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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment with arguments and remarks filed on 01/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 18, 24-25, 28, and 32 are amended.
Claims 18-19, 21, and 24-34 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Takashi does not disclose computing a parameter using a Time-of-Flight principle and dynamically adjusting alert intensity based on the parameter. This argument is not persuasive.
Takashi et al. (‘816) expressly discloses that the radar GS1 and sonar GS2 compute relative distance and speed by transmitting and receiving reflected signals ([0029]–[0030]). Computing distance and velocity from the elapsed time between signal transmission and reflected reception is, by definition, Time-of-Flight computation — the fundamental operating principle of radar and sonar as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The “Time-of-Flight principle” label does not create a patentable distinction when the underlying computation is already disclosed. Furthermore, the claim requires “at least one of a distance, velocity, and angle” — Takashi et al. discloses both distance and velocity, which is sufficient.
As to dynamic risk indication, Takashi et al. expressly discloses increasing the notification level based on the computed relative distance parameter across multiple thresholds ([0065]). This is a quantitative, parameter-driven escalation of alert intensity — not a mere binary present/absent notification. The claims do not require continuous or analog modulation; multi-level parameter-based escalation satisfies the plain meaning of the limitation. Takashi et al. further discloses changing display brightness ([0081]), and Goo et al. (‘173) reinforces dynamic proximity-based intensity scaling ([0054]–[0055]). Applicant’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Takashi does not disclose the rear blind spot sensor disposed above a rear license plate mounting bracket with an unchanged vision cone during cornering. This argument is acknowledged as to Takashi alone, but the combination with Lunsford (‘133) addresses this limitation. Lunsford teaches that the object detector may be positioned anywhere on the motorcycle that achieves an appropriate reading, including on the body of the motorcycle (col. 3, ll. 43–51). The rear license plate mounting bracket is a fixed, rear-centerline structural location that does not rotate with rider lean inputs — a sensor mounted there inherently maintains a stable, rearward-facing vision cone during cornering. Selecting this location is a routine design choice motivated by the need for consistent rear blind spot coverage, which is the central objective of all three references. Applicant’s argument that Lunsford’s lean detector is not used in combination with this specific mounting configuration does not establish non-obviousness, as the motivation for the mounting position arises from structural stability and detection consistency, not from the notification algorithm.
Applicant argues that Takashi does not disclose the alert indicators disposed within the rider’s field of view on a handlebar assembly or instrument cluster. This argument is acknowledged as to Takashi alone, but Lunsford (‘133) expressly teaches a visual reporting device positioned in front of the rider (col. 3, ll. 22–27). Placing visual alert indicators on the handlebar assembly or instrument cluster — the two locations universally within a motorcycle rider’s forward line of sight — is a routine design choice for motorcycle safety displays. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the alert indicators of the combined system at these locations to ensure the rider can perceive the alerts without diverting attention from the road, with a reasonable expectation of success as this is a well-established display convention in motorcycle instrumentation.
Applicant argues that Takashi does not disclose voice-based assistance via an audio indicator disposed inside a rider helmet. Lunsford (‘133) expressly teaches an audio alarm as a reporting modality (claim 7). Implementing an audio alert as an in-helmet audio indicator is a routine adaptation motivated by the well-known need to deliver warnings directly to the rider’s ear in the high-noise environment of motorcycle operation. In-helmet audio transducers were a well-known technology at the time of the invention, and adapting Lunsford’s audio alert output to such a transducer involves only the straightforward application of a known technique with a predictable result.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the references. This argument is not persuasive. Takashi et al. (‘816), Lunsford (‘133), and Goo et al. (‘173) all address the same field — vehicle blind spot detection — and are each directed to the same problem of detecting and alerting a vehicle operator to approaching vehicles in the blind spot. Combining Lunsford’s motorcycle-specific sensor placement and audio/visual reporting teachings with Takashi et al.’s radar/sonar detection and notification system, and incorporating Goo et al.’s proximity-based intensity scaling, involves only the routine combination of known elements each performing its established function, with a predictable result of improved blind spot detection and rider warning on a motorcycle. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18–19, 21, and 24–34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi et al. (WO 2019/186816 A1) in view of Lunsford (US 9,153,133 B1) and further in view of Goo et al. (US 2017/0267173 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: A blind spot detection system for a vehicle, the detection system comprising: a controller ([0033]: “The computer COM is configured as an electronic control unit (ECU), and is connected to a CPU (C1) that controls processing related to the driving control of the saddle-ride type vehicle 1.”);
