device in response that the collision is predicted (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0043-0044, the computer/controller provides guidelines that avoids collision with the curb such as “To avoid tire damage, reduce steering angle and/or velocity” to the HMI/notification device when the collision is predicted).
Ignaczak fails to disclose determining if the vehicle has entered a parking lot based on…inclination information of the vehicle, and that the road in the parking lot is curved.
However, Shipley teaches determining if the vehicle has entered a parking lot based on…inclination information of the vehicle (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0043, 0047, and Figure 3, the pitch/inclination of the vehicle is used to determine that the vehicle has entered a parking lot), and that the road in the parking lot is curved (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026 and Figure 1, the parking structure includes a circular ramp, which is interpreted as a curved road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Ignaczak with Shipley to determine that the vehicle is in the parking lot based on the inclination information of the vehicle and that the road in the parking lot is curved. Shipley teaches a multi-level parking structure that has a curved ramp (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026 and Figure 1). Since the parking structure includes multiple levels, the vehicle will drive on the curved ramp when entering the parking lot, which will cause a change in pitch and yaw, which one of ordinary skill in the art can use to determine that the vehicle has entered the parking lot (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026, 0043, 0047, and Figure 3). This modification will help improve the vehicle location determination.
Even though Ignaczak teaches predicting a collision between the obstacle and the vehicle, modified Ignaczak fails to disclose…superimpose the future travel path onto the virtual map;
and predict the collision between the obstacle and the vehicle…based on matching the obstacle in the virtual map with the future travel path of the vehicle superimposed on the virtual map.
However, Kim teaches …superimpose the future travel path onto the virtual map (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0006, 0531-0537, and Figure 18, the predicted/future travel path “1503” is superimposed onto the virtual map/side-rear image);
and predict the collision between the obstacle and the vehicle…based on matching the obstacle in the virtual map with the future travel path of the vehicle superimposed on the virtual map (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0139-0141, 0537-0541, and Figure 18, the collision point between the obstacle, which includes curbs, and the vehicle is predicted based on matching the obstacle in the virtual map/side-rear image with the predicted/future travel path that is superimposed on the virtual map/side-rear image) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Kim to predict the collision between the obstacle and the vehicle based on matching the obstacle in the virtual map with the future travel path of the vehicle superimposed on the virtual map. This modification, as taught by Kim, would display the predicted collision point between the obstacle and vehicle using the superimposed predicted/future travel of the vehicle and the location of the obstacle, thus allowing the driver to easily perceive the potentially dangerous object (See at least Kim Paragraph 0516, 0537-0541, and Figure 18), which would improve the safety of the vehicle and help prevent collisions.
Even though Ignaczak teaches providing a guideline that avoids the collision, modified Ignaczak fails to disclose wherein the guideline which is a visual trajectory superimposed on the virtual map to avoid the collision is provided by the controller to a driver as visual information via a display device installed in the vehicle and operatively connected to the controller, and
wherein the guideline further include an auditory guideline proving a trajectory, along which the vehicle follows to avoid the collision.
However, Koh teaches the guideline which is a visual trajectory superimposed on the virtual map to avoid the collision is provided by the controller to a driver as visual information via a display device installed in the vehicle and operatively connected to the controller (See at least Koh Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0032, 0036-0037, and Figures 3-4, the driving path provided by the control circuitry/controller to avoid the collision is superimposed on the virtual map via a display device installed in the vehicle and connected to the controller/control circuitry), and
wherein the guideline further include an auditory guideline proving a trajectory, along which the vehicle follows to avoid the collision (See at least Koh Paragraphs 0029-0031, 0036, and 0041, the guideline to avoid the collision includes audio output by a speaker).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Koh to have the guideline, which includes a visual trajectory superimposed on the virtual map to avoid the collision, be provided to the driver as visual information via a display device installed in the vehicle and as an auditory guideline proving a trajectory. This modification, as taught by Koh, would improve the safety of the system by providing a driving path that avoids the collision to the driver by displaying the driving path on the display and outputting audio of the suggested steering action using the speaker (See at least Koh Paragraphs 0029-0032, 0036-0037, 0041, and Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ignaczak teaches it is determined that the vehicle has reached the parking lot based on the location information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0020 and 0031, the computer, which is interpreted to include the operation determining device, determines if the vehicle is in the parking based on the GPS/location information).
