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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are considered moot because the arguments are directed toward subject matter that has been amended and has necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §102 and 103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is 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 claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “dividing the field of view ranges of the driver of the vehicle is based on a size of the vehicle” is not disclosed in applicant’s specification.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0232931 A1) in view of Arar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0121867 A1; hereinafter Arar).
Regarding claim 1, Heckmann discloses:
A vehicle control method, comprising: dividing field of view ranges of a driver of a vehicle into a plurality of field of view sectors of the vehicle (for an intersection, prototypical areas would be areas 7 and 8, see at least [0031]) *The intersection is divided into areas 7 and 8, see Fig. 1, wherein the driver is required to view these areas before proceeding, see at least paragraph [0033]. Examiner sets forth that One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the field of view range is the intersection as a whole, and viewing areas 7 and 8 would be dividing the view range into a plurality of sectors
obtaining sight information of the driver (driver’s head and eye movements are observed, see at least [0034] and [0041]; eye tracker, see at least [0043]), wherein the sight information comprises a focus sector of the driver (infer from driver’s head and eye movements if part of traffic scene in the relevant area has been perceived, see at least [0041]), and the focus sector comprises at least one of the plurality of field of view sectors of the vehicle (areas of relevant traffic first area 7 and second area 8, see at least [0033]-[0034]); and
obtaining a control policy of the vehicle based on at least the sight information (signal causing activation of brakes is maintained as long as driver does not pay attention to area 7, see at least [0033]).
Heckmann does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of fixed field of view sectors
However, Arar teaches:
a plurality of fixed field of view sectors (gaze regions include left side region corresponding to a driver side window and a driver side mirror, left front gaze region corresponding to left half portion of front windshield, right front gaze region corresponding to a right half of front windshield, right gaze region corresponding to passenger side window and passenger side mirror, see at least [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation relevant area disclosed by Heckmann by adding the gaze regions taught by Arar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above and Heckmann further discloses:
obtaining the control policy of the vehicle based on at least the sight information comprises: obtaining the control policy based on the sight information and vehicle information of the vehicle, wherein the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following: a steering wheel angle, an angular velocity, a turn signal, or a vehicle speed (information from turning lights switched on by driver determines which direction vehicle will drive on, see at least [0017])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above and Heckmann further discloses:
the focus sector is obtained based on at least one of blind zone information or obstacle information (vehicles 3 and 4 are within an area which needs to be observed, see at least [0027]) *Examiner sets forth the other vehicles 3 and 4 are obstacles.
Regarding claim 10, Heckmann discloses:
A vehicle control apparatus, comprising: at least one processor (processor, see at least [0014] and [0045]); and (memory 15, see at least [0045]) coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (processor performs based on information stored in memory, see at least [0045]), cause the vehicle control apparatus to perform operations comprising:
dividing field of view ranges of a driver of a vehicle into a plurality of field of view sectors of the vehicle (for an intersection, prototypical areas would be areas 7 and 8, see at least [0031]) *The intersection is divided into areas 7 and 8, see Fig. 1, wherein the driver is required to view these areas before proceeding, see at least paragraph [0033]. Examiner sets forth that One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the field of view range is the intersection as a whole, and viewing areas 7 and 8 would be dividing the view range into a plurality of sectors
obtaining sight information of the driver (driver’s head and eye movements are observed, see at least [0034] and [0041]; eye tracker, see at least [0043]), wherein the sight information comprises a focus sector of the driver (infer from driver’s head and eye movements if part of traffic scene in the relevant area has been perceived, see at least [0041]), and the focus sector comprises at least one of the plurality of field of view sectors of the vehicle (areas of relevant traffic first area 7 and second area 8, see at least [0033]-[0034]); and
obtaining a control policy of the vehicle based on at least the sight information (signal causing activation of brakes is maintained as long as driver does not pay attention to area 7, see at least [0033]).
Heckmann does not explicitly disclose:
a non-transitory computer readable medium
a plurality of fixed field of view sectors
However, Arar teaches:
a non-transitory computer readable medium (computer-usable instructions stored on computer storage media, see at least [0051])
a plurality of fixed field of view sectors (gaze regions include left side region corresponding to a driver side window and a driver side mirror, left front gaze region corresponding to left half portion of front windshield, right front gaze region corresponding to a right half of front windshield, right gaze region corresponding to passenger side window and passenger side mirror, see at least [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation relevant area disclosed by Heckmann by adding the gaze regions taught by Arar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle” (see [0004]). Furthermore, the use of non-transitory computer readable medium is well known in the art and would have been obvious to use to One having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above and Heckmann further discloses:
obtaining the control policy of the vehicle based on at least the sight information comprises: obtaining the control policy based on the sight information and vehicle information of the vehicle, wherein the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following: a steering wheel angle, an angular velocity, a turn signal, or a vehicle speed (information from turning lights switched on by driver determines which direction vehicle will drive on, see at least [0017])
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above and Heckmann further discloses:
the focus sector is obtained based on at least one of blind zone information or obstacle information (vehicles 3 and 4 are within an area which needs to be observed, see at least [0027]) *Examiner sets forth the other vehicles 3 and 4 are obstacles.
Regarding claim 19, Heckmann discloses:
storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising (processor performs based on information stored in memory, see at least [0045]):
dividing field of view ranges of a driver of a vehicle into a plurality of field of view sectors of the vehicle (for an intersection, prototypical areas would be areas 7 and 8, see at least [0031]) *The intersection is divided into areas 7 and 8, see Fig. 1, wherein the driver is required to view these areas before proceeding, see at least paragraph [0033]. Examiner sets forth that One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the field of view range is the intersection as a whole, and viewing areas 7 and 8 would be dividing the view range into a plurality of sectors
obtaining sight information of the driver (driver’s head and eye movements are observed, see at least [0034] and [0041]; eye tracker, see at least [0043]), wherein the sight information comprises a focus sector of the driver (infer from driver’s head and eye movements if part of traffic scene in the relevant area has been perceived, see at least [0041]), and the focus sector comprises at least one of the plurality of field of view sectors of the vehicle (areas of relevant traffic first area 7 and second area 8, see at least [0033]-[0034]); and
obtaining a control policy of the vehicle based on at least the sight information (signal causing activation of brakes is maintained as long as driver does not pay attention to area 7, see at least [0033]).
Heckmann does not explicitly disclose:
a non-transitory computer readable medium
a plurality of fixed field of view sectors
However, Arar teaches:
a non-transitory computer readable medium (computer-usable instructions stored on computer storage media, see at least [0051])
a plurality of fixed field of view sectors (gaze regions include left side region corresponding to a driver side window and a driver side mirror, left front gaze region corresponding to left half portion of front windshield, right front gaze region corresponding to a right half of front windshield, right gaze region corresponding to passenger side window and passenger side mirror, see at least [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation relevant area disclosed by Heckmann by adding the gaze regions taught by Arar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle” (see [0004]). Furthermore, the use of non-transitory computer readable medium is well known in the art and would have been obvious to use to One having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckmann in view of Arar as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kashchenko (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0077308 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above and Heckmann further discloses:
obtaining the control policy based on the sight information and the vehicle information of the vehicle comprises: processing the sight information and the vehicle information, to obtain a driving intention of the driver, wherein the driving intention is lane keeping, turning, or lane changing (it is possible to determine whether vehicle will turn, see at least [0017]); and obtaining the control policy based on the driving intention (signal to turn causes brakes of vehicle to be activated until driver perceives the traffic scene in the relevant area, see at least [0018])
Heckmann does not disclose:
using a trained neural network model
However, Kashchenko teaches:
processing the sight information and the vehicle information by using a trained neural network model, to obtain a driving intention of the driver, wherein the driving intention is lane keeping, turning, or lane changing; and obtaining the control policy based on the driving intention (collecting information, using internal and external sensors, of driver behavior, vehicle condition, and road or traffic conditions and feeding the information into a neural network to determine to automatically activate turn indicators, see at least [0014]; detect a change of gaze in connection with a left turn maneuver, see at least [0049]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver gaze and turn disclosed by Heckmann and the gaze regions taught by Arar by adding the trained neural network taught by Kashchenko with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide an automatic assistance to the driver of the motor vehicle in performing a maneuver by determining whether the current traffic conditions are suitable for changing the direction of the vehicle based on the rules for detecting, determining and confirming a new direction of the car, and activating the car turn signals in accordance with the new direction of the car” (see [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above and Heckmann further discloses:
obtaining the control policy based on the sight information and the vehicle information of the vehicle comprises: processing the sight information and the vehicle information, to obtain a driving intention of the driver, wherein the driving intention is lane keeping, turning, or lane changing (it is possible to determine whether vehicle will turn, see at least [0017]); and
obtaining the control policy based on the driving intention (signal to turn causes brakes of vehicle to be activated until driver perceives the traffic scene in the relevant area, see at least [0018]).
Heckmann does not disclose:
using a trained neural network model
However, Kashchenko teaches:
processing the sight information and the vehicle information by using a trained neural network model, to obtain a driving intention of the driver, wherein the driving intention is lane keeping, turning, or lane changing; and obtaining the control policy based on the driving intention (collecting information, using internal and external sensors, of driver behavior, vehicle condition, and road or traffic conditions and feeding the information into a neural network to determine to automatically activate turn indicators, see at least [0014]; detect a change of gaze in connection with a left turn maneuver, see at least [0049]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver gaze and turn disclosed by Heckmann and the gaze regions taught by Arar by adding the trained neural network taught by Kashchenko with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide an automatic assistance to the driver of the motor vehicle in performing a maneuver by determining whether the current traffic conditions are suitable for changing the direction of the vehicle based on the rules for detecting, determining and confirming a new direction of the car, and activating the car turn signals in accordance with the new direction of the car” (see [0007]).
Claims 4-5, 9, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckmann in view of Arar as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of Sung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0060234 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above and Heckmann further discloses:
Left side of intersection and right side of intersection, see at least [0030]-[0031] and Fig. 1
Heckmann does not explicitly disclose:
a field of view sector of a left vehicle window, a field of view sector of a left rearview mirror, a field of view sector of a front vehicle window, a field of view sector of an in-vehicle rearview mirror, a field of view sector of a right vehicle window, and a field of view sector of a right rearview mirror
However, Arar teaches:
the plurality of field of view sectors comprises a field of view sector of a left vehicle window, a field of view sector of a left rearview mirror, a field of view sector of a front vehicle window, a field of view sector of a right vehicle window, and a field of view sector of a right rearview mirror (gaze regions include left side region corresponding to a driver side window and a driver side mirror, left front gaze region corresponding to left half portion of front windshield, right front gaze region corresponding to a right half of front windshield, right gaze region corresponding to passenger side window and passenger side mirror, see at least [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation relevant area disclosed by Heckmann by adding the left and right windows and mirrors taught by Arar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle” (see [0004]).
Furthermore, Sung teaches:
a field of view sector of an in-vehicle rearview mirror (driver may gaze to rearview, see at least [0110])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation relevant area disclosed by Heckmann and the left and right windows and mirrors taught by Arar by adding the rearview gaze taught by Sung with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to check the situation behind the vehicle” (see [0110]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Heckmann, Arar, and Sung teaches the elements above but Heckmann does not explicitly disclose:
the field of view sector of the front vehicle window comprises a left field of view sector of the front vehicle window and a right field of view sector of the front vehicle window
However, Arar teaches:
the field of view sector of the front vehicle window comprises a left field of view sector of the front vehicle window and a right field of view sector of the front vehicle window(gaze regions include left half portion of front windshield and right half of front windshield, see at least [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation relevant area disclosed by Heckmann by adding the left and right windows and mirrors taught by Arar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above but does not teach:
displaying the focus sector on a display unit.
However, Sung teaches:
displaying the focus sector on a display unit (processor may control display to display a frame of the left side-view mirror, see at least [0226] and Fig. 9C)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver gaze determination disclosed by Heckmann and the gaze regions taught by Arar by adding the display taught by Sung with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “ to provide a driver assistance apparatus for assisting the driver in looking ahead by determining information necessary for the driver based on at least one of gaze and a gesture of the driver and outputting the information on the windshield and a method for controlling the same” (see [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the limitations above and Heckmann further discloses:
Left side of intersection and right side of intersection, see at least [0030]-[0031] and Fig. 1
Heckmann does not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of field of view sectors comprises a field of view sector of a left vehicle window, a field of view sector of a left rearview mirror, a field of view sector of a front vehicle window, a field of view sector of an in-vehicle rearview mirror, a field of view sector of a right vehicle window, and a field of view sector of a right rearview mirror.
However, Arar teaches:
the plurality of field of view sectors comprises a field of view sector of a left vehicle window, a field of view sector of a left rearview mirror, a field of view sector of a front vehicle window, a field of view sector of a right vehicle window, and a field of view sector of a right rearview mirror (gaze regions include left side region corresponding to a driver side window and a driver side mirror, left front gaze region corresponding to left half portion of front windshield, right front gaze region corresponding to a right half of front windshield, right gaze region corresponding to passenger side window and passenger side mirror, see at least [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation relevant area disclosed by Heckmann by adding the left and right windows and mirrors taught by Arar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle” (see [0004]).
Furthermore, Sung teaches:
a field of view sector of an in-vehicle rearview mirror (driver may gaze to rearview, see at least [0110])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation relevant area disclosed by Heckmann and the left and right windows and mirrors taught by Arar by adding the rearview gaze taught by Sung with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to check the situation behind the vehicle” (see [0110]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Heckmann, Arar, and Sung teaches the elements above but Heckmann does not disclose:
the field of view sector of the front vehicle window comprises a left field of view sector of the front vehicle window and a right field of view sector of the front vehicle window.
However, Arar teaches:
the field of view sector of the front vehicle window comprises a left field of view sector of the front vehicle window and a right field of view sector of the front vehicle window(gaze regions include left half portion of front windshield and right half of front windshield, see at least [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the observation relevant area disclosed by Heckmann by adding the left and right windows and mirrors taught by Arar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the limitations above but does not disclose:
displaying the focus sector on a display unit.
However, Sung teaches:
displaying the focus sector on a display unit (processor may control display to display a frame of the left side-view mirror, see at least [0226] and Fig. 9C)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver gaze determination disclosed by Heckmann the gaze regions taught by Arar by adding the display taught by Sung with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “ to provide a driver assistance apparatus for assisting the driver in looking ahead by determining information necessary for the driver based on at least one of gaze and a gesture of the driver and outputting the information on the windshield and a method for controlling the same” (see [0008]).
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckmann in view of Arar as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of Laine (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0272215 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above and Heckmann further discloses:
Driver’s eye glance and head motion is used to determine where driver is focused, see at least [0019])
Heckmann does not explicitly disclose:
Line-of-sight
However, Laine teaches:
the focus sector is obtained based on at least a line-of-sight direction of the driver (determining a line of sight and field of view of a driver, see at least [0010] and [0058]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver’s eye glance and head motion disclosed by Heckmann and the gaze regions taught by Arar by adding the line of sight taught by Laine with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “in order to determine if the driver sees the obstacle” (see [0014]). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the combination of an eye gaze and head motion can be used to determine a line of sight.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above and Heckmann further discloses:
Activating brakes of the vehicle so further driving is inhibited, see at least [0015]
Heckmann does not explicitly disclose:
the control policy comprises at least one of the following: an anti-collision warning policy, an autonomous emergency braking policy, an adaptive cruise control policy, a lane departure warning policy, a lane keeping assist policy, or a lane centering assist policy.
However, Laine teaches:
the control policy comprises at least one of the following: an anti-collision warning policy (an alert is generated if potential obstacle is on a possible collision course with the driver/vehicle, see at least [0044]), an autonomous emergency braking policy, an adaptive cruise control policy, a lane departure warning policy, a lane keeping assist policy, or a lane centering assist policy
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prohibiting a turn to avoid a collision disclosed by Heckmann and the gaze regions taught by Arar by adding the alert taught by Laine with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to generate “alerts to the driver for obstacles which the driver may not see” (see [0014]) to prevent a collision and maintain safety.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the limitations above and Heckmann further discloses:
Driver’s eye glance and head motion is used to determine where driver is focused, see at least [0019])
Heckmann does not disclose:
Line-of-sight
However, Laine teaches:
the focus sector is obtained based on at least a line-of-sight direction of the driver (determining a line of sight and field of view of a driver, see at least [0010] and [0058]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver’s eye glance and head motion disclosed by Heckmann and the gaze regions taught by Arar by adding the line of sight taught by Laine with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “in order to determine if the driver sees the obstacle” (see [0014]). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the combination of an eye gaze and head motion can be used to determine a line of sight.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the limitations above and Heckmann further discloses:
Activating brakes of the vehicle so further driving is inhibited, see at least [0015]
Heckmann does not disclose:
the control policy comprises at least one of the following: an anti-collision warning policy, an autonomous emergency braking policy, an adaptive cruise control policy, a lane departure warning policy, a lane keeping assist policy, or a lane centering assist policy.
However, Laine teaches:
the control policy comprises at least one of the following: an anti-collision warning policy (an alert is generated if potential obstacle is on a possible collision course with the driver/vehicle, see at least [0044]), an autonomous emergency braking policy, an adaptive cruise control policy, a lane departure warning policy, a lane keeping assist policy, or a lane centering assist policy
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prohibiting a turn to avoid a collision disclosed by Heckmann and the gaze regions taught by Arar by adding the alert taught by Laine with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to generate “alerts to the driver for obstacles which the driver may not see” (see [0014]) to prevent a collision and maintain safety.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckmann in view of Arar as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0327084 A1; hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Heckmann and Arar teaches the elements above but does not teach:
wherein dividing the field of view ranges of the driver of the vehicle is based on a size of the vehicle
However, Park teaches:
wherein dividing the field of view ranges of the driver of the vehicle is based on a size of the vehicle (field of view is different for different types of vehicles, adjusting driver’s seat to maintain a field of view for a driver, see at least [0087]) *Examiner sets forth that if a field of view is different based on types of vehicles, the viewing range changes
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prohibiting a turn to avoid a collision disclosed by Heckmann and the gaze regions taught by Arar by adding the field of view of different vehicle types taught by Park with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to adjust a driver’s field of view based on the type of vehicle (see [0087]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Perkes (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0165292 A1) teaches that it is well known for vehicles to have blind spots where the field of view of the driver is limited by a configuration such as the size of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights