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 action is in reply to the response field 26 September 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 have been amended.
Claims 10-13 have been added.
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 November 2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitations of claim 1-7 were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Accordingly the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome some of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn. However the rejection of 2-7 have been maintained and updated based on the amended language as seen below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 26 September 2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
In the Office Action at Page 16, it is asserted that the claims " constitute a 'mental process' because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind." Assignee's representative disagrees. Instead, the claims recite a practical application via a human machine interface, which cannot be performed in the human mind and is not manually performed by a person.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in updated rejection below, the examiner has indicated the suppressing the proposal or making the proposal continues to constitute a mental step. The additional limitations of “via an information provision device” and “ wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface” are also recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer components (i.e. a display) as a tool to perform the abstract idea of suppressing the proposal or making a proposal. The additional limitations are more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer and general purpose computer components (see at least page bottom of page 8, wherein the HMI can be a display.).
Alternatively, the additional limitations of “via an information provision device” and “wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface” can be considered insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer) to perform the process. In particular, the suppressing the proposal step or the making the proposal step via the provision device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data output or displaying for the suppressing proposal step or making a proposal step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues:
Further, the term "suppression" is more than merely not altering the driver regarding the risk object, as alleged at page 16 of the Office Action. Instead, suppression includes weaking (sic) a mode of the notification. For example, paragraph [0093] of the published application states:
Suppression means, for example, not to perform a notification.
Suppression may be, for example, weakening a mode of the notification of
behavior proposal than the mode of the notification of behavior proposal
performed in the case of the road shape for which the notification of
behavior proposal is performed. For example, unsuppressed modes of the notification of behavior proposal are modes which are easier for the driver
to recognize than the suppressed modes of the notification of behavior proposal.
As recited in the independent claims, the proposal is provided by an information provision device, which is a human machine interface, based on defined criteria ("makes the proposal when it is determined that the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary," as recited in claim 1). Further, the proposal can be suppressed based on the defined criteria ("suppress the proposal when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary," as recited in claim 1). Accordingly, such features of claim 1 intelligently determine the output type of the notification. Such features cannot be performed in the human mind and are more than insignificant extra-solution activity as alleged at page 21 of the Office Action.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes that in the excerpt provided by Applicant, suppressing the notification is described as not performing a notification. Thus, as noted by the examiner in the rejection, suppressing a proposal could encompass a human, such a passenger assuming that the vehicle will be driven straight will travel off of the road (i.e., the reference position intersects a traveling road boundary) and the passenger preferentially alerts the driver regarding the driving off the road and does not alert the driver regarding the risk object, for example a small box in the road in the case where the vehicle would travel off the road in the curve ahead if the vehicle continued to drive straight. Regarding Applicant’s argument that a human mind cannot intelligently determine the type of notification, the examiner submits a human can determine whether to alert a driver or not to alert a driver of the risk object based on a relative risk level of a risk object and a course trajectory risk.
Finally, as noted in the rejection below, the additional limitations of “suppress the proposal” or “make the proposal”…”via an information provision device” and “wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface” can also be considered insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer) to perform the process. In particular, the suppressing the proposal step or the making the proposal step via the provision device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data output or displaying for the suppressing a proposal step or making a proposal step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. While Applicant’s statement that the features are more than insignificant extra solution activity, the Applicant does not provide any specific arguments to suggest that displaying or not displaying (suppressing) an alert is more than insignificant extra-solution activity
Thus, the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained as seen in the rection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0063495, hereinafter “Hawley”) in view of Isaji et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0304322, hereinafter “Isaji”).
Claim(s) 6-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley and Isaji in further view of Misu (US Pub. No. 2016/0117947, hereinafter “Misu”).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 26 September 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
A feature of the control device of claim 1 is discussed as, when a "specific area" is determined by the above process, the control device "suppresses the proposal." More specifically, paragraph [0107] states:
Here, while the driver of the vehicle M is driving, when there is a risk object such as a traffic participant or an obstacle in front of the vehicle M and the driver does not perform a behavior to avoid the risk object, it is desirable that a notification, automatic control of the vehicle M, a guidance for taking avoidance behavior, and the like be performed as a driving support for avoiding the risk object. When this driving support is performed, it is preferable to determine operating conditions and to operate the driving support in scenes where it is appropriate to provide the driving support. For example, it is preferable to suppress proposals on a road of a predetermined shape such as a curved road. Especially when an avoidance direction and a risk direction are intuitively guided through visual, tactile, and auditory senses, driving support in a straight line is mainly used. For example, when the guidance described above is performed on a curved road, the driver may be confused between avoidance to one side in a lane of the road and avoidance to the absolute traveling direction of the vehicle M (for example, whether the guidance is for traveling along the curved road or for avoiding the risk object). For this reason, on a road of a predetermined shape such as a curved road, it is preferable to perform control different from that for a straight road, or to
suppress a proposal for steering.
None of the cited references teach or suggest such features. Hawley et al. generally relates to prioritizing driver warnings in a vehicle. Hawley et al. discusses transmitting a driver warning recommending that the driver slow down if there is a curve in the road ahead. See Hawley et al. at paragraph [0036]. However, Hawley et al. does not teach or suggest at least the above noted features of claim 1.
Isaji et al. generally relates to "a vehicle behavior control apparatus that controls a steering angle." See paragraph [0003] of Isaji et al. However, Isaji et al. also does not teach or suggest at least the above noted features of claim 1. Therefore, the specification of Isaji et al. adds nothing to the specification of Hawley et al. that would render obvious claim 1 and its associated dependent claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes that the portion of the specification cited does not discuss “the specific area” as relied upon in the argument. The examiner believes Applicant intended to provide [0097] of the PGPub for the discussion of “the specific area”.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., when a “specific area” is determined) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner notes that claim 1, 8, and 9 have not been amended to recite “the specific area” as indicated in the argument.
Applicant does not provide additional arguments regarding the additional rejections, instead relying upon the purported deficiencies of the combination of Hawley and Isaji already addressed above.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, line 9 recites “the proposal when when it is determined”. The examiner recommends amending to recite ““the proposal when it is determined” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “determine whether areas before and after the reference position of the mobile object after the predetermined time are located at different positions from a travelable traveling road of the mobile object, and suppress the proposal when it is determined that the areas are at the different positions.” The examiner interprets the claim to mean that the proposal is suppressed when it is determined that the areas before and after the reference position (with respect to the current travelling direction) are different than the travelable traveling road of the mobile object. The examiner recommends clarifying the claim to indicate that the (1) areas before and after are based on the current traveling direction and (2) “the areas are located at the different positions” means that both of the areas (i.e. areas before and after) are different positions from the travelable traveling road, that is they are outside the travelable traveling road. Further, the examiner notes the broad term “areas before and after the reference point” could be any area before the reference point from the current position of the mobile object to the reference point in the travel direction and any area after the reference point in the travel direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “suppress the proposal when it is determined that the areas are at the different positions”. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 which recites “suppress the proposal, via an information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary,”. It is not clear to the examiner if the suppression of the proposal is based on the areas located at the different positions or the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary. It is not clear if the conditions in claim 2 are additional conditions for suppression of the proposal or alternative conditions for suppression of the proposal from those of claim 1. Claim 2 appears to contradict claim 1. Is the proposal only suppressed when it is determined that the areas are located at the different positions as recited in claim 2 (i.e. both the before and after positions are different than the travelable traveling road)? Or is the proposal suppressed when the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary as recited in claim 1? Or does the claim require both conditions to suppress the proposal? Further, claim 1 recites “makes the proposal, via the information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary”. Therefore, it is unclear if a proposal would be made in the situation if the areas are located at the different positions (as claim 2 indicates suppression of the proposal) but the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary (as claim 1 indicates there would be a proposal).
Claim 3 recites “suppress the proposal when the determiner determines that the areas are located at the different positions”. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 which recites “suppress the proposal, via an information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary,”. It is not clear to the examiner if the suppression of the proposal is based on the areas located at the different positions or the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary. It is not clear if the conditions in claim 3, are additional conditions for suppression of the proposal or alternative conditions for suppression of the proposal from those of claim 1. Claim 3 appears to contradict claim 1. Is the proposal only suppressed when it is determined that the areas are located at the different positions as recited in claim 3? Or is the proposal suppressed when the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary as recited in claim 1? Or does the claim require both conditions to suppress the proposal? Further, claim 1 recites “makes the proposal, via the information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary”. Therefore, it is unclear if a proposal would be made if the areas are located at the different positions (as claim 3 indicates suppression of the proposal) but the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary (as claim 1 indicates there would be a proposal).
Claim 5 recites “suppress the proposal when the risk object is present on the traveling direction side of the mobile object in a first period during which it is determined that the reference position of the mobile object intersects the traveling road boundary”. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 which recites “suppress the proposal, via an information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary”. It is not clear if the conditions in claim 5, are additional conditions for suppression of the proposal or alternative conditions for suppression of the proposal from those of claim 1. Claim 5 appears to contradict claim 1. Is the proposal only suppressed when the risk object is present on the traveling section direction side in the first period when it is determined that the mobile object intersects the traveling road boundary as recited in claim 5? Or is the proposal suppressed when the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary as recited in claim 1?
Claim 6 recites “wherein the hardware processor further executes the program to not make the proposal when the driver of the mobile object perform a behavior to avoid the risk object before the mobile object approaches the risk object by a predetermined degree or more in the second period.” Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and ultimately from claim 1. Claim 1 recites “suppress the proposal, via an information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary”. It is not clear if the conditions in claim 6, are additional conditions for suppression of the proposal (not sending the proposal) or alternative conditions for suppression of the proposal from those of claim 1. The examiner notes that the specification teaches that suppressing a proposal may include not sending the proposal. Claim 6 appears to contradict claim 1. Is the proposal only suppressed when a driver of the mobile object perform a behavior to avoid the risk object before the mobile object approaches the risk object by a predetermined degree or more in the second period as recited in claim 6? Or is the proposal suppressed when the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary as recited in claim 1? Further, claim 1 recites “makes the proposal, via the information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary”. Therefore, it is unclear if a proposal would be made if the driver of the mobile object performed a behavior to avoid the risk object before the mobile object approaches the risk object by a predetermined degree or more in the second period (as claim 6 indicates suppression of the proposal) but the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary (as claim 1 indicates there would be a proposal).
Claim 10 recites “in a case that the specific area is determined to be present, suppress the proposal” Claim 10 depends from claim 1 which recites “suppress the proposal, via an information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary”. It is not clear if the conditions in claim 10, are additional conditions for suppression of the proposal or alternative conditions for suppression of the proposal from those of claim 1. Claim 10 appears to contradict claim 1. Is the proposal only suppressed when there is a specific area present as recited in claim 10? Or is the proposal suppressed when the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary as recited in claim 1? Or does the claim require both conditions to suppress the proposal? Further, claim 1 recites “makes the proposal, via the information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary”. Therefore, it is unclear if a proposal would be made in the situation if the specific area is determined to be present (as claim 10 indicates suppression of the proposal) but the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary (as claim 1 indicates there would be a proposal). Claim 11 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 13 recites “suppress the proposal based on the observation point being included in the specific area” Claim 13 depends from claim 1 which recites “suppress the proposal, via an information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary”. It is not clear if the conditions in claim 13, are additional conditions for suppression of the proposal or alternative conditions for suppression of the proposal from those of claim 1. Claim 13 appears to contradict claim 1. Is the proposal only suppressed based on the observation point being included in the specific area as recited in claim 13? Or is the proposal suppressed when the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary as recited in claim 1? Or does the claim require both conditions to suppress the proposal? Further, claim 1 recites “makes the proposal, via the information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary”. Therefore, it is unclear if a proposal would be made in the situation when the observation point is included in the specific area (as claim 13 indicates suppression of the proposal) but the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary (as claim 1 indicates there would be a proposal).
Claim 4 depend from claim 3 and is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on its dependency on claim 3.
Claims 6-7 depend from claim 5 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 12 depend from claim 11 and is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on its dependency on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed toward a control device that makes a proposal for steering and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 8 is directed toward a control method for making a proposal and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 9 is directed toward a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium that has stored a program causing a computer to execute processing of making a proposal for steering and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 1includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A control device that makes a proposal for steering to avoid a risk object present on a traveling direction side of a mobile object to a driver of the mobile object, comprising:
a storage device storing a program; and
a hardware processor, wherein the hardware processor executes the program stored in the storage device to:
determine, when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary; and
suppress the proposal, via an information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary, and makes the proposal, via the information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary, wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface.
Regarding claim 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determine, when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary” and “suppress the proposal when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary, and makes the proposal when it is determined that the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary,” steps encompasses a human, such a passenger, assuming that the vehicle will be driven straight will travel off of the road (i.e., the reference position intersects a traveling road boundary) and the passenger preferentially alerts the driver regarding the driving off the road and does not alert the driver regarding the risk object, for example a small box in the road in the case where the vehicle would travel off the road in the curve ahead if the vehicle continued to drive straight.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A control device that makes a proposal for steering to avoid a risk object present on a traveling direction side of a mobile object to a driver of the mobile object, comprising:
a storage device storing a program; and
a hardware processor, wherein the hardware processor executes the program stored in the storage device to:
determine, when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary; and
suppress the proposal, via an information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary, and makes the proposal, via the information provision device, when it is determined that the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary, wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of “a control device that makes a proposal for steering to avoid a risk object present on a traveling direction side of a mobile object to a driver of the mobile object”, “a storage device storing a program;” “a hardware processor, wherein the hardware processor executes the program stored in the storage device”, “via an information provision device” and “ wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface” the examiner submits that these limitations merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Specifically, the courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations “a control device that makes a proposal for steering to avoid a risk object present on a traveling direction side of a mobile object to a driver of the mobile object”, “a storage device storing a program;” and “a hardware processor, wherein the hardware processor executes the program stored in the storage device” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of determining, suppressing the proposal or making a proposal. The additional limitations are more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer (see at least page 25, lines 2-17, and page 11, 12-25 of the instant application, central processing unit (CPU)).
Further the examiner notes that the additional limitations of “via an information provision device” and “ wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface” are also recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer components (i.e. a display) as a tool to perform the abstract idea of suppressing the proposal or making a proposal. The additional limitations are more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer and general purpose computer components (see at least page bottom of page 8, wherein the HMI can be a display.).
Alternatively, the additional limitations of “suppress the proposal” or “make the proposal”…”via an information provision device” and “wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface” can be considered insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer) to perform the process. In particular, the suppressing the proposal step or the making the proposal step via the provision device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data output or displaying for the suppressing a proposal step or making a proposal step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements a control device that makes a proposal for steering to avoid a risk object present on a traveling direction side of a mobile object to a driver of the mobile object”, “a storage device storing a program;” “a hardware processor, wherein the hardware processor executes the program stored in the storage device”, “via an information provision device” and “ wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (page 8, 25 and 11 of the instant application, as noted above). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations of “suppress the proposal” or “make the proposal”… “via an information provision device” and “ wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 9 has similar recitations to claim 1 and the analysis above with respect to claim 11 also applies to claims 8 and 9.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7 and 10-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process (determining steps), applying an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool (suppressing the proposal), or insignificant extra solution activity (suppressing the proposal). These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-7 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner notes that the claim recites “determine whether the driver visually recognizes the risk object in the first period” and “notify the driver of the presence of the risk object [[using the information provision device]] when the driver does not visually recognize the risk object in the first period” could which encompasses a human, such as a passenger viewing the driver’s gaze to determine if the driver has seen the object, and when noticing that the driver does not notice the object alerting them to the object, such as by pointing to a pedestrian hidden by the A pillar of the vehicle. The specification describes that the information provision device can be an HMI (see page 8 of the instant application) such as a display which is generic computer component. The additional limitations are more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer or general computer components (see at least page 8, and 25, lines 2-17, and page 11, 12-25 of the instant application, central processing unit (CPU)).
Alternatively, the limitation of “notify the driver of the presence of the risk object using the information provision device when the driver does not visually recognize the risk object in the first period could a likely has wherein the proposer notifies of the presence of the risk object using an information provision device” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data output of the determining step) and amounts to mere post solution data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, claims 1-13 are not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0063495, hereinafter “Hawley”) in view of Isaji et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0304322, hereinafter “Isaji”).
Regarding claim 1, Hawley discloses a control device that makes a proposal for steering to avoid a risk object present on a traveling direction side of a mobile object to a driver of the mobile object (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5, see at least driver warning system 120) , comprising:
a storage device storing a program (see at least Hawley Figure 5, memory 515 and [0039] “The memory 515, which is one example of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, may be used to store an operating system (OS) 540, a database 535, and code modules, such as a sensor signal processing module 520, a driver warning system module 525, and a warnings prioritization module 530. The code modules are provided in the form of computer-executable instructions that can be executed by the processor 121 for performing various operations in accordance with the disclosure.” See also [0061-0067] ); and
a hardware processor, wherein the hardware processor executes the program stored in the storage device (see at least Hawley Figure 5, processor 121 and [0061-0067]. For example [0061] “Implementations of the systems, apparatuses, devices, and methods disclosed herein may comprise or utilize one or more devices that include hardware, such as, for example, one or more processors and system memory, as discussed herein.”) to:
determine there is a curve ahead [[when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary]] (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5 and [0035] In this example scenario, there is no vehicle in front of the vehicle 105. However, the driver warning system 120 detects that there is a curve 305 in the road ahead. This detection may be carried out for example, by evaluating a video stream provided by the front-facing camera 115 or by utilizing map data that includes road metadata, such as road curvature.”); and
suppress the proposal, via an information provision device when it is determined there is a curve ahead [[that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary]], and makes the proposal via the information provision device when it is determined that there is not a curve ahead [[the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary]] , wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5 and [0036] “ The driver warning system 120 may, at this time, refer to a priority list, and/or obtain historical data, to prioritize the warning related to the curve 305 in the road ahead, over the warning associated with the vehicle 210 approaching the vehicle 105. Based on the priority list and/or historical data, the driver warning system 120 may transmit a driver warning (such as, in the form of a message displayed on the display screen of the infotainment system 140) recommending that the driver 150 slow down. Actions taken by the driver 150 in reaction to the issued driver warning may be evaluated by the driver warning system 120 to determine if the other warning has to be issued. In one case, the driver 211 of the vehicle 210 may notice that the vehicle 105 is slowing down and may follow suit by slowing down and staying in his/her lane. In this case, the driver warning system 120 may deem the second warning unnecessary and refrain from issuing the warning.” The examiner notes that the display screen of the infotainment system is a HMI) .