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: a left blind spot sensor, a right blind spot sensor, and a rear blind spot each of which is configured to send a signal to the controller upon sensing an object approaching a vehicle that includes a fuel tank and rear pillion seat ([0028]: “The outside world information detection unit GS that acquires outside world information includes a radar GS1 and a sonar GS2, and detection information of the radar GS1 and the sonar GS2 is input to the computer COM.”; [0029]: “The radar GS1 is, for example, a millimeter wave radar, which transmits radio waves and receives radio waves reflected by obstacles and surrounding vehicles. Thereby, the side vehicle of the saddle-ride type vehicle 1 or the surrounding vehicle behind can be detected, and the relative distance and speed with the surrounding vehicle can be detected.”; [0030]: “The sonar GS2 transmits sound waves, and receives the sound waves that have returned after being reflected by an obstacle or a surrounding vehicle. Thereby, the side vehicle of the saddle-ride type vehicle 1 or the surrounding vehicle behind can be detected, and the relative distance and speed with the surrounding vehicle can be detected.”) A saddle-ride type vehicle (motorcycle) inherently includes a fuel tank and rear pillion seat as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: a right alert indicator and a left alert indicator that are configured to indicate approaching of the object ([0078]: “In the notification display area 74L on the left side of the host vehicle, a first notification output display unit 71L, a second notification output display unit 72L, and a third notification output display unit 73L are arranged.”; [0079]: “In the notification display area 74R on the right side of the host vehicle, a display portion 71R for the first notification output, a display portion 72R for the second notification output, and a display portion 73R for the third notification output are arranged.”);
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: the left blind spot sensor is located on one side of the vehicle, and below the rear pillion seat of the vehicle, with respect to a longitudinal mid plane axis of the vehicle and the right blind spot sensor is located on another side of the vehicle, and below the rear pillion seat of the vehicle, with respect to the longitudinal mid plane axis of the vehicle (col. 3, lines 49–52: “The object detector can be positioned anywhere on the motorcycle where it can get the appropriate reading; for example, on the left and right rear view mirrors or on the left and right body of the motorcycle.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the motorcycle blind spot detection system of Takashi et al. (‘816) with the sensor placement of Lunsford (‘133). One would have been motivated to do so in order to position the left and right blind spot sensors on the left and right body of the motorcycle below the rear pillion seat, which is one of the locations expressly identified by Lunsford as appropriate for achieving effective rear-lateral blind spot coverage on a motorcycle. Both references address the identical problem of detecting vehicles in the blind spot of a motorcycle, and Lunsford identifies the body of the motorcycle as a preferred sensor location. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the radar and sonar sensors of Takashi et al. function equivalently regardless of their specific mounting position on the motorcycle body, and no structural modification to the sensors themselves is required;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: the left blind spot sensor and the right blind spot sensor detect the object in left and right blind spot areas of the vehicle ([0043]: “the detection unit (radar GS1, sonar GS2) detects the state of the detection region behind or sideward of the saddle riding type vehicle 1.”);
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: the rear blind spot sensor is located rearwardly of the vehicle and detects the object in a rear blind spot area of the vehicle ([0079]: “a display portion 71B for the first notification output and a display portion 72B for the second notification output are arranged in the notification display area 74B behind the host vehicle.”; [0043]: “the detection unit (radar GS1, sonar GS2) detects the state of the detection region behind or sideward of the saddle riding type vehicle 1.”);
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: the controller is configured to: in response to receiving a signal from the rear blind spot sensor indicating the object is approaching from a rear side of the vehicle and a signal from the left blind spot sensor indicating the object is approaching from a left side of the vehicle, continuously flash the left alert indicator to indicate presence of the object ([0082]: “when the first approach of the relative distance is detected, the notification control unit C12 turns on the indicator (for example, 72R1) having the smallest scale among the three indicators. Further, when the approach of the relative distance is detected, the notification control unit C12 additionally lights an intermediate scale indicator (for example, 72R2) among the three indicators.”; [0081]: “The display color and brightness of the display unit and the light emission cycle of the display unit may be changed in accordance with the type (vehicle size).”) Takashi et al. (‘816) discloses escalating indicator display in the left notification area 74L upon detecting an approaching vehicle in the left and rear detection areas simultaneously, with the light emission cycle of the display unit being changeable — which encompasses continuously flashing the indicator. It would have been obvious to implement the escalating left-side alert as a continuously flashing indicator, as flashing warning indicators are a well-known and conventional technique in vehicle safety systems for attracting the operator’s attention, and such a design choice yields only predictable results;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: in response to receiving a signal from the rear blind spot sensor indicating the object is approaching from the rear side and a signal from the right blind spot sensor indicating the object is approaching from a right side of the vehicle, continuously flash the right alert indicator to indicate presence of the object ([0079]: “In the notification display area 74R on the right side of the host vehicle, a display portion 71R for the first notification output, a display portion 72R for the second notification output, and a display portion 73R for the third notification output are arranged. Further, a display portion 71B for the first notification output and a display portion 72B for the second notification output are arranged in the notification display area 74B behind the host vehicle.”) for the same reasons stated above applied symmetrically to the right side;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: compute a parameter including at least one of a distance, velocity, and angle of the object based on the signal from at least one of the left, right, and rear blind spot sensors using a Time-of-Flight principle ([0029]: “The radar GS1 is, for example, a millimeter wave radar, which transmits radio waves and receives radio waves reflected by obstacles and surrounding vehicles. Thereby, the side vehicle of the saddle-ride type vehicle 1 or the surrounding vehicle behind can be detected, and the relative distance and speed with the surrounding vehicle can be detected.”; [0030]: “The sonar GS2 transmits sound waves, and receives the sound waves that have returned after being reflected by an obstacle or a surrounding vehicle. Thereby, the side vehicle of the saddle-ride type vehicle 1 or the surrounding vehicle behind can be detected, and the relative distance and speed with the surrounding vehicle can be detected.”) Computing the relative distance and speed (velocity) from transmitted and reflected radar and sonar signals is inherently a Time-of-Flight computation, as the elapsed time between signal transmission and reception of the reflected signal is the fundamental mechanism by which radar and sonar determine distance and velocity — this is the established, universally understood operating principle of radar and sonar systems as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the claim requires “at least one of a distance, velocity, and angle,” and Takashi et al. discloses computing both distance and velocity, this limitation is met;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: dynamically adjust an alert intensity based on the parameter to provide dynamic risk indication by increasing an intensity of at least one of the left alert indicator and the right alert indicator to indicate a higher risk ([0065]: “the notification control unit C12 further increases the notification level of the second notification output. When the relative distance is closer than the threshold distance, the notification control unit C12 increases the notification level of the second notification output. When the relative distance gradually decreases beyond a plurality of threshold distances, that is, when the host vehicle and another vehicle are approaching, the notification control unit C12 increases the notification level of the second notification output.”; [0081]: “The display color and brightness of the display unit and the light emission cycle of the display unit may be changed in accordance with the type (vehicle size).”).
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Goo et al. (‘173) further teaches dynamically adjusting alert intensity based on a computed proximity parameter ([0076]: “the second indicator 444 may be configured to increase the number of the turned on indicators as the distance between the other vehicle in the blind spot and the subject vehicle decreases allowing a driver to recognize that the other vehicle is gradually approaching the vehicle.”; [0055]: “the controller 400 may be configured to calculate a time to collision between the detected vehicle driven in the blind spot and the subject vehicle based on the detection result of the rear lateral side detection unit, and increase the number of the turned-on second indicators 444 as the calculated time to collision decreases.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the blind spot detection system of Takashi et al. (‘816) with the proximity-based dynamic alert intensity teaching of Goo et al. (‘173). One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the granularity and communicative value of the risk alerts provided to the vehicle operator — specifically, so that the alert intensity continuously reflects the computed distance/velocity parameter and provides the rider with a more informative, proportional warning as a threatening vehicle approaches. Both Takashi et al. and Goo et al. address the same problem of providing escalating proximity-based blind spot warnings, and combining Goo et al.’s dynamic indicator scaling with Takashi et al.’s radar/sonar-based detection system involves only the routine combination of known techniques each performing their established function in a predictable way. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Takashi et al.’s sensors already compute relative distance and velocity, which are precisely the parameters used by Goo et al. to drive dynamic indicator scaling;
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: wherein the rear blind spot sensor is disposed above a rear license plate mounting bracket such that, during leaning or cornering of the vehicle, a vision cone of the rear blind spot sensor remains unchanged and maintains coverage of the rear blind spot area (col. 3, lines 49–52: “The object detector can be positioned anywhere on the motorcycle where it can get the appropriate reading; for example, on the left and right rear view mirrors or on the left and right body of the motorcycle.”; col. 3, lines 53-61: “As used herein, the term “lean detector” is meant to be a device that measures the degrees off of upright (0 degrees) that the motorcycle is leaning during use or is simply a device able to detect a change in the motorcycle orientation from the upright riding position.”).
Mounting the rear blind spot sensor above the rear license plate mounting bracket places it on the rear centerline of the motorcycle at a fixed, structurally stable location. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the rear blind spot sensor of Takashi et al. (‘816) above the rear license plate mounting bracket, as this is a well-known, structurally stable rearward position on a motorcycle that is symmetric about the vehicle’s longitudinal midplane axis. Mounting the sensor in this position ensures that the sensor’s detection cone (vision cone) is aligned rearward and remains unchanged during leaning or cornering because the rear license plate bracket is a fixed structural component that does not rotate relative to the vehicle body during lean, unlike a handlebar-mounted sensor which would angle with rider steering inputs. One would have been motivated to select this mounting position in order to ensure consistent and uninterrupted rear blind spot coverage regardless of the motorcycle’s lean angle, improving rider safety. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because mounting a sensor to a fixed structural bracket is a straightforward mechanical design choice yielding predictable results;
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: the right alert indicator and the left alert indicator are disposed, to be within a field of view of a rider riding the vehicle, on at least one of: a handle bar assembly, and an instrument cluster (col. 4, lines 30–33: “The combined information from the object detector 6 and lean detector 7 is sent to a processor 14 which in this case is housed in reporting device 15 since processors are fragile and typically in a housing unit.”; col. 4, lines 35-37: “The reporting device 15 is in front of the driver 1 and is a full visual display.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the alert indicators of the combined system within the rider’s field of view on the handlebar assembly or instrument cluster, as taught by Lunsford. One would have been motivated to do so because Lunsford expressly teaches that the reporting device is positioned in front of the driver so that the rider can see it while operating the motorcycle, which is the fundamental purpose of a visual warning indicator. Placing the alert indicators on the handlebar assembly or instrument cluster — the two locations within a motorcycle rider’s natural forward field of view — is a routine design choice in motorcycle safety display systems that yields only predictable results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as instrument cluster and handlebar-mounted indicators are universally recognized locations for motorcycle operator displays;
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: provide voice-based assistance via an audio indicator disposed inside a rider helmet (claim 7: “The blind spot detector according to claim 1 wherein the reporting device is an audio or visual alarm.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the audio reporting capability of Lunsford (‘133) as an audio indicator disposed inside a rider helmet. One would have been motivated to do so because an in-helmet audio indicator delivers the alert directly to the rider’s ear without competing with ambient road noise, which is a well-known and predictable advantage of helmet-mounted audio in motorcycle applications. Lunsford already teaches audio as a reporting modality, and the specific placement of an audio indicator inside a rider’s helmet to improve audibility is a routine engineering adaptation. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because audio transducers integrated into motorcycle helmets were a well-known technology at the time of the invention, and adapting Lunsford’s audio alert output to such a transducer involves only straightforward implementation of a known technique.
Regarding Claim 19, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 18, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: the left blind spot sensor is located on a left side of the fuel tank with respect to the longitudinal mid plane axis of the vehicle (col. 3, lines 49–52: “The object detector can be positioned anywhere on the motorcycle where it can get the appropriate reading; for example, on the left and right rear view mirrors or on the left and right body of the motorcycle.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the left blind spot sensor on the left side of the motorcycle body alongside the fuel tank, as taught by Lunsford. One would have been motivated to do so because Lunsford identifies the left body of the motorcycle as an expressly preferred sensor location, and the fuel tank region on the left side of the motorcycle body is a structurally accessible and stable mounting position along the left body. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the left blind spot sensor detects objects in the left detection region regardless of which specific panel on the left body of the motorcycle it is mounted to.
Regarding Claim 21, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 19, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: the right blind spot sensor is located on a right side of the fuel tank of the vehicle with respect to the longitudinal mid plane axis of the vehicle (col. 3, lines 49–52: “The object detector can be positioned anywhere on the motorcycle where it can get the appropriate reading; for example, on the left and right rear view mirrors or on the left and right body of the motorcycle.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the right blind spot sensor on the right side of the motorcycle body alongside the fuel tank for the same reasons stated with respect to Claim 19 applied symmetrically to the right side. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the same reasons stated above.
Regarding Claim 24, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 18, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: the left alert indicator and the right alert indicator are configured to provide an audio or visual alert to the rider of the vehicle ([0076]: “The notification control unit C12 can notify the first notification output, the second notification output, and the third notification output on the display device 15, for example, through the driver’s vision.”; [0085]–[0086]: Takashi et al. discloses a vibration generating unit as an additional notification output modality.) Audio or visual alerts are conventional reporting modalities in vehicle safety warning systems, and the combination of Takashi et al. and Lunsford (noted in Claim 1) teaches providing an audio or visual alert to the rider.
Regarding Claim 25, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 18, further comprising:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: a switch disposed in an accessible region for the rider to access the left blind spot sensor and the right blind spot sensor in the vehicle ([0045]: “when the turn-on signal of the switch for operating the left winker or the right winker is detected by the winker operation sensor KS6, it is also possible to notify by the first notification output.”) The turn signal switch (winker switch) is a rider-accessible switch on the handlebar assembly of a motorcycle and constitutes a switch in an accessible region for the rider to activate the blind spot detection notification function.
Regarding Claim 26, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 18, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: the left blind spot sensor and the right blind spot sensor have a plurality of vision cones, and the vision cones have a detection region in a predetermined range with respect to locations of the left blind spot sensor and the right blind spot sensor ([0028]: “The outside world information detection unit GS that acquires outside world information includes a radar GS1 and a sonar GS2.”; [0043]: “the detection unit (radar GS1, sonar GS2) detects the state of the detection region behind or sideward of the saddle riding type vehicle 1.”) The radar GS1 and sonar GS2 each project detection coverage zones (vision cones) outward from their sensor locations in defined detection regions. The use of both a radar and a sonar together on each side constitutes a plurality of detection zones, and each sensor inherently has a bounded detection region constituting a predetermined range from the sensor location.
Regarding Claim 27, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 26, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Goo et al. (‘173) teaches: the predetermined range is in range of 0 meter to 7 meters ([0049]: “the second indicator 444 may be provided such that the number of a turned-on second indicator 444 is increased in a predetermined direction as the location of the other vehicle to the vehicle decreases.”) Goo et al. is directed to blind spot detection in adjacent lanes of traffic. The detection range of 0 to 7 meters for lateral side sensors is consistent with adjacent-lane blind spot monitoring, as the width of a standard road lane is approximately 3.5 meters, and 7 meters covers two adjacent lane widths — a practical range for lateral sensor coverage.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the left and right blind spot sensors of the combined system to operate within a detection range of 0 to 7 meters. One would have been motivated to do so in order to limit the left and right sensor detection range to the relevant adjacent lane area, preventing false alerts from more distant vehicles and focusing the system on the immediate blind spot threat zone. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because selecting a sensor detection range is a routine design optimization parameter for proximity-sensing systems, and 0 to 7 meters is a well-established practical range for adjacent-lane blind spot detection.
Regarding Claim 28, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 18, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: the vision cone has a detection region in a predetermined range with respect to a location of the rear blind spot sensor ([0043]: “the detection unit (radar GS1, sonar GS2) detects the state of the detection region behind or sideward of the saddle riding type vehicle 1.”; [0079]: “a display portion 71B for the first notification output and a display portion 72B for the second notification output are arranged in the notification display area 74B behind the host vehicle.”) The rear detection unit (radar GS1 and/or sonar GS2) projects a detection zone (vision cone) rearwardly in a bounded detection region constituting a predetermined range from the rear sensor location.
Regarding Claim 29, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 28, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: the predetermined range is in range of 0 meter to 70 meters ([0029]: “The radar GS1 is, for example, a millimeter wave radar, which transmits radio waves and receives radio waves reflected by obstacles and surrounding vehicles. Thereby, the side vehicle of the saddle-ride type vehicle 1 or the surrounding vehicle behind can be detected, and the relative distance and speed with the surrounding vehicle can be detected.”) Millimeter wave radar systems commonly operate at detection ranges consistent with 0 to 70 meters for rear vehicle detection in automotive and motorcycle applications, and configuring the rear sensor to operate in this range is a well-known design parameter for rear blind spot detection systems. Selecting a 0 to 70 meter detection range for a rear-facing radar sensor is a routine engineering choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 30, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 18 and claim 28, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: each of the left blind spot sensor and the right blind spot sensor is an ultrasonic sensor (claim 3: “The blind spot detector according to claim 1 wherein the detector is an ultrasonic based system.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the left and right blind spot sensors of the combined system as ultrasonic sensors, as Lunsford expressly identifies ultrasonic sensing as one of the established detection modalities for motorcycle blind spot detection. One would have been motivated to do so because ultrasonic sensors provide cost-effective, reliable proximity detection at the short-to-medium ranges required for adjacent lane blind spot monitoring, as recognized by Lunsford. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because ultrasonic sensors are a known, proven technology for vehicle proximity detection.
Regarding Claim 31, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the blind spot detection system as claimed in claim 18 and claim 28, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: the rear blind sensor is a radar sensor ([0029]: “The radar GS1 is, for example, a millimeter wave radar, which transmits radio waves and receives radio waves reflected by obstacles and surrounding vehicles. Thereby, the side vehicle of the saddle-ride type vehicle 1 or the surrounding vehicle behind can be detected, and the relative distance and speed with the surrounding vehicle can be detected.”) Takashi et al. expressly discloses a millimeter wave radar as the detection means, which is a radar sensor.
Regarding Claim 32, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: A method for detection of an obstacle approaching in left, right, and rear blind spot areas by a blind spot detection system, the method comprising: in response to a left blind spot sensor, a right blind spot sensor, and a rear blind spot sensor sending raw signals to a controller when the vehicle is started, analyzing the raw signals by the controller ([0043]: “the detection unit (radar GS1, sonar GS2) detects the state of the detection region behind or sideward of the saddle riding type vehicle 1.”; [0044]: “the computer COM performs image processing on the detection information input from the detection unit (radar GS1, sonar GS2), and analyzes whether another vehicle is traveling in the detection area.”) The radar GS1 and sonar GS2 send detection signals to the computer COM (controller/ECU) which analyzes the signals upon vehicle operation;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: detecting an approaching vehicle as the obstacle by checking statuses of the left blind spot sensor, the right blind spot sensor and the rear blind spot sensor ([0044]: “the computer COM performs image processing on the detection information input from the detection unit (radar GS1, sonar GS2), and analyzes whether another vehicle is traveling in the detection area. If it is determined in step S31 that no other vehicle is detected (S31-NO), the process returns to step S30, and the detection unit continues to detect the detection area. On the other hand, if it is determined in step S31 that another vehicle is detected in the rear or side detection area (S31—YES), the process proceeds to step S32.”);
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: in response to the left blind spot sensor detecting the obstacle, communicating an alert to a rider through a left alert indicator or a collision unit ([0045]: “when the other vehicle is detected in the detection area by the detection unit, the notification control unit C12 performs notification using the first notification output.”; [0078]: “In the notification display area 74L on the left side of the host vehicle, a first notification output display unit 71L, a second notification output display unit 72L, and a third notification output display unit 73L are arranged.”) The claim recites “a left alert indicator or a collision unit.” The art teaches communicating an alert through a left alert indicator — it is not necessary for the art to also teach a collision unit, as this is an “or” limitation;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: in response to the right blind spot sensor detecting the obstacle, communicating an alert to the rider through a right alert indicator or the collision unit ([0045]: “when the other vehicle is detected in the detection area by the detection unit, the notification control unit C12 performs notification using the first notification output.”; [0079]: “In the notification display area 74R on the right side of the host vehicle, a display portion 71R for the first notification output, a display portion 72R for the second notification output, and a display portion 73R for the third notification output are arranged.”) for the same reasons as above — the art teaches communicating an alert through a right alert indicator, satisfying the “or” limitation;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: in response to receiving a signal from the rear blind spot sensor indicating the object is approaching from a rear side of the vehicle and a signal from the left blind spot sensor indicating the object is approaching from a left side of the vehicle, continuously flash the left alert indicator to indicate presence of the object for the same reasons stated with respect to the corresponding limitation of Claim 18 above;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: in response to receiving a signal from the rear blind spot sensor indicating the object is approaching from the rear side and a signal from the right blind spot sensor indicating the object is approaching from a right side of the vehicle, continuously flash the right alert indicator to indicate presence of the obstacle for the same reasons stated with respect to the corresponding limitation of Claim 18 above;
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches, and as further taught by Goo et al. (‘173), as noted for Claim 18: compute a parameter including at least one of a distance, velocity, and angle of the object based on the signal from at least one of the left, right, and rear blind spot sensors using a Time-of-Flight principle, and dynamically adjust an alert intensity based on the parameter to provide dynamic risk indication by increasing an intensity of at least one of the left alert indicator and the right alert indicator and the collision unit to indicate a higher risk for the same reasons stated with respect to the corresponding limitation of Claim 18 above. The claim recites “at least one of the left alert indicator and the right alert indicator and the collision unit” — the art teaches increasing the intensity of the left or right alert indicator, satisfying the limitation;
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: during leaning or cornering of the vehicle, maintaining coverage of the rear blind spot area and keeping a vision cone of the rear blind spot sensor unchanged, wherein the rear blind spot sensor is disposed above a rear license plate mounting bracket for the same reasons stated with respect to the corresponding limitation of Claim 18 above;
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: the right alert indicator and the left alert indicator are disposed, to be within a field of view of a rider riding the vehicle, on at least one of: a handle bar assembly, and an instrument cluster (col. 4, lines 35-37: “The reporting device 15 is in front of the driver 1 and is a full visual display.”) for the same reasons stated with respect to the corresponding limitation of Claim 18 above;
Takashi et al. (‘816) does not explicitly teach, but Lunsford (‘133) teaches: provide voice-based assistance via an audio indicator disposed inside a rider helment (claim 7: “The blind spot detector according to claim 1 wherein the reporting device is an audio or visual alarm.”) for the same reasons stated with respect to the corresponding limitation of Claim 18 above. Note: The “or” in this method step does not serve as a disjunctive claim — this is a method step requiring voice-based assistance via an in-helmet audio indicator. Lunsford teaches an audio reporting device, and it would have been obvious to implement it as an in-helmet audio indicator for the same reasons stated in Claim 18 above.
Regarding Claim 33, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the method for detection as claimed in claim 32, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: when the obstacle is detected by one of the left blind spot sensor and the right blind spot sensor as well as the rear blind spot sensor, a glowing intensity of the left or right alert indicator or the collision unit increases to indicate a higher risk to the rider of the vehicle ([0065]: “the notification control unit C12 further increases the notification level of the second notification output. When the relative distance is closer than the threshold distance, the notification control unit C12 increases the notification level of the second notification output.”; [0081]: “The display color and brightness of the display unit and the light emission cycle of the display unit may be changed in accordance with the type (vehicle size).”) Changing the brightness of the display unit constitutes increasing the glowing intensity of the alert indicator. Goo et al. (‘173) further teaches ([0076]: “the second indicator 444 may be configured to increase the number of the turned on indicators as the distance between the other vehicle in the blind spot and the subject vehicle decreases allowing a driver to recognize that the other vehicle is gradually approaching the vehicle.”) increasing the active indicator area — equivalent to increasing glowing intensity — when a vehicle is detected in the blind spot and rear detection area simultaneously. The claim recites “the left or right alert indicator or the collision unit” — the art teaches increasing the glowing intensity of the left or right alert indicator, satisfying the “or” limitation.
Regarding Claim 34, Takashi et al. (‘816) in view of Lunsford (‘133) and further in view of Goo et al. (‘173) teaches the method for detection as claimed in claim 32, wherein:
Takashi et al. (‘816) teaches: when the obstacle is detected by the left blind spot sensor and the right blind spot sensor, the left alert indicator or the collision unit and the right alert indicator or the collision unit glow to indicate presence of the obstacle on both sides to the rider of the vehicle ([0078]: “In the notification display area 74L on the left side of the host vehicle, a first notification output display unit 71L, a second notification output display unit 72L, and a third notification output display unit 73L are arranged.”; [0079]: “In the notification display area 74R on the right side of the host vehicle, a display portion 71R for the first notification output, a display portion 72R for the second notification output, and a display portion 73R for the third notification output are arranged.”) When vehicles are detected in both the left and right detection areas simultaneously, Takashi et al.’s notification control unit C12 activates both the left display area 74L and the right display area 74R, causing both the left and right alert indicators to glow and thereby indicating the presence of obstacles on both sides to the rider. The claim recites “the left alert indicator or the collision unit and the right alert indicator or the collision unit” — the art teaches the left alert indicator and the right alert indicator glowing simultaneously, satisfying the “or” limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
REMASH R GUYAH
Examiner
Art Unit 3648C
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648