Modified Ignaczak fails to disclose the operation determining device determines that the vehicle is travelling on a slope of the parking lot when a pitch angle exceeds or is below a preset range based on the inclination information.
However, Shipley teaches the operation determining device determines that the vehicle is travelling on a slope of the parking lot when a pitch angle exceeds or is below a preset range based on the inclination information (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0043, 0047, and Figure 3, the change in pitch/inclination of the vehicle is used to determine that the vehicle has entered a parking lot with a slope; the change in pitch angle is interpreted as the pitch angle exceeds or is below the preset range/normal value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Shipley to determine that the vehicle is travelling on a slope of the parking lot when a pitch angle exceeds or is below a preset range based on the inclination information. Shipley teaches a multi-level parking structure that has a curved ramp (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026 and Figure 1). Since the parking structure includes multiple levels, the vehicle will drive on the curved ramp when entering the parking lot, which will cause a change in pitch, which one of ordinary skill in the art can use to determine that the vehicle is traveling on a slope of the parking lot (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026, 0043, 0047, and Figure 3). This modification will help improve the vehicle location determination.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ignaczak teaches the obstacle includes…a curb of the curved road (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0040-0043 and Figure 8, the obstacle is a curb).
Modified Ignaczak fails to disclose that the obstacle includes a wall surface.
However, Shipley teaches the obstacle is a wall surface (See at least Shipley Paragraph 0025, the parking structure includes obstacles like walls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Shipley to have the obstacles include a wall surface. Shipley teaches that walls are obstacles that constrain the vehicle (See at least Shipley Paragraph 0025). This modification would improve the safety of the system by preventing the vehicle from colliding with walls by treating them as obstacles.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ignaczak teaches the controller is further configured to: when receiving information obtained by determining that the vehicle has entered the parking lot from the operation determining device, recognize…the curb of the curved road based on the image information obtained from a region in front of the vehicle (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0023, 0026, and Figure 7, the curb of the parking lot is detected using the cameras whose detection fields include a region in front of the vehicle); and
generate the virtual map based on the recognized…curb (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0032-0036, the virtual map about obstacles like a curb is generated by the image data from the cameras).
Modified Ignaczak fails to disclose recognize the wall surface based on the image information and
generate the virtual map based on the recognized wall surface.
However, Shipley teaches recognize the wall surface based on the image information (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0014 and 0048, the camera is used to identify walls) and
generate the virtual map based on the recognized wall surface (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0023-0025 and 0064, the indoor parking structure is mapped, which includes detecting and recording the walls using the image data from the cameras).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Shipley to generate the virtual map based on the recognized wall surface. Shipley teaches that walls are obstacles that constrain the vehicle (See at least Shipley Paragraph 0025). This modification would improve the safety of the system by preventing the vehicle from colliding with walls by including them in the virtual map used to avoid obstacles.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ignaczak teaches the controller is further configured to correct an error of the virtual map with respect to…the curb based on the distance information provided from an ultrasonic sensor (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0026, 0032-0036, the virtual map is generated and updated using image data in combination with distance information from an ultrasonic sensor to better improve determination of an object's location in three-dimensional space, which is interpreted as correcting an error).
Modified Ignaczak fails to disclose to correct an error of the virtual map with respect to the wall surface based on the distance information provided from an ultrasonic sensor
However, Shipley teaches using distance information provided from an ultrasonic sensor to detect and record walls (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0048 and 0064, the image data is used with ultrasound data to detect and record walls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Shipley to correct an error of the virtual map with respect to the wall surface based on the distance information provided from an ultrasonic sensor. Shipley teaches that walls are obstacles that constrain the vehicle, which are detected by an ultrasonic sensor (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0025, 0048 and 0064). By using the ultrasonic sensor to correct an error of the virtual map with respect to the wall surfaces, the walls will be accurately mapped, which will prevent the vehicle from colliding with the walls, thus, improving the safety of the system.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Ignaczak teaches a navigation to provide the location information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0020 and 0031, the GPS is interpreted as the navigation),
a camera installed at a front portion of the vehicle to provide the image information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0023, 0026, and Figure 7, the cameras are provided on the front of the vehicle and take images),
an ultrasonic sensor to provide the distance information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0026, and 0036, the ultrasonic sensors provide distance information),
a steering sensor to provide the steering information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0019, and 0033, the data collectors 110c collect the steering angle/information, which is interpreted as the data collectors 110c have a steering sensor),
and a speed sensor to provide the speed information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0019, and 0033, the data collectors 110c collect the velocity information, which is interpreted as the data collectors 110c have a speed sensor).
Modified Ignaczak fails to disclose a pitch sensor to provide the inclination information.
However, Shipley teaches a pitch sensor to provide the inclination information (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0047 and 0057, the gyroscope and accelerometer are interpreted as pitch sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Shipley to have a pitch sensor to provide the inclination information. Shipley teaches a multi-level parking structure that has a curved ramp (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026 and Figure 1). Since the parking structure includes multiple levels, the vehicle will drive on the curved ramp when entering the parking lot, which will cause a change in pitch detected by the pitch sensor, which one of ordinary skill in the art can use to determine that the vehicle has entered the parking lot (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026, 0043, 0047, and Figure 3). This modification will help improve the vehicle location determination.
Regarding Claim 13, Ignaczak teaches a method for a vehicle to avoid a collision (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0016, 0041-0043, and Figure 5, the method for the vehicle avoids collisions with curbs), the method comprising:
recognizing, by a controller, …a curb of the…road based on an image of a region in front of the vehicle (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0019, 0023, 0026, and Figure 7, the curb is detected by the computer/controller using the data from the cameras whose detection fields include a region in front of the vehicle);
generating, by the controller, a virtual map about the recognized…curb (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0032-0036, the virtual map about obstacles like a curb is generated by the computer/controller using image data and distance information form an ultrasonic sensor);
generating, by the controller, an expected movement trajectory that indicates a future travel path of the vehicle based on steering information and speed information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0040-0043, the expected movement trajectory of the vehicle is predicted based on the velocity and steering angle);
predicting, by the controller, a collision between the vehicle and the wall surface or the curb in the virtual map (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0040-0043 and Figure 5, a collision between the vehicle and the curb in the virtual map is predicted)…; and
providing a guideline that avoids the collision to a notification device in response that the collision is predicted (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0043-0044, the computer/controller provides guidelines that avoids collision with the curb such as “To avoid tire damage, reduce steering angle and/or velocity” to the HMI/notification device when the collision is predicted).
Ignaczak fails to disclose determining, by an operation determining device, whether the vehicle is traveling on an inclined curved road of a parking lot;
recognizing a wall surface of the inclined curved road and
generating, by the controller, a virtual map about the recognized wall surface.
However, Shipley teaches determining, by an operation determining device (See at least Shipley Paragraph 0069, the controller is interpreted to include an operation determining device, which receives sensor data), whether the vehicle is traveling on an inclined curved road of a parking lot (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026, 0043, 0047, and Figures 1 and 3, the parking structure includes a circular ramp, which is interpreted as an inclined curved road of a parking lot, and the pitch/inclination and yaw of the vehicle is used to determine that the vehicle is traveling on the inclined curved road of the parking lot);
recognizing a wall surface of the inclined curved road (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0014 and 0048, the camera is used to identify walls) and
generating, by the controller, a virtual map about the recognized wall surface (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0023-0025 and 0064, the indoor parking structure is mapped, which includes detecting and recording the walls using the image data from the cameras).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Ignaczak with Shipley to determine that the vehicle is traveling on an inclined curved road of a parking lot and to generate a virtual map about the recognized wall surface. Shipley teaches a multi-level parking structure that has a curved ramp (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026 and Figure 1). Since the parking structure includes multiple levels, the vehicle will drive on the curved ramp when entering the parking lot, which will cause a change in pitch and yaw, which one of ordinary skill in the art can use to determine that the vehicle has entered the parking lot (See at least Shipley Paragraphs 0026, 0043, 0047, and Figure 3). This modification will help improve the vehicle location determination. Shipley also teaches that walls are obstacles that constrain the vehicle (See at least Shipley Paragraph 0025). By generating a virtual map about the recognized wall surface, the safety of the system would be improved by preventing the vehicle from colliding with walls by including them in the virtual map used to avoid obstacles.
Even though Ignaczak teaches predicting a collision between the obstacle and the vehicle, modified Ignaczak fails to disclose…superimposing the future travel path onto the virtual map;
and predicting the collision between the vehicle and the wall surface or the curb…based on matching the recognized wall surface and curb in the virtual map with the future travel path of the vehicle superimposed on the virtual map.
However, Kim teaches …superimposing the future travel path onto the virtual map (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0006, 0531-0537, and Figure 18, the predicted/future travel path “1503” is superimposed onto the virtual map/side-rear image);
and predicting the collision between the vehicle and the wall surface or the curb …based on matching the recognized wall surface and curb in the virtual map with the future travel path of the vehicle superimposed on the virtual map (See at least Kim Paragraphs 0139-0141, 0537-0541, and Figure 18, the collision point between the obstacle, which includes structures such as buildings/wall surfaces and curbs, and the vehicle is predicted based on matching the obstacle in the virtual map/side-rear image with the predicted/future travel path that is superimposed on the virtual map/side-rear image) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Kim to predict the collision between the wall surface or the curb and the vehicle based on matching the recognized wall surface and curb in the virtual map with the future travel path of the vehicle superimposed on the virtual map. This modification, as taught by Kim, would display the predicted collision point between the wall surface/building or curb and the vehicle using the superimposed predicted/future travel of the vehicle and the location of the wall surface/building or curb, thus allowing the driver to easily perceive the potentially dangerous object (See at least Kim Paragraph 0516, 0537-0541, and Figure 18), which would improve the safety of the vehicle and help prevent collisions.
Even though Ignaczak teaches providing a guideline that avoids the collision, modified Ignaczak fails to disclose wherein the guideline which is a visual trajectory superimposed on the virtual map to avoid the collision is provided by the controller to a driver as visual information via a display device installed in the vehicle and operatively connected to the controller, and
wherein the guideline further include an auditory guideline proving a trajectory, along which the vehicle follows to avoid the collision.
However, Koh teaches the guideline which is a visual trajectory superimposed on the virtual map to avoid the collision is provided by the controller to a driver as visual information via a display device installed in the vehicle and operatively connected to the controller (See at least Koh Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0032, 0036-0037, and Figures 3-4, the driving path provided by the control circuitry/controller to avoid the collision is superimposed on the virtual map via a display device installed in the vehicle and connected to the controller/control circuitry), and
wherein the guideline further include an auditory guideline proving a trajectory, along which the vehicle follows to avoid the collision (See at least Koh Paragraphs 0029-0031, 0036, and 0041, the guideline to avoid the collision includes audio output by a speaker).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Koh to have the guideline, which includes a visual trajectory superimposed on the virtual map to avoid the collision, be provided to the driver as visual information via a display device installed in the vehicle and as an auditory guideline proving a trajectory. This modification, as taught by Koh, would improve the safety of the system by providing a driving path that avoids the collision to the driver by displaying the driving path on the display and outputting audio of the suggested steering action using the speaker (See at least Koh Paragraphs 0029-0032, 0036-0037, 0041, and Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Ignaczak teaches correcting, by the controller, an error of the virtual map based on distance information collected from an ultrasonic sensor (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0026, 0032-0036, the virtual map is generated and updated using image data in combination with distance information from an ultrasonic sensor to better improve determination of an object's location in three-dimensional space, which is interpreted as correcting an error).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Ignaczak teaches providing, by the controller, a warning notification information to a driver for each collision-predicted-distance between the vehicle and the wall surface or the curb when the collision is predicted in the predicting of the collision (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0040-0043 and Figure 5, an alert/warning notification information is provided when the curb is within a certain distance of the vehicle and the vehicle may strike the curb).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Ignaczak teaches stopping the vehicle, by a braking device, when the collision is predicted in the predicting of the collision and when a collision-predicted-distance between the wall surface or the curb and the vehicle is smaller than a preset distance (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0016, 0040-0041 and Table 1, the brakes stop the vehicle when the collision is predicted and a distance to the curb is below a certain distance, such as 5 cm).
Claims 6-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignaczak in view of Shipley, Kim, and Koh, and in further view of Johnson (US 20200033125 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Johnson)
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, modified Ignaczak teaches the controller is further configured to predict a collision between the vehicle and a wall surface or a curb in the virtual map when the vehicle travels with the expected movement trajectory based on…an overall length, and a location of each wheel of the vehicle (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0039-0043 and Figures 4-5, a collision between the vehicle and the curb in the virtual map is predicted when the vehicle travels with the expected movement trajectory, based on the wheel representation, which includes the wheel length and location of each wheel).
Modified Ignaczak fails to disclose that the collision is predicted when the vehicle travels with the expected movement trajectory based on an overall width of each wheel.
However, Johnson teaches predicting a collision when the vehicle travels with the expected movement trajectory based on an overall width of the wheels (See at least Johnson Paragraph 0045 and Figure 10, the travel path profile is at least as wide as the machine’s wheels, and the width of the wheels is used to predict a collision for the travel path profile/expected movement trajectory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Johnson to predict a collision when the vehicle travels with the expected movement trajectory based on an overall width of each wheel. Johnson teaches that the travel path profile/expected movement trajectory is at least as wide as the vehicle’s wheels (See at least Johnson Paragraph 0045 and Figure 10). By using the width of the vehicle’s wheels when predicting a collision, the system can determine if the total width of the vehicle, which includes its wheels, collides with an obstacle (See at least Johnson Paragraph 0045 and Figure 10), which would improve the accuracy of the collision prediction.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ignaczak teaches the controller is further configured to generate warning notification information for each collision-predicted-distance between the vehicle and the wall surface or the curb when the collision between the vehicle and the wall surface or the curb in the virtual map is predicted (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0040-0043 and Figure 5, an alert/warning notification information is generated when the curb is within a certain distance of the vehicle and the vehicle may strike the curb).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ignaczak teaches the notification device to provide the warning notification information to a driver as at least one of visual information or auditory information when receiving the warning notification information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0022 and 0043, an audio or visual alert is provided to the driver using the HMI/notification device).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ignaczak teaches the controller is further configured to generate braking information when the collision between the vehicle and the wall surface or the curb in the virtual map is predicted (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0016, 0040-0041 and Table 1,the brake controller applies brakes when the collision with the curb is predicted, which is interpreted as generating braking information) and when a distance between the vehicle and the wall surface or the curb predicted to collide with the vehicle is below a preset distance (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0040-0043 and Table 1, the braking information is generated when the distance to the curb is below a certain distance, such as 5 cm).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ignaczak teaches a braking device to stop the vehicle when receiving the braking information (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0016, 0040-0041 and Table 1, the brakes stop the vehicle when receiving the braking information from the braking controller).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignaczak in view of Shipley, Kim, and Koh, and in further view of Mehdi et al (US 20200143546 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Mehdi)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Ignaczak teaches the virtual map…are provided to a driver as visual information by the display device installed in the vehicle (See at least Ignaczak Paragraphs 0034-0035, 0039, and Figure 4, the display is updated with the virtual map).
Modified Ignaczak fails to disclose the expected movement trajectory is provided to a driver as visual information by the display device installed in the vehicle.
However, Mehdi teaches the expected movement trajectory is provided to a driver as visual information by the display device installed in the vehicle (See at least Mehdi Paragraph 0068 and Figure 4, the expected trajectory 411 is provided to the driver via the display device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Ignaczak with Mehdi to display the expected movement trajectory as visual information by the display device installed in the vehicle. This modification would allow the driver to see that the expected movement trajectory is undesirable (See at least Mehdi Paragraph 0068 and Figure 4), thus, improving the safety and awareness of the driver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on Page 8 of the remarks, that Koh does not disclose “the guideline further include an auditory guideline proving a trajectory, along which the vehicle follows to avoid the collision”. Applicant states that Koh “merely discloses proving a route to avoid a collision only by visual guide”.
However, this is incorrect. Koh also discloses, specifically in Paragraphs 0031, 0036, and 0041, a speaker that outputs audio for avoiding the collision. The audio output “may be in the form of speech-based instructions of which way to maneuver vehicle” (See Koh Paragraph 0031). The speaker is used “in connection with providing a suggested steering action indicator to a driver of vehicle 400 via user interface indicating one or more movements (e.g., to turn vehicle 400 towards a side) for vehicle 400 to avoid an obstacle.” (See Koh Paragraph 0041). Therefore, “the guideline further include an auditory guideline proving a trajectory, along which the vehicle follows to avoid the collision” is obvious in view of Koh.
For these reasons, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights