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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/07/2026 is being entered. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 10 are amended. The amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, and the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. However, after further search and consideration, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, in response to this amendment, this rejection has been made final as necessitated by amendment.
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 1, 2, 4-5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0259282 A1) hereinafter Ji in view of Sathyanarayana et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0075309 A1) hereinafter Sathyanarayana.
Regarding claim 1, Ji discloses a method for operating a motor vehicle at least partially autonomously, comprising:
obtaining at least one potential conflict area in which there is a potential for conflict with other road users, wherein the at least one potential conflict area is to be traversed by the motor vehicle according to a planned driving maneuver [see Paragraphs 0088 and 0110 - discusses setting a collision area in which a vehicle 1 may collide with another vehicle, see Figure 4 below - depicts the vehicle 1 is following a trajectory to an intersection where the collision area is];
PNG
media_image1.png
578
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Ji
determining at least one observation area which, for the purpose of traversing the conflict area, is to be observed in order to avoid conflicts with the other road users and which at least one observation area is at least partially different from the at least one potential conflict area [see Paragraph 0088 - discusses a radar detects a vehicle in a collision determination interest range, the collision area is determined when another vehicle is detected in the collision determination interest range, and see Figure 4 above - depicts that the collision area covers a smaller area than the collision determination interest range - therefore the collision determination interest range is different from the collision area];
monitoring using sensors the at least one observation area in a targeted way to determine whether at least one other road user is occupying the at least one observation area [see Paragraph 0088 - discusses using the radar to detect if, or if not, a vehicle enters the collision determination interest range];
in case at least one other road user is occupying the at least one observation area, selectively determining, whether the at least one other road user occupying the at least one observation area presents a collision risk or not [see Paragraph 0088 - discusses if another vehicle enters the collision determination interest range, then a collision area is determined in which the vehicle may collide with another vehicle (a collision prediction point is set in the collision area), and see Paragraph 0111 - discusses determining whether there is a collision probability after determining the collision area]; and
selectively controlling the motor vehicle at least partially autonomously taking into account whether or not the at least one other road user is occupying the at least one observation area and whether or not the at least one other road user presents a collision risk [see Paragraph 0111 - discusses controlling the vehicle when there is a collision probability (another vehicle is detected in the collision determination interest range) and there is a collision probability].
Sathyanarayana discloses determining at least one dimension of the at least one observation area taking into account at least one of the following:
a speed of the motor vehicle [see Paragraphs 0057-0059 - discusses that the size of an area is determined based on a velocity (speed in a direction) of the vehicle]
Sathyanarayana suggests that by dynamically adjusting monitored region parameters [see Paragraph 0033 - monitored region parameters: size or dimension] reduces, or conserves, computational power while monitoring physical areas [see Paragraph 0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the dimension of the observation area as taught by Ji to dynamically adjust as the speed of the vehicle changes as taught by Sathyanarayana in order to reduce, or conserve, computational power while monitoring areas [Sathyanarayana, see Paragraph 0057].
Regarding claim 2, Ji discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
Sathyanarayana discloses determining at least one dimension of the least one observation area taking into account at least the speed of the motor vehicle [see Paragraph 0058 - discusses that the size of the area is determined based on a velocity (speed in a direction) of the vehicle], wherein a dimension [of an observation area] gets larger as a speed of a motor vehicle increases [see Paragraphs 0058-0059 - discusses a monitored region increases with vehicle velocity/speed (dynamically adjusting)].
Sathyanarayana suggests that by dynamically adjusting monitored region parameters [see Paragraph 0033 - monitored region parameters: size or dimension] reduces, or conserves, computational power while monitoring physical areas [see Paragraph 0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the dimension of the observation area as taught by Ji to dynamically adjust (increase the size of the region as the speed of the vehicle increases) as taught by Sathyanarayana in order to reduce, or conserve, computational power while monitoring areas [Sathyanarayana, see Paragraph 0057].
Regarding claim 4, Ji discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Ji fails to disclose determining at least one dimension of the least one observation area taking into account at least a type of a road user expected in the least one observation area.
Sathyanarayana disclose determining at least one dimension of the least one observation area taking into account at least a type of a road user [see Paragraph 0058 – discusses type of road object (pedestrian, vehicle), see Paragraph 0041 – discusses determining object parameters includes determining anticipated behavior of an object, by determining a class of the object (via a license plate or eyes of a pedestrian), and anticipating where the object will go)] expected in the least one observation area [see Paragraphs 0037-0038 - discusses a type of object in the environment (the object is expected in the observation area due to the overlap of the region and conflict area) determines the size of the observation area, see Paragraph 0058 – discusses region dimensions change as a function of anticipated object behavior], wherein an expected speed of the expected road user is obtained and the dimension gets larger the greater the expected speed is [see Paragraph 0057 - discusses that a monitored region increases in size based on a road speed limit for a road user].
Sathyanarayana suggests that by dynamically adjusting the monitored region parameters [see Paragraph 0033 - monitored region parameters: size or dimension] reduces, or conserves, computational power while monitoring physical areas [see Paragraph 0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the dimension of the observation area as taught by Ji to determine at least one dimension of the least one observation area taking into account at least a type of a road user, wherein an expected speed of the expected road user is obtained and the dimension gets larger the greater the expected speed is as taught by Sathyanarayana in order to reduce, or conserve, computational power while monitoring areas [Sathyanarayana, see Paragraph 0057].
Regarding claim 5, Ji and Sathyanarayana discloses the invention with respect to claim 4. Sathyanarayana further discloses wherein the expected speed is determined taking into account map information [see Paragraph 0047 - discusses that the speed limit is retrieved from a database].
Claim 10 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Sathyanarayana.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Sathyanarayana in view of Behring et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0315027 A1) hereinafter Behring.
Regarding claim 3, Ji and Sathyanarayana disclose the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, the combination of Ji and Sathyanarayana fails to disclose determining at least one dimension of the least one observation area taking into account at least the speed of the motor vehicle, wherein, when a priority road traversed by the other road users is in the least one potential conflict area, the dimension gets smaller as the speed of the motor vehicle increases.
Behring discloses determining at least one dimension of at least one observation area taking into account at least a speed of a motor vehicle, wherein, when a priority road traversed by another road users is in at least one potential conflict area, the dimension gets smaller as the speed of the motor vehicle increases [see Paragraph 0214 - discusses at least one conflict area 201 around the vehicle in an observation area (501-505), the conflict area is a lane (priority road) 201 where the vehicle travels, see Paragraph 0216 - discusses that a size of a boundary area depends on a relative speed (relative speed requires calculation of the host vehicle in addition to the other road user) between the vehicle 110 and another road user on the lane (priority road) 201, and see Paragraph 0066 - discusses that the dimension of the boundary area decreases as the relative speed between the vehicles decreases (increase in speed of the vehicle while the other road users speed remains constant)].
Behring suggests that by adjusting the size of the area (smaller) when a relative speed is decreased (increase in speed of vehicle), collisions are reliably avoided [see Paragraphs 0055 and 0216].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the dimension of the observation area as taught by Ji to determine at least one dimension of at least one observation area taking into account at least a speed of a motor vehicle, wherein, when a priority road traversed by another road users is in at least one potential conflict area, the dimension gets smaller as the speed of the motor vehicle increases as taught by Behring in order to avoid collisions [Behring, see Paragraphs 0055 and 0216].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Sathyanarayana in view of Gler et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0129834 A1) hereinafter Gler.
Regarding claim 6, Ji and Sathyanarayana disclose the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, the combination of Ji and Sathyanarayana fails to disclose determining at least one dimension of an observation area taking additionally into account at least an observed state of traffic infrastructure, wherein, when the observed state of the traffic infrastructure indicates a lack of traversability of a part of the environment, the dimension of the at least one observation area is determined such that the portion of the non-traversable part in relation to the at least one observation area is below a permissible maximum portion.
Gler discloses determining at least one dimension of an observation area taking into account at least an observed state of traffic infrastructure [see Paragraph 0015 - discusses determining an observation area 106 in front of a vehicle using map data, see Paragraph 0016 - discusses determining a dimension of the observation area 106 based on sensor data of observation area 106 (obstacles)], wherein, when the observed state of the traffic infrastructure indicates a lack of traversability of a part of the environment [see Paragraph 0016 - discusses that an obstacle is blocking the vehicles trajectory in the observation area 106 (lack of traversability)], the dimension of the observation area is determined such that the portion of the non-traversable part in relation to the observation area is below a permissible maximum portion [see Paragraphs 0016 and 0019 - discusses that the observation area size is reduced and that the vehicle can no longer travel in the observation area 106 and has to generate a new trajectory].
Gler suggests that determining a lack of traversability of an observation area based on traffic infrastructure information (object blocking a portion of the observation area as determined by a sensor) allows a determination of a trajectory to safely pass around the object [see Paragraph 0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji and Sathyanarayana to additionally include taking into account traffic infrastructure to determine a dimension of the at least one observation area and when there is a lack of traversability of the at least one observation area to determine a dimension of the at least one observation area as taught by Gler in order to safely pass around the object [Gler, see Paragraph 0019].
Claims 7-9, 11, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Sathyanarayana in view of Tokumochi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0264622 A1) hereinafter Tokumochi.
Regarding claim 7, Ji and Sathyanarayana disclose the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, the combination of Ji and Sathyanarayana fails to disclose determining a portion of the at least one observation area that can be observed by the motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling the traversing of the at least one potential conflict area.
Tokumochi discloses determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area [see Figure 5 below - depicts an observable area (SA) and an observation area that cannot be observed (BS region), and see Paragraphs 0052-0053 - discusses that when the BS region is determined, then autonomous travel of the vehicle is controlled to stop or reduce speed through an intersection (conflict area)].
PNG
media_image2.png
474
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Tokumochi
Tokumochi suggests that when a blind spot exists and is determined, then safe driving assist is performed to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [see Paragraph 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji to include determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area as taught by Tokumochi in order to perform safe driving assist to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [Tokumochi, see Paragraph 0022].
Regarding claim 8, Ji, Sathyanarayana, and Tokumochi disclose the invention with respect to claim 7. Tokumochi further discloses wherein when the observable portion is below a minimum portion and/or non-observable portion is above a maximum portion [see Paragraph 0053 - discusses specifies a BS region exist in the SA (determining that a non-observable portion (BS region) is above a maximum portion (exists in the SA))]:
obtaining at least one type of a road user expected in the at least one observation area [see Paragraph 0060 - discusses that a straight oncoming vehicle is assumed to be in a monitoring area in the BS region of the observation area (SA), and see Paragraph 0095 - discusses depending on a monitoring area (road, sidewalk, crosswalk, bike path) different types of moving objects are assumed/expected];
establishing that no other road user is located in the at least one observation area, on the basis of the observable portion and/or the non-observable portion of the at least one observation area and the type of road user [see Paragraph 0095 - when the road user is expected to be a vehicle (type of road user) due to only the road existing in the BS region, then no other type of road user (pedestrian, cyclist) exists because there is no sidewalk and/or crosswalk in the BS region of the observation region].
Tokumochi suggests that when assuming the type of a road user, a supposed speed of the assumed type of road user is settled to determine a jump out possibility of another road user [see Paragraph 0095].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji and Sathyanarayana to include obtaining at least one type of a road user expected in the at least one observation area and establishing that no other road user is located in the at least one observation area, on the basis of the observable portion and/or the non-observable portion of the at least one observation area and the type of road user as taught by Tokumochi in order to determine a jump out possibility of other road users [Tokumochi, see Paragraph 0095].
Regarding claim 9, Ji, Sathyanarayana, and Tokumochi disclose the invention with respect to claim 7. Tokumochi further discloses wherein, when a non-observable portion of the at least one observation area is positioned between at least two observable portions, a maximally possible speed of another road user that is potentially located in the non-observable portion is determined [see Figure 5 below - depicts a non-observable portion (BS region) between observable portions in the observation region (SA), see Paragraph 0046 - discusses that when a BS region exists then a supposed limiting moving speed (maximum speed) is assumed for another road user in the BS region].
PNG
media_image2.png
474
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Tokumochi
Tokumochi suggests that by determining a supposed limiting moving speed (a maximum speed) that a jump out possibility of the other road user is determined [see Paragraph 0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji and Sathyanarayana to include when a non-observable portion of the at least one observation area is positioned between at least two observable portions, a maximally possible speed of another road user that is potentially located in the non-observable portion is determined as taught by Tokumochi in order to determine a jump out possibility of another road user [Tokumochi, see Paragraph 0046].
Regarding claim 11, Ji and Sathyanarayana discloses the invention with respect to claim 2.
However, the combination of Ji and Sathyanarayana fails to disclose determining a portion of the at least one observation area that can be observed by the motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling the traversing of the at least one potential conflict area.
Tokumochi discloses determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area [see Figure 5 below - depicts an observable area (SA) and an observation area that cannot be observed (BS region), and see Paragraphs 0052-0053 - discusses that when the BS region is determined, then autonomous travel of the vehicle is controlled to stop or reduce speed through an intersection (conflict area)].
PNG
media_image2.png
474
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Tokumochi
Tokumochi suggests that when a blind spot exists and is determined, then safe driving assist is performed to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [see Paragraph 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji and Sathyanarayana to include determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area as taught by Tokumochi in order to perform safe driving assist to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [Tokumochi, see Paragraph 0022].
Regarding claim 13, Ji and Sathyanarayana disclose the invention with respect to claim 4.
However, the combination of Ji and Sathyanarayana fails to disclose determining a portion of the at least one observation area that can be observed by the motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling the traversing of the at least one potential conflict area.
Tokumochi discloses determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area [see Figure 5 below - depicts an observable area (SA) and an observation area that cannot be observed (BS region), and see Paragraphs 0052-0053 - discusses that when the BS region is determined, then autonomous travel of the vehicle is controlled to stop or reduce speed through an intersection (conflict area)].
PNG
media_image2.png
474
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Tokumochi
Tokumochi suggests that when a blind spot exists and is determined, then safe driving assist is performed to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [see Paragraph 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji and Sathyanarayana to include determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area as taught by Tokumochi in order to perform safe driving assist to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [Tokumochi, see Paragraph 0022].
Regarding claim 14, Ji and Sathyanarayana disclose the invention with respect to claim 5.
However, the combination of Ji and Sathyanarayana fails to disclose determining a portion of the at least one observation area that can be observed by the motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling the traversing of the at least one potential conflict area.
Tokumochi discloses determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area [see Figure 5 below - depicts an observable area (SA) and an observation area that cannot be observed (BS region), and see Paragraphs 0052-0053 - discusses that when the BS region is determined, then autonomous travel of the vehicle is controlled to stop or reduce speed through an intersection (conflict area)].
PNG
media_image2.png
474
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Tokumochi
Tokumochi suggests that when a blind spot exists and is determined, then safe driving assist is performed to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [see Paragraph 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji and Sathyanarayana to include determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area as taught by Tokumochi in order to perform safe driving assist to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [Tokumochi, see Paragraph 0022].
Regarding claim 16, Ji, Sathyanarayana, and Tokumochi disclose the invention with respect to claim 8. Tokumochi further discloses wherein, when a non-observable portion of the at least one observation area is positioned between at least two observable portions, a maximally possible speed of another road user that is potentially located in the non-observable portion is determined [see Figure 5 below - depicts a non-observable portion (BS region) between observable portions in the observation region (SA), see Paragraph 0046 - discusses that when a BS region exists then a supposed limiting moving speed (maximum speed) is assumed for another road user in the BS region].
PNG
media_image2.png
474
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Tokumochi
Tokumochi suggests that by determining a supposed limiting moving speed (a maximum speed) that a jump out possibility of the other road user is determined [see Paragraph 0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji and Sathyanarayana to include when a non-observable portion of the at least one observation area is positioned between at least two observable portions, a maximally possible speed of another road user that is potentially located in the non-observable portion is determined as taught by Tokumochi in order to determine a jump out possibility of another road user [Tokumochi, see Paragraph 0046].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Sathyanarayana in view of Behring further in view of Tokumochi.
Regarding claim 12, Ji, Sathyanarayana, and Behring disclose the invention with respect to claim 3.
However, the combination of Ji, Sathyanarayana, and Behring fails to disclose determining a portion of the at least one observation area that can be observed by the motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling the traversing of the at least one potential conflict area.
Tokumochi discloses determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area [see Figure 5 below - depicts an observable area (SA) and an observation area that cannot be observed (BS region), and see Paragraphs 0052-0053 - discusses that when the BS region is determined, then autonomous travel of the vehicle is controlled to stop or reduce speed through an intersection (conflict area)].
PNG
media_image2.png
474
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Tokumochi
Tokumochi suggests that when a blind spot exists and is determined, then safe driving assist is performed to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [see Paragraph 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji and Sathyanarayana to include determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area as taught by Tokumochi in order to perform safe driving assist to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [Tokumochi, see Paragraph 0022].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Sathyanarayana in view of Gler view of Tokumochi.
Regarding claim 15, Ji, Sathyanarayana, and Gler disclose the invention with respect to claim 6.
However, the combination of Ji, Sathyanarayana, and Gler fails to disclose determining a portion of the at least one observation area that can be observed by the motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling the traversing of the at least one potential conflict area.
Tokumochi discloses determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and/or a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area [see Figure 5 below - depicts an observable area (SA) and an observation area that cannot be observed (BS region), and see Paragraphs 0052-0053 - discusses that when the BS region is determined, then autonomous travel of the vehicle is controlled to stop or reduce speed through an intersection (conflict area)].
PNG
media_image2.png
474
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Tokumochi
Tokumochi suggests that when a blind spot exists and is determined, then safe driving assist is performed to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [see Paragraph 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Ji, Sathyanarayana, and Gler to include determining a portion of at least one observation area that can be observed by a motor vehicle and a portion that cannot be observed by the motor vehicle and, based thereon, controlling a traversing of at least one potential conflict area as taught by Tokumochi in order to perform safe driving assist to account for a moving object jumping out of the blind spot [Tokumochi, see Paragraph 0022].
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter, and are not persuasive, as noted supra in the rejections of that claimed subject matter.
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 Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/S.M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665