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 Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 19 August 2025. Claims 1-4, 6-7 are amended. Claims 1-7 are presently pending and examined.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority based on Application JP 2022-077527 filed on May 10, 2022.
Response to Arguments
112(f) Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 19 August 2025, with respect to 112(f) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(f) rejection of Claims 1-3 and 6-7 has been withdrawn.
112(b) Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 19 August 2025, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-7 has been withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 19 August 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tetsuo Tokudome et. al. US20250230697A1 (“Tokudomo”).
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noriyuki Saitoh et. al. US 20230202502A1 (“Saitoh”) in view of Naotsugu Shimizu et. al WO 2023149283 (“Shimizu”) and Tetsuo Tokudome US20250230697A1 (“Tokudome”).
As per Claim 1,
Saitoh discloses,
a radar device which is provided in a rear portion of an own vehicle, and receive the radio wave reflected in the predetermined detection region, and to detect a target around the own vehicle based on the received radio wave; (see at least [0038] The radar sensor 14B is provided at the rear end portion of the vehicle 102 and acquires surrounding information behind the vehicle. The radar sensor 14R is provided on the right side of the vehicle 102 and acquires surrounding information on the right side of the vehicle. The radar sensor 14L is provided on the left side of the vehicle 102 and acquires surrounding information on the left side of the vehicle).
an electronic control unit configured to determine whether a door of the own vehicle is within the first region of the predetermined detection region of the radar device upon determination that the door of the own vehicle is within the first region and a second region (see at least [0011] in a situation where the open-door detection device detects that a door is open, and [0040] The door sensors 22FR, 22FL, 22RR and 22RL function as opening detectors for detecting opening of a right front door 24FR, a left front door 24FR, a right rear door 24RR and a left rear door 24RL, respectively)
Saitoh does not disclose,
a radar device configured to transmit a radio wave to a predetermined detection region directed toward a rear side and a lateral side of the own vehicle.
Shimizu teaches,
configured to transmit a radio wave to a predetermined detection region directed toward a rear side and a lateral side of the own vehicle.( see at least [0007] a vehicle equipped with a detection device that detects objects around the vehicle, [0013] the radar device 21 is provided, for example, at the rear end of the own vehicle, defines an area within a predetermined detection angle as a detection range in which an object can be detected, and detects the position of an object within the detection range, and [0014] As shown in FIG. 2, the radar device 21 is installed at each of the left and right rear end portions of the own vehicle 40 and detects objects behind and behind the own vehicle 40).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by Saitoh with the rear side and lateral side detection region as taught by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase the predetermined detection region to the lateral side of vehicle.
Saitoh does not explicitly disclose,
when a target is detected by the radar device;
Shimizu teaches,
when a target is detected by the radar device (see at least [0020] determines that an approaching object detected by the radar device 21 exists within the warning area. the approach suppression operation is performed to suppress contact with the approaching object, and [0021] the alarm device 32 notifies the occupant of the own vehicle 40 by emitting an alarm sound, lighting an indicator provided on a door mirror or an instrument panel, or notifying the locked state of the vehicle door. implement. In this embodiment, the warning by the warning device 32 corresponds to the contact suppression operation).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by Saitoh with detection of target by a radar as taught by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use a radar for increasing the predetermined detection region to the lateral side of vehicle.
Saitoh does not disclose,
the predetermined detection region comprising a first region and a second region; and an electronic control unit configured to:
determine whether a door of the own vehicle is within the first region of the predetermined detection region of the radar device upon determination that the door of the own vehicle is within the first region, execute driving assistance control when the target is detected within the second region and upon determination that the door of the own vehicle is not within the first region, execute driving assistance control when the target is detected within the first region or the second region.
Tokudome teaches,
the predetermined detection region comprising a first region and a second region (see at least Fig 5 is a plan view showing the first detection range and the second detection range)
upon determination that the door of the own vehicle is not within the first region, execute driving assistance control when the target is detected within the second region and ( see at least Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and [0007] a first detector configured to repeatedly detect a detection target that is present within a first detection range set around the door; a second detector disposed spaced apart from the first detector in a horizontal direction and configured to repeatedly detect the detection target that is present within a second detection range set around the door in a manner partially overlapping with the first detection range; )
upon determination that the door of the own vehicle is not within the first region, execute driving assistance control when the target is detected within the first region or the second region. (Fig. 4, Fig. 6, and [0008] setting unit configured to set at least a part of one of the first detection range and the second detection range as the first zone in which the first phase of the setting movement is to be detected, and to set a part of another one of the first detection range and the second detection range as the second zone in which the second phase of the setting movement is to be detected, based on the first distance and the second distance measured by the measurement unit.)
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by Saitoh with predetermined regions as taught by Tokudome, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the operability for the user in opening and closing the door can be improved (0009).
As per Claim 4,
Saitoh discloses,
The driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine whether the door of the own vehicle is within the first of the predetermined detection region of a radar device (see at least [0034] vehicle control ECU 10 is connected with a plurality of camera sensors 12F, 12B, 12R and 12L and a plurality of radar sensors 14F, 14B, 14R and 14L, [0037] The radar transmitting/receiving unit radiates radio waves in a millimeter wave band (hereinafter referred to as “millimeter waves”) and receives millimeter waves (that is, reflected waves) reflected by three-dimensional objects (eg, other vehicles, bicycles, guardrails, etc.) existing within the radiation range).
Saitoh does not disclose,
based on data from an ultrasonic sensor
Tokudome teaches,
based on data from ultrasonic sensors (see at least [0031] Referring to FIG. 1, each of the detectors 13A, 13B is an ultrasonic sensor including a transmitter 14 and a receiver 15, and is communicably connected to the control unit 30 by a communication cable)
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by Saitoh with use of the ultrasonic sensor as taught by Tokudome, with a reasonable expectation of success, to improve operability in opening and closing the door (0006).
As per Claim 5,
Saitoh does not disclose,
the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined door is a slide door.
Shimizu teaches,
the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined door is a slide door (see at least [0027] the rear door 42 is a slide type door that is slidable in the front-rear direction along the vehicle body side surface).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by Saitoh with detection of target by a radar as taught by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reduce false positives during detection.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh in view of Shimizu and Tokudome as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Clayton Kunz et. al. US11280897B2 (“Kunz”)
As per Claim 2,
Saitoh discloses,
the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein, when the opening of the predetermined door is detected by the door opening detection device,
Saitoh does not disclose,
Electronic control unit is configured to suppress the driving assistance control by executing the driving assistance control based on the radio wave reflected in a second region which is included in the predetermined detection region, and is other than a first region which the predetermined door has entered.
Kunz teaches,
the electronic control unit is configured to suppress the driving assistance control by executing the driving assistance control based on the radio wave reflected in a second region which is included in the predetermined detection region, and is other than a first region which the predetermined door has entered. (see at least [Col.1, line 58-65] the radar-sensor field of view overlaps at least a portion of the first or second field of view. Additionally, the vehicle includes a processor configured to determine a first-sensor occlusion in the first field of view or second field of view. The processor may be further configured to determine an occlusion free-region of the first field or second field of view based on data from the radar sensor, [Col 24, line 15-17] method 600 involves determining, by the processor, an occlusion free region of the first field of view based on data from the second sensor, and [Col. 24, line 34-37] the system may determine an occlusion free region of the first field of view based on data from the second sensor that is outside of the range of the first sensor or outside the field of view of the first sensor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by Saitoh with detection of target by a radar as taught by Kunz, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reduce false positives during detection.
As per Claim 6,
Saitoh discloses,
the driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine whether the door of the own vehicle is within the first region of the predetermined detection region of the radar device (see at least [0034] vehicle control ECU 10 is connected with a plurality of camera sensors 12F, 12B, 12R and 12L and a plurality of radar sensors 14F, 14B, 14R and 14L, [0037] The radar transmitting/receiving unit radiates radio waves in a millimeter wave band (hereinafter referred to as “millimeter waves”) and receives millimeter waves (that is, reflected waves) reflected by three-dimensional objects (eg, other vehicles, bicycles, guardrails, etc.) existing within the radiation range).
Saitoh does not explicitly disclose,
based on data from an ultrasonic sensor.
Tokudome teaches,
based on data from ultrasonic sensors (see at least [0031] Referring to FIG. 1, each of the detectors 13A, 13B is an ultrasonic sensor including a transmitter 14 and a receiver 15, and is communicably connected to the control unit 30 by a communication cable)
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by Saitoh with use of the ultrasonic sensor as taught by Tokudome, with a reasonable expectation of success, to improve operability in opening and closing the door (0006).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh in view of Shimizu and Tokudome as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Simon Verghese et. al. US 11671564 B2 (“Verghese”)
As per Claim 3,
Saitoh discloses,
the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein, when the opening of the predetermined door is detected by the door opening detection device, the electronic control unit is configured to suppress the driving assistance control by controlling the radar device. (see at least (see at least [0013] the electronic control unit is further configured to change the alert notified by the notification device so as to reduce annoyance of the alert given to the occupant or occupants by reducing an appeal of the alert to the occupant or occupants.)
Saitoh does not disclose,
such that the radio wave is transmitted to a second region which is included in the predetermined detection region, and is other than a first region which the predetermined door has entered.
Verghese teaches,
such that the radio wave is transmitted to a second region which is included in the predetermined detection region, and is other than a first region which the predetermined door has entered. (see at least [Col 1, Line 66 – Col 2, Line 5] where at least one sensor of the one or more sensors is configurable to be associated with one of a plurality of operating field of view volumes, and wherein each operating field of view volume represents a space within which the at least one sensor is expected to detect objects outside the autonomous vehicle at a minimum confidence level, and [Col 2, Line 21-25] The operations also include based on the determined degradation in the at least one parameter, adjusting the operating field of view volume of the at least one sensor to a different one of the plurality of operating field of view volumes.)
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by Saitoh with the adjusting of field of view as taught by Verghese, with a reasonable expectation of success, to detect objects outside the vehicle at a minimum confidence level [Col. 1, Line 51-52].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668