Hawley discloses determining that there is a curve in the road ahead, but does not disclose the claimed method of determining whether there is a curve in the road or not. Specifically, Hawley does not teach determining there is a curve in the road when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary and determining that there is not a curve when it is determined that eh reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary
Isaji discloses determining there is a curve in the road or not when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary and determining that there is not a curve when it is determined that eh reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary (see at least Isaji Figure 4 and 5 and [0104-0108] “Referring back to FIG. 1, the vehicle control ECU 10 performs a curve determination process to determine whether or not a curve lies in front of the own vehicle, when the current-position road segment is a straight road segment and the subsequent-position road segment is a curved road segment…In step S101, a virtual-road boundary distance calculation process is performed. Thereafter, the flow proceeds to step S102 of FIG. 4. In the virtual-road boundary distance calculation process, a virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is calculated that is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a boundary of a road segment of the virtual road outline (virtual-road boundary) situated in front of the own vehicle and along in the traveling direction of the own vehicle. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun may be calculated by using the current position of the own vehicle in the 2D coordinate system and a portion of the virtual road outline between the current and subsequent road segments. The vehicle control ECU 10 may be responsible for virtual-road boundary distance calculation means for executing this step S101….There will now be explained the virtual-road boundary distance D_boun with reference to FIG. 5. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The symbol "A" represents the own vehicle, the symbol "B" represents the virtual road outline, and the symbol "C" represents a real road outline. The symbol "E" represents the virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The dashed lines represent the virtual-road boundaries. Like elements from the previous drawings, embodiments, and description from above are labeled the same and will not be described again for brevity.” See also [0006] regarding road boundary for road curvature Figure 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hawley with the teaching of Isaji, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Isaji teaches the described method is one method of determining whether a subsequent road segment is curved to enable further steering control (see at least Isaji [0012]) .
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hawley and Isaji teach the control device according to
wherein the hardware processor further executes the program to assume that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from the current position of the mobile object in the current traveling direction for the predetermined time, and to determine whether areas before and after the reference position of the mobile object after the predetermined time are located at different positions from a travelable traveling road of the mobile object, and suppress the proposal when the determiner determines that the areas are located at the different positions ( The examiner notes the objection and 112b rejection above and the interpretation noted above In light of this, the examiner has provided the best effort interpretation wherein it is determined whether either before or after the reference point would be outside of the travelable areas if the vehicle were to continue straight. This is determined in Isaji. For example see at least Isaji Figure 4 and 5 and [0104-0108] “Referring back to FIG. 1, the vehicle control ECU 10 performs a curve determination process to determine whether or not a curve lies in front of the own vehicle, when the current-position road segment is a straight road segment and the subsequent-position road segment is a curved road segment…In step S101, a virtual-road boundary distance calculation process is performed. Thereafter, the flow proceeds to step S102 of FIG. 4. In the virtual-road boundary distance calculation process, a virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is calculated that is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a boundary of a road segment of the virtual road outline (virtual-road boundary) situated in front of the own vehicle and along in the traveling direction of the own vehicle. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun may be calculated by using the current position of the own vehicle in the 2D coordinate system and a portion of the virtual road outline between the current and subsequent road segments. The vehicle control ECU 10 may be responsible for virtual-road boundary distance calculation means for executing this step S101….There will now be explained the virtual-road boundary distance D_boun with reference to FIG. 5. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The symbol "A" represents the own vehicle, the symbol "B" represents the virtual road outline, and the symbol "C" represents a real road outline. The symbol "E" represents the virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The dashed lines represent the virtual-road boundaries. Like elements from the previous drawings, embodiments, and description from above are labeled the same and will not be described again for brevity.” See also [0006] regarding road boundary for road curvature Figure 11. The examiner notes that in determining the distance to the boundary, Isaji teaches the intersection point and thus determines anything within the boundary (areas before and after) to be areas that are not different position than the travelable traveling road and anything beyond the boundary (areas before and after) to be areas that are at different positions than the travelable traveling road.)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hawley and Isaji teach the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the hardware processor further executes the program to: determine whether areas before and after a tip of a virtual line when the virtual line is extended straight from the reference position of the mobile object by a predetermined distance in the current traveling direction are located at different positions from the travelable traveling road of the mobile object, and suppress the proposal when it is determined that the areas are located at the different positions.( The examiner notes the 112b rejection above. In light of this, the examiner has provided the best effort interpretation wherein Isaji teaches a virtual line is extended straight from the reference position of the mobile object. For example see at least Isaji Figure 4 and 5 and [0104-0108] “Referring back to FIG. 1, the vehicle control ECU 10 performs a curve determination process to determine whether or not a curve lies in front of the own vehicle, when the current-position road segment is a straight road segment and the subsequent-position road segment is a curved road segment…In step S101, a virtual-road boundary distance calculation process is performed. Thereafter, the flow proceeds to step S102 of FIG. 4. In the virtual-road boundary distance calculation process, a virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is calculated that is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a boundary of a road segment of the virtual road outline (virtual-road boundary) situated in front of the own vehicle and along in the traveling direction of the own vehicle. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun may be calculated by using the current position of the own vehicle in the 2D coordinate system and a portion of the virtual road outline between the current and subsequent road segments. The vehicle control ECU 10 may be responsible for virtual-road boundary distance calculation means for executing this step S101….There will now be explained the virtual-road boundary distance D_boun with reference to FIG. 5. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The symbol "A" represents the own vehicle, the symbol "B" represents the virtual road outline, and the symbol "C" represents a real road outline. The symbol "E" represents the virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The dashed lines represent the virtual-road boundaries. Like elements from the previous drawings, embodiments, and description from above are labeled the same and will not be described again for brevity.” See also [0006] regarding road boundary for road curvature Figure 11.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hawley and Isaji teach the control device according to claim 3,
wherein the predetermined distance is a distance traveled when the mobile object travels straight for a set time at a current speed of the mobile object (see at least Isaji [0110-0116] “A steering initiation indicator KdB_e will now be explained. KdB_e is indicative of a rate of change per unit time of visually perceived dimensions of an object appearing in the driver's eyes, such as a curbstone or a white marking or the like of the curve situated in front of the own vehicle (hereinafter referred to as a curve boundary object). KdB_e is an indicator that is indicative of a status of the own vehicle approaching the virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle (or indicative of how rapidly the own vehicle is approaching the virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle), which indicator is expressed as a function of a speed of the own vehicle approaching the virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. KdB_e increases with an increasing approaching speed of the own vehicle approaching the virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle and the rate of increase in steering initiation indicator KdB_e with decreasing virtual-road boundary distance D_boun increases more rapidly with decreasing virtual-road boundary distance D_boun. The steering initiation indicator KdB_e is given by the following Equation 1, where Vo is a speed of the own-vehicle…[0111] Eq. 1 shows that the steering initiation indicator KdB_e increases with increasing speed Vo of the own vehicle and increases with decreasing virtual-road boundary distance D_boun…. [0112] Typically, a driver determines, from a rate of change per unit time of visually perceived dimensions of a curve boundary object, a rough approaching speed at which the own vehicle approaches the curve and a distance from the own vehicle to the curve, thereby determining a timing at which steering of the own vehicle for turning along the curve is initiated. Accordingly, use of the steering initiation indicator KdB_e allows the steering of the own vehicle to be initiated at an actual timing at which the driver actually initiates the steering of the own vehicle right before the own vehicle enters the curve.” See also [0129]setting the proper distance).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hawley and Isaji teach the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the hardware processor further executes the program to: repeatedly determine whether the reference position of the mobile object intersects the traveling road boundary at a predetermined cycle, and suppress the proposal when the risk object is present on the traveling direction side of the mobile object in a first period during which it is determined that the reference position of the mobile object intersects the traveling road boundary, and makes the proposal when the risk object is present on the traveling direction side of the mobile object in a second period during which it is not determined that the reference position of the mobile object intersects the traveling road boundary (see at least Isaji Figure 4 which is shown to be repeated such that the determiner would repeatedly determine and the proposer would continue to suppress or make the proposal as described with respect to claim 1.. See also Figures 14-16 which shows the progression and subsequent determination of whether the line intersects. See also [0141] “If it is determined in step S106 that the end point of the curve-entrance transition area is reached, then the flow proceeds to step S107. If the end point of the curve-entrance transition area has not been reached yet, then the flow returns to step S105 and will be repeated therefrom.”).
Regarding claim 8, Hawley discloses a control method for making a proposal for steering to avoid a risk object present on a traveling direction side of a mobile object (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5, see at least driver warning system 120), comprising:
by a computer (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5, see at least driver warning system 120),
processing of determining there is a curve ahead, [[when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary]] (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5 and [0035] In this example scenario, there is no vehicle in front of the vehicle 105. However, the driver warning system 120 detects that there is a curve 305 in the road ahead. This detection may be carried out for example, by evaluating a video stream provided by the front-facing camera 115 or by utilizing map data that includes road metadata, such as road curvature.”); and
via an information provision device, processing of suppressing the proposal when it is determined there is a curve ahead [[that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary]], and making the proposal when it is determined there is not a curve ahead [[the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary]] , wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5 and [0036] “ The driver warning system 120 may, at this time, refer to a priority list, and/or obtain historical data, to prioritize the warning related to the curve 305 in the road ahead, over the warning associated with the vehicle 210 approaching the vehicle 105. Based on the priority list and/or historical data, the driver warning system 120 may transmit a driver warning (such as, in the form of a message displayed on the display screen of the infotainment system 140) recommending that the driver 150 slow down. Actions taken by the driver 150 in reaction to the issued driver warning may be evaluated by the driver warning system 120 to determine if the other warning has to be issued. In one case, the driver 211 of the vehicle 210 may notice that the vehicle 105 is slowing down and may follow suit by slowing down and staying in his/her lane. In this case, the driver warning system 120 may deem the second warning unnecessary and refrain from issuing the warning.” The examiner notes that the display screen of the infotainment system is a HMI) .
Hawley discloses determining that there is a curve in the road ahead, but does not disclose the claimed method of determining whether there is a curve in the road or not. Specifically, Hawley does not teach determining there is a curve in the road when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary and determining that there is not a curve when it is determined that eh reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary
Isaji discloses determining there is a curve in the road or not when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary and determining that there is not a curve when it is determined that eh reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary (see at least Isaji Figure 4 and 5 and [0104-0108] “Referring back to FIG. 1, the vehicle control ECU 10 performs a curve determination process to determine whether or not a curve lies in front of the own vehicle, when the current-position road segment is a straight road segment and the subsequent-position road segment is a curved road segment…In step S101, a virtual-road boundary distance calculation process is performed. Thereafter, the flow proceeds to step S102 of FIG. 4. In the virtual-road boundary distance calculation process, a virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is calculated that is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a boundary of a road segment of the virtual road outline (virtual-road boundary) situated in front of the own vehicle and along in the traveling direction of the own vehicle. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun may be calculated by using the current position of the own vehicle in the 2D coordinate system and a portion of the virtual road outline between the current and subsequent road segments. The vehicle control ECU 10 may be responsible for virtual-road boundary distance calculation means for executing this step S101….There will now be explained the virtual-road boundary distance D_boun with reference to FIG. 5. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The symbol "A" represents the own vehicle, the symbol "B" represents the virtual road outline, and the symbol "C" represents a real road outline. The symbol "E" represents the virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The dashed lines represent the virtual-road boundaries. Like elements from the previous drawings, embodiments, and description from above are labeled the same and will not be described again for brevity.” See also [0006] regarding road boundary for road curvature Figure 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hawley with the teaching of Isaji, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Isaji teaches the described method is one method of determining whether a subsequent road segment is curved to enable further steering control (see at least Isaji [0012]) .
Regarding claim 9, Hawley discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium that has stored a program causing a computer to execute processing of making a proposal for steering to avoid a risk object present on a traveling direction side of a mobile object (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5, see at least driver warning system 120), the program causing the computer to execute:
processing of determining there is a curve ahead, [[when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary]] (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5 and [0035] In this example scenario, there is no vehicle in front of the vehicle 105. However, the driver warning system 120 detects that there is a curve 305 in the road ahead. This detection may be carried out for example, by evaluating a video stream provided by the front-facing camera 115 or by utilizing map data that includes road metadata, such as road curvature.”); and
via an information provision device, processing of suppressing the proposal when it is determined there is a curve ahead [[that the reference position intersects the traveling road boundary]], and making the proposal when it is determined there is not a curve ahead [[the reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary]] , wherein the information provision device is a human machine interface (see at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5 and [0036] “ The driver warning system 120 may, at this time, refer to a priority list, and/or obtain historical data, to prioritize the warning related to the curve 305 in the road ahead, over the warning associated with the vehicle 210 approaching the vehicle 105. Based on the priority list and/or historical data, the driver warning system 120 may transmit a driver warning (such as, in the form of a message displayed on the display screen of the infotainment system 140) recommending that the driver 150 slow down. Actions taken by the driver 150 in reaction to the issued driver warning may be evaluated by the driver warning system 120 to determine if the other warning has to be issued. In one case, the driver 211 of the vehicle 210 may notice that the vehicle 105 is slowing down and may follow suit by slowing down and staying in his/her lane. In this case, the driver warning system 120 may deem the second warning unnecessary and refrain from issuing the warning.” The examiner notes that the display screen of the infotainment system is a HMI) .
Hawley discloses determining that there is a curve in the road ahead, but does not disclose the claimed method of determining whether there is a curve in the road or not. Specifically, Hawley does not teach determining there is a curve in the road when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary and determining that there is not a curve when it is determined that eh reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary
Isaji discloses determining there is a curve in the road or not when it is assumed that the mobile object is caused to travel straight from a current position of the mobile object in a current traveling direction for a predetermined time, whether a reference position of the mobile object intersects a traveling road boundary and determining that there is not a curve when it is determined that eh reference position does not intersect the traveling road boundary (see at least Isaji Figure 4 and 5 and [0104-0108] “Referring back to FIG. 1, the vehicle control ECU 10 performs a curve determination process to determine whether or not a curve lies in front of the own vehicle, when the current-position road segment is a straight road segment and the subsequent-position road segment is a curved road segment…In step S101, a virtual-road boundary distance calculation process is performed. Thereafter, the flow proceeds to step S102 of FIG. 4. In the virtual-road boundary distance calculation process, a virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is calculated that is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a boundary of a road segment of the virtual road outline (virtual-road boundary) situated in front of the own vehicle and along in the traveling direction of the own vehicle. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun may be calculated by using the current position of the own vehicle in the 2D coordinate system and a portion of the virtual road outline between the current and subsequent road segments. The vehicle control ECU 10 may be responsible for virtual-road boundary distance calculation means for executing this step S101….There will now be explained the virtual-road boundary distance D_boun with reference to FIG. 5. The virtual-road boundary distance D_boun is a distance from the own vehicle (more specifically, the front end of the own vehicle) to a virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The symbol "A" represents the own vehicle, the symbol "B" represents the virtual road outline, and the symbol "C" represents a real road outline. The symbol "E" represents the virtual-road boundary situated in front of the own vehicle. The dashed lines represent the virtual-road boundaries. Like elements from the previous drawings, embodiments, and description from above are labeled the same and will not be described again for brevity.” See also [0006] regarding road boundary for road curvature Figure 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hawley with the teaching of Isaji, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Isaji teaches the described method is one method of determining whether a subsequent road segment is curved to enable further steering control (see at least Isaji [0012]) .
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley and Isaji in further view of Misu (US Pub. No. 2016/0117947, hereinafter “Misu”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hawley and Isaji teach the control device according to claim 5, but do not explicitly teach
wherein the hardware processor further executes the program to not make the proposal when the driver of the mobile object perform a behavior to avoid the risk object before the mobile object approaches the risk object by a predetermined degree or more in the second period.
Misu teaches wherein the proposer does not make the proposal when a driver of the mobile object perform a behavior to avoid the risk object before the mobile object approaches the risk object by a predetermined degree or more in the second period (see at least Misu [0074] “Conversely, the management component 180 may limit or reduce a number of notifications for an operator of a vehicle if there are excess distractions (e.g., above a threshold number of attention demanding objects) to mitigate multi-tasking. Here, in this example, if a driver is busy multi-tasking, but the roadway is relatively clear aside from a low risk object, the management component 180 may negate the associated notification for that low risk object. In other words, the management component 180 may disable notifications when appropriate (e.g., when a driver is aware of a corresponding object), thereby mitigating excessive notifications based on context or situational awareness” and wherein Misu teaches in [0009] awareness is judged based on “one or more operator responses (e.g., accelerating, steering, turning, braking, signaling, etc.”) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hawley and Isaji with the teaching of Misu, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Misu teaches, disabling notifications when appropriate prevents unneeded distractions (see Misu [0074] and abstract).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hawley, Isaji, and Misu teach the control device according to claim 6, wherein the hardware processor further executes the program to determine whether the driver visually recognizes the risk object in the first period; and notify the driver of the presence of the risk object using an information provision device when the driver does not visually recognize the risk object in the first period (see at least Misu [0073-0074] and context “If a driver or operator of a vehicle is multi-tasking between a large number (e.g., greater than a baseline number stored in the database component 150 or another threshold number) of attention demanding objects, the management component 180 may cause the notification component 170 to render notifications for high priority objects (e.g., objects associated with a low awareness score below a threshold awareness level and a high estimated risk score above a desired risk level). and wherein Misu teaches in [0009] awareness is judged based on operator behavior (e.g. eye tracking), one or more operator responses (e.g., accelerating, steering, turning, braking, signaling, etc.”)” .
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley and Isaji in further view of Schwindt (US Pub. No. US-20100286874-A1 hereinafter “Schwindt”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hawley and Isaji teach the control device according to claim 1, but do not teach wherein the hardware processor further executes the program to:
determine a presence of a specific area; and
in a case that the specific area is determined to be present, suppress the proposal .
However, Schwindt teaches wherein the processor further executes the program to:
determine a presence of a specific area (see at least Schwindt, Figure 4, 5, and 7 guardrail area 30, 32. See also Schwindt abstract and [0039] “ In FIG. 5, vehicle 34 equipped with the collision warning device according to FIG. 1 drives on a road 36, which is delimited on the left and right by guardrails 30' and 32'. Vehicle 34 is just about to enter a curve and is entering this curve at an excessive speed, so that there is the danger that it will graze guardrail 32'. The course of guardrails 30', 32' is detected by detection module 20 in the manner described above. Course warning function 18 is implemented in control device 12 by software that checks to see whether there is a danger of colliding with one of these guardrails.” See also [0045] “As an alternative to the example described here, course warning function 18 may also be implemented in another manner. For example, with the aid of the course of the guardrails, it is possible to determine the point at which the straight-ahead direction of vehicle 34 intersects the guardrail, and then it is possible to determine the distance to this point and the angle that the guardrail forms at this point of the straight-ahead direction. From these variables and the vehicle's own speed V.sub.ref it is then possible to calculate a parameter that specifies the transverse dynamics that are necessary for an evasion maneuver, and the warning signal is triggered only when this parameter exceeds a corresponding threshold value.”); and
in a case that the specific area is determined to be present, suppress the proposal (see at least Schwindt with teaches both a course detection warning and an object detection warning and further teaches a determination if the object detection warning is warranted is on the other side of the guardrail. See for example [0046] “The course of the guardrails detected with the aid of detection module 20 may also be used additionally in collision warning function 16 to plausibilize the course of the host vehicle and to decide whether a located (stationary) object is located on the roadway and thus presents a real obstacle, or is located beyond the guardrail and thus is outside of the roadway. As an example, in FIG. 7, a stationary object 40 is illustrated, which is located by radar sensor 10, and regarding which a decision must be made as to whether it presents a real obstacle on the roadway. To this end, as part of collision warning function 16, a check is carried out to see on which side of guardrail 32' object 40 is located. When it is located on the side of the guardrail facing the roadway, as is the case in FIG. 7, it is to be qualified as a real obstacle, and then when a suitable threshold value for the "time to collision" is undershot, a warning signal is output.) Further, Hawley teaches suppressing the proposal regarding the risk object when the risk of the course warning is a higher priority. See at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5 and [0036] “ The driver warning system 120 may, at this time, refer to a priority list, and/or obtain historical data, to prioritize the warning related to the curve 305 in the road ahead, over the warning associated with the vehicle 210 approaching the vehicle 105. Based on the priority list and/or historical data, the driver warning system 120 may transmit a driver warning (such as, in the form of a message displayed on the display screen of the infotainment system 140) recommending that the driver 150 slow down. Actions taken by the driver 150 in reaction to the issued driver warning may be evaluated by the driver warning system 120 to determine if the other warning has to be issued. In one case, the driver 211 of the vehicle 210 may notice that the vehicle 105 is slowing down and may follow suit by slowing down and staying in his/her lane. In this case, the driver warning system 120 may deem the second warning unnecessary and refrain from issuing the warning.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hawley and Isaji with the teaching of Schwindt, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Schwindt teaches providing a warning regarding a collision with a guardrail and further reduces risk of collision (see at least Schwindt [0009-0010]) and further teaches identifying a guardrail better provides the anticipated travel corridor of the host vehicle to more reliable determine if an object is an obstacle on the road or is located beyond the guardrail and is not a risk (see Schwindt [0007]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hawley and Isaji teach control device according to claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the hardware processor further executes the program to:
determine a presence of a specific area in which a risk potential is equal to or greater than a threshold; and
suppress the proposal based on the specific area being determined to be present.
However, Schwindt teaches wherein the processor further executes the program to:
determine a presence of a specific area in which a risk potential is equal to or greater than a threshold value (see at least Schwindt, Figure 4, 5, and 7 guardrail area 30, 32 See also Schwindt abstract and [0039] “ In FIG. 5, vehicle 34 equipped with the collision warning device according to FIG. 1 drives on a road 36, which is delimited on the left and right by guardrails 30' and 32'. Vehicle 34 is just about to enter a curve and is entering this curve at an excessive speed, so that there is the danger that it will graze guardrail 32'. The course of guardrails 30', 32' is detected by detection module 20 in the manner described above. Course warning function 18 is implemented in control device 12 by software that checks to see whether there is a danger of colliding with one of these guardrails.” See also [0045] “As an alternative to the example described here, course warning function 18 may also be implemented in another manner. For example, with the aid of the course of the guardrails, it is possible to determine the point at which the straight-ahead direction of vehicle 34 intersects the guardrail, and then it is possible to determine the distance to this point and the angle that the guardrail forms at this point of the straight-ahead direction. From these variables and the vehicle's own speed V.sub.ref it is then possible to calculate a parameter that specifies the transverse dynamics that are necessary for an evasion maneuver, and the warning signal is triggered only when this parameter exceeds a corresponding threshold value.”); and
suppress the proposal based on the specific area being determined to be present (see at least Schwindt with teaches both a course detection warning and an object detection warning and further teaches a determination if the object detection warning is warranted is on the other side of the guardrail. See for example [0046] “The course of the guardrails detected with the aid of detection module 20 may also be used additionally in collision warning function 16 to plausibilize the course of the host vehicle and to decide whether a located (stationary) object is located on the roadway and thus presents a real obstacle, or is located beyond the guardrail and thus is outside of the roadway. As an example, in FIG. 7, a stationary object 40 is illustrated, which is located by radar sensor 10, and regarding which a decision must be made as to whether it presents a real obstacle on the roadway. To this end, as part of collision warning function 16, a check is carried out to see on which side of guardrail 32' object 40 is located. When it is located on the side of the guardrail facing the roadway, as is the case in FIG. 7, it is to be qualified as a real obstacle, and then when a suitable threshold value for the "time to collision" is undershot, a warning signal is output.) Further, Hawley teaches suppressing the proposal regarding the risk object when the risk of the course warning is a higher priority. See at least Hawley Figure 4 and 5 and [0036] “ The driver warning system 120 may, at this time, refer to a priority list, and/or obtain historical data, to prioritize the warning related to the curve 305 in the road ahead, over the warning associated with the vehicle 210 approaching the vehicle 105. Based on the priority list and/or historical data, the driver warning system 120 may transmit a driver warning (such as, in the form of a message displayed on the display screen of the infotainment system 140) recommending that the driver 150 slow down. Actions taken by the driver 150 in reaction to the issued driver warning may be evaluated by the driver warning system 120 to determine if the other warning has to be issued. In one case, the driver 211 of the vehicle 210 may notice that the vehicle 105 is slowing down and may follow suit by slowing down and staying in his/her lane. In this case, the driver warning system 120 may deem the second warning unnecessary and refrain from issuing the warning.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hawley and Isaji with the teaching of Schwindt, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Schwindt teaches providing a warning regarding a collision with a guardrail and further reduces risk of collision (see at least Schwindt [0009-0010]) and further teaches identifying a guardrail better provides the anticipated travel corridor of the host vehicle to more reliable determine if an object is an obstacle on the road or is located beyond the guardrail and is not a risk (see Schwindt [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hawley, Isaji and Schwindt teach control device according to claim 11, wherein the specific area is an area to be avoided (see at least Schwindt, Figure 4, 5, and , wherein the guardrail area 30, 32 is to be avoided. See also Schwindt abstract and [0039] “ In FIG. 5, vehicle 34 equipped with the collision warning device according to FIG. 1 drives on a road 36, which is delimited on the left and right by guardrails 30' and 32'. Vehicle 34 is just about to enter a curve and is entering this curve at an excessive speed, so that there is the danger that it will graze guardrail 32'. The course of guardrails 30', 32' is detected by detection module 20 in the manner described above. Course warning function 18 is implemented in control device 12 by software that checks to see whether there is a danger of colliding with one of these guardrails.” See also [0045] “As an alternative to the example described here, course warning function 18 may also be implemented in another manner. For example, with the aid of the course of the guardrails, it is possible to determine the point at which the straight-ahead direction of vehicle 34 intersects the guardrail, and then it is possible to determine the distance to this point and the angle that the guardrail forms at this point of the straight-ahead direction. From these variables and the vehicle's own speed V.sub.ref it is then possible to calculate a parameter that specifies the transverse dynamics that are necessary for an evasion maneuver, and the warning signal is triggered only when this parameter exceeds a corresponding threshold value.”)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley and Isaji in further view of Yamaoka et al. (US-11987239-B2A1 hereinafter “Yamaoka”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hawley and Isaji teach control device according to claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the hardware processor further executes the program to:
determine that an observation point is included in a specific area; and
suppress the proposal based on the observation point being included in the specific area.
Yamaoka teaches wherein the processor further executes the program to:
determine that an observation point is included in a specific area (see at least Yamaoka Figure 5 and col. 4, lines 50-60 and col. 6 lines 14-26, See also Figure 6 and col 7, lines 45 through col 8 line 35. For example col 4 liens 50-60 teach “The driving assistance system 40 configured as described above determines whether a situation in front of the vehicle 50 cannot be visually recognized, based on information related to the situation in front of the vehicle 50 being acquired from the surrounding monitoring device 1 or the navigation device 6. Then, in a case in which the driving assistance system 40 determines that a state is the state where the situation in front of the vehicle 50 cannot be visually recognized, the driving assistance system 40 performs driving assistance to a driver when the driver tries to pass a preceding vehicle….(21) Specifically, in a case in which the driving assistance system 40 determines that a state is the state where the situation in front of the vehicle 50 cannot be visually recognized, the driving assistance system 40 notifies the driver of a warning via the speaker 3 or the GUI 4 when the driver tries to pass a preceding vehicle.” See also col 6, lines 14-26 In FIGS. 3 and 4, the preceding vehicle 70 is a large-sized vehicle such as a truck, and the driver of the vehicle 50 is in a state where it is difficult for the driver to visually recognize a situation in front. Further, a curve 80 is present ahead of the preceding vehicle 70, and the oncoming vehicle 60 enters a blind spot of the curve 80 at the point of time (time t0) at which the vehicle 50 tries to pass the preceding vehicle 70, and thus the driver of the vehicle 50 is in a state where it is difficult for the driver to visually recognize the oncoming vehicle 60…(30) The visibility determination unit 12 of the control unit 100 determines whether visual recognition within a predetermined distance D from the vehicle 50 can be achieved in a traveling direction of the vehicle 50, based on information acquired from the surrounding monitoring device 1 or the navigation device 6…(31) When the camera of the surrounding monitoring device 1 is used, the visibility determination unit 12 determines presence or absence of an obstruction (such as an object and a curve) when the visually recognizing ahead from an image acquired by the camera, and determines that visual recognition within the distance D can be achieved when there is no obstruction within the predetermined distance D.”;
suppress the proposal based on the observation point being included in the specific area (see at least Yamaoka above citations and Figure 5, wherein if there is visual recognition within a predetermined distance can be achieved (YES) the warning is suppressed as shown by the process flowing from S101 to end without flowing through S103) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hawley and Isaji with the teaching of Yamaoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yamaoka teaches only providing a warning when the driver there is not visual recognition within a predetermined distance (see at least Yamaoka Figure 5), and as understood by one of skill in the art, providing warnings only when there are blinds spots reduces unnecessary or annoyance warnings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20150345964-A1 to Oooka is cited for being pertinent to the limitations of claim 10-12.
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 JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662