DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated August 10, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on August 10, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 2 and 6 are as originally filed.
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 are as previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an additional information generation unit configured to generate additional information”,
“a line-of-sight detection unit configured to detect a line of sight”,
“a line-of-sight movement stop determination unit configured to determine that movement of the line of sight…has stopped”, and
“an additional information output unit configured to output” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically,
“an additional information generation unit configured to generate additional information” is interpreted as circuitry, a controller, a hardwired processor, and/or a processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory according to paragraphs [0021] and [0025],
“a line-of-sight detection unit configured to detect a line of sight” is interpreted as a driver monitoring camera and a line-of-sight sensing unit according to paragraph [0029] where the line-of-sight sensing unit corresponds to circuitry, a controller, a hardwired processor, and/or a processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory according to paragraph [0021],
“a line-of-sight movement stop determination unit configured to determine that movement of the line of sight…has stopped” is interpreted as a mirror gaze determination unit according to paragraphs [0027] and [0029] where the mirror gaze determination unit corresponds to circuitry, a controller, a hardwired processor, and/or a processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory according to paragraph [0021], and
“an additional information output unit configured to output” is interpreted as a speaker and an additional information voice generation and output unit according to paragraph [0029] where the additional information voice generation and output unit corresponds to circuitry, a controller, a hardwired processor, and/or a processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory according to paragraph [0021].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (US PG Pub #2017/0305342) in view of Arar et al. (Arar; US PG Pub #2022/0121867).
As to claim 1, Tomioka teaches a vehicle assistance device for providing information useful for a driver while traveling (Paragraphs [0002] and [0009] teach a vehicle-mounted alert system used while driving), the vehicle assistance device comprising:
an obstacle detection unit configured to detect an obstacle around a vehicle included in a range viewable through at least one monitoring area set in a part of a field-of-view range of the driver, wherein the obstacle detection unit comprises at least one camera (Paragraph [0032] teaches capturing images of a periphery of a vehicle using a rear camera, right side camera, and left side camera outputting signals to an image processing unit; Paragraph [0033] teaches enabling detection of an object; Figure 2 shows a windshield, rearview mirror, and two sideview mirrors);
an additional information generation unit configured to generate additional information regarding the obstacle detected by the obstacle detection unit (Paragraphs [0040] and [0070] teach a target object detection unit determining an avoidance operation using information of relative speed, distance, and direction);
a driver monitoring camera configured to image an entire face of the driver, including eyeballs of the driver (Paragraph [0025] teaches a camera positioned so that a driver’s face can be imaged; Paragraph [0028] teaches detecting an eye region in the face region, eye inner corners, and irises);
a line-of-sight detection unit configured to detect a line of sight of the driver based on an orientation of the eyeballs of the driver in images from the driver monitoring camera (Paragraphs [0024]-[0025] teach a camera and image processing unit detecting a sight line of the driver; Paragraph [0028] teaches detecting the sight line); and
an additional information output unit configured to output by voice the additional information generated by the additional information generation unit at a time point (Paragraph [0041] teaches outputting a target object detection signal including information including a direction and distance to the object; Paragraphs [0056]-[0057] and [0074] teach an amplifier and a speaker outputting an audio operation guide output from processing; Paragraph [0076] teaches the audio operation guide voice is output from the speaker; Paragraph [0087] teaches audio guidance of the driving operation).
Tomioka does not explicitly teach a line-of-sight movement stop determination unit configured to determine that movement of the line of sight of the driver detected by the line-of-sight detection unit has stopped in a monitoring area of the at least one monitoring area in which the obstacle is viewable for at least 0.5 seconds and outputting data when the line-of-sight movement stop determination unit determines that a line-of-sight movement has stopped in the monitoring area in which the obstacle is viewable.
In the field of vehicle alerting, Arar teaches a line-of-sight movement stop determination unit configured to determine that movement of the line of sight of the driver detected by the line-of-sight detection unit has stopped in a monitoring area of the at least one monitoring area in which the obstacle is viewable for 0.5 seconds (Paragraph [0026] teaches an eye tracker determining time periods corresponding to certain states, such as how long a fixation lasts; Paragraphs [0043]-[0044] teach a threshold time of a half second being satisfied to determine an occupant has seen the object; Paragraphs [0030], [0041], and [0044] teach determining a user saw an object when the gaze or field of view of the occupant overlaps with the detected object) and outputting data when the line-of-sight movement stop determination unit determines that a line-of-sight movement has stopped in the monitoring area in which the obstacle is viewable (Figure 4, Items B408 and B416 and Paragraphs [0005], [0055], and [0058] teach determining an overlap between the gaze and object for a cumulative amount of time and thereafter taking action including an audible warning). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tomioka with the time duration of gaze or field of view of Arar because this provides an affirmative determination of the occupant seeing the object (Paragraph [0044]) which overcomes the known issue of inaccurate and unreliable information (Paragraph [0003]).
As to claim 2, depending from the vehicle assistance device according to claim 1, Tomioka teaches wherein operations by the obstacle detection unit and the additional information generation unit, and operations by the line-of-sight detection unit and the line-of-sight movement stop determination unit are performed independently (Figure 1, Items 10 and 20), but does not explicitly teach this processing in parallel.
In the field of vehicle alerting, Arar teaches parallel processing (Paragraphs [0085]-[0086] and [0100]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tomioka with the parallel processing of Arar such that the exterior and interior processing is happening in parallel because parallel processing allows for efficient execution of workloads (Paragraphs [0085]-[0086]).
As to claim 3, depending from the vehicle assistance device according to claim 1, Tomioka does not explicitly teach wherein a monitoring area of the at least one monitoring area corresponds to a mirror for confirming presence of the obstacle located behind the vehicle.
In the field of vehicle alerting, Arar teaches wherein a monitoring area of the at least one monitoring area corresponds to a mirror for confirming presence of the obstacle located behind the vehicle (Figure 3 shows a view of the driver including a rearview mirror; Paragraph [0027] teaches multiple gaze regions including a driver side mirror and passenger side mirror which both view object behind a vehicle; Paragraph [0076]-[0077] teach rear facing cameras for rear collision warnings and creating and updating an occupancy grid; Paragraphs [0132], [0134], and [0138] teach rear facing sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tomioka with the gaze regions of Arar such that a monitoring area of the at least one monitoring area corresponds to a mirror because this allows for determination of road scanning behaviors and fixations (Paragraph [0027]) such that deployed real-world systems are more accurate and reliable in their operation (Paragraph [0005]).
As to claim 4, depending from the vehicle assistance device according to claim 1, Tomioka does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one monitoring area comprises a plurality of distinct monitoring areas corresponding to a plurality of field of views having different orientations.
In the field of vehicle alerting, Arar teaches wherein the at least one monitoring area comprises a plurality of distinct monitoring areas corresponding to a plurality of field of views having different orientations (Paragraph [0027] teaches multiple gaze regions including a left side gaze region, left front gaze region, right front gaze region, and right side gaze region). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tomioka with the gaze regions of Arar because this allows for determination of road scanning behaviors and fixations (Paragraph [0027]) such that deployed real-world systems are more accurate and reliable in their operation (Paragraph [0005]).
As to claim 5, depending from the vehicle assistance device according to claim 1, Tomioka does not explicitly teach wherein the additional information includes a type of the obstacle.
In the field of vehicle alerting, Arar teaches wherein the additional information includes a type of the obstacle (Paragraph [0004] teaches determining whether the driver or occupant has seen certain object types; Paragraph [0037] teaches processing data to determine lane line types, sign types, and types or road users). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tomioka with the object type data of Arar because conveying more data yields the predictable result of improving the safety of vehicle operation.
As to claim 7, depending from the vehicle assistance device according to claim 1, Tomioka teaches wherein the additional information includes a relative speed of the obstacle, with respect to the vehicle (Paragraphs [0040] and [0070] teach the target object detection unit determining an avoidance operation using information of relative speed, distance, and direction).
As to claim 8, depending from the vehicle assistance device according to claim 1, Tomioka teaches wherein the additional information includes a relative position of the obstacle, with respect to the vehicle (Paragraphs [0040] and [0070] teach the target object detection unit determining an avoidance operation using information of relative speed, distance, and direction).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (US PG Pub #2017/0305342) in view of Arar et al. (Arar; US PG Pub #2022/0121867) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US Patent #5,450,057).
As to claim 6, depending from the vehicle assistance device according to claim 1, Tomioka does not explicitly teach wherein the additional information output unit outputs the additional information from one or more of a plurality of speakers to match a position or orientation of a sound image of an output voice of the additional information with an actual orientation of the obstacle.
In the field of vehicle output systems, Watanabe teaches wherein the additional information output unit outputs the additional information from one or more of a plurality of speakers to match a position or orientation of a sound image of an output voice of the additional information with an actual orientation of the obstacle (Column 7, Lines 53-59 and Column 8, Lines 59-68 teach outputting sound in a vehicle at a location corresponding to a detected object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the output of Tomioka with the output of Watanabe because this helps the driver recognize the object (Column 10, Line 62 – Column 11, Line 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-5 of the filed response, the applicant’s argument summarizes the subject matter of independent claim 1. On page 5, the applicant argues that the proposed combination of Tomioka in view of Arar does not teach or suggest the amended subject matter of determining that movement of the line of sight of the driver detected by the line-of-sight detection unit has stopped in a monitoring area of the at least one monitoring area in which the obstacle is viewable for at least 0.5 seconds. For this reason, the applicant concludes that independent claim 1 and any claim that depends on claim 1 is patentable over the proposed combinations. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As seen in the rejection above, Arar explicitly teaches determining that an occupant has seen an object when the occupant sees the object for a duration threshold, such as half a second, a second, or two seconds (Paragraph [0044]). Further, Arar provides motivation for the proposed modification of the teaching of Tomioka. Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tomioka with the time duration of gaze or field of view of Arar because this provides an affirmative determination of the occupant seeing the object (Paragraph [0044]) which overcomes the known issue of inaccurate and unreliable information (Paragraph [0003]). Therefore, the prior art combination of Tomioka in view of Arar renders obvious the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1.
Further, absent an argument to the specific subject matter of the dependent claims, they remain properly rejected.
Therefore, claims 1-8 remain properly rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights