DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 07/20/2026 for Application number 18/483,832 originally filed on 10/10/2023, in which claims 1-11 were originally presented for examination. Claims 12-15 have been previously added, claims 2 & 11 have been previously cancelled, and claims 1, 6, 7-9, 14 & 15 are currently amended. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-10 & 12-15 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22202555, filed on 10/19/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 10/10/2023 & 02/05/2025 have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Examiner notes that Applicants have used the phrase “and/or” in claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13 & 15. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase “and/or” within a claim is not indefinite. According to the PTAB, “and/or” is not wrong, but it’s not preferred verbiage. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811. Nevertheless, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase “and/or” under its broadest reasonable interpretation of “or” for purposes of examination of the instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 07/20/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Interpretation under 35 USC §112(f): The interpretation of claims under 35 USC §112(f), are maintained, as amended claim(s) filed on 07/20/2026 has/have failed to overcome the Claim Interpretation under §112(f) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/01/2025, the Final Office Action mailed on 10/22/2025 and/or the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/22/2026. Examiner Notes that Interpretation of claims under 35 USC §112(f) has been not been addressed by Applicants arguments and/or amendments.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §112(b): The rejections of claim(s) 1, 3-8, 12 & 13 for lack of antecedent basis and/or being indefinite is/are withdrawn, as the amended claim(s) filed on 07/20/2026 has/have properly addressed, and/or recite(s) proper, antecedent basis. The rejections of claim(s) 14 for lack of antecedent basis are maintained, as the amended claim(s) filed on 07/20/2026 has/have failed to properly address, and/or recite proper, antecedent basis. In addition, Applicant's amendment and/or new claims may necessitated new ground of rejection under §112(b) presented below.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §101: The rejection(s) of claim(s) for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, is/are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 07/20/2026 has/have overcome the rejection as recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/22/2026.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1): Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim(s) as being clearly anticipated by the prior art of Kaminade (US- 2016/0039410-A1) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“The claims are patentable at least because Kaminade fails to disclose to take into account a "trailing trajectory," as recited in the pending independent claims, and thus cannot anticipate the pending independent claims. The independent claims require judging whether a target object is an alert object based on a positional relationship between the target object and a trailing trajectory of the subject vehicle - i.e., the path the subject vehicle has previously passed through. …
No comparison between a detected target object's position and any stored vehicle path occurs anywhere in Kaminade.”
(see Remarks pages 9-11; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to Kaminade for illustrating in Fig(s). 4A-B the travel paths of the host vehicle 2 and the other vehicle 20 until 1 second has elapsed [i.e., path the subject vehicle has already traveled] from when the host vehicle 2 starts the direction change [i.e., has already been passed by the subject vehicle].
PNG
media_image1.png
287
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
273
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kaminade’s Fig. 4B Applicant’s Fig. 1
Applicant asserts that:
“Moreover, each of the independent claims now recite suppressing "outputting the warning by the warning means (30) when the target object (60) is determined to not be an alert object." There is no disclosure in Kaminade regarding of suppressing a warning in the claimed manner.”
(see Remarks page 11; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are all focusing on new limitations added to the amended base claims 1, 9, 14 & 15 apparently to overcome the previous §101 rejections and/or the current anticipation rejection under §102(a)(1) as recited in the Non-Final office action mailed on 04/22/2025. Those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, i.e., Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new limitation(s) rejection(s) outlined below.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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 USC §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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) because:
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the target object” in lines 8, 10, 13, 15, 16-17 & 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the said “target object” limitations refers to “a target object” limitation in lines 1-2 or 7, or if being the same or different target object(s). Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “the target object” in line 7 to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by PG Pub. No. US-2016/0039410-A1 to Kaminade (hereinafter “Kaminade”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 10/10/2023
As per Claim 1, Kaminade discloses a vehicle object detection system (10) for detecting a target object (60) in a detection area (DA) located behind and/or lateral of a subject vehicle (50) (Kaminade, in at least Fig(s). 1, 2B, 3 [reproduced here for convenience], and ¶¶8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 30-31, 36, 42-43 & 50, discloses the driving support device 1 of a host vehicle 2, that recognizes a state of other vehicle 20, as the following vehicle after the direction change, and provides the rear-side support for the host vehicle 2), the vehicle object detection system (10) comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
358
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kaminade’s Fig. 2B
judging means (20) configured to judge whether the target object (60) which has been detected in the detection area (DA) is an alert object, and to output a result of judgement to warning means (30) which is configured to output a warning to a driver of the subject vehicle (50) that the target object (60) is present in the detection area (DA) based on the judging means judging the target object (60) to be an alert object (Kaminade, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 2B, and ¶¶8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 30, 42, 43 & 50, discloses a rear detection unit that is configured to periodically detect the object in the rear of the host vehicle at a predetermined interval. Kaminade further discloses a recognition unit configured to recognize a state of another vehicle that travels on the second road toward the junction and that follows the host vehicle as a following vehicle after the host vehicle completes the direction change, based on a detection result of the front detection unit obtained before or during the direction change; and a support determination unit configured to determine whether the host vehicle needs a rear-side support in relation to the state of the other vehicle, based on a recognition result of the recognition unit, wherein the rear-side support for the host vehicle includes at least one of a control to turn on a hazard lamp, a control to adjust a position of a headrest to a rear-side support corresponding position, an activation preparation control for an airbag, and a seatbelt pretensioner control [i.e., warning means (30) which is configured to output a warning to a driver of the subject vehicle (50)]),
wherein the judging means (20) is configured to judge, in response to the subject vehicle (50) being detected to make or have made a turn, whether the target object (60) detected in the detection area (DA) is an alert object based on a trailing trajectory (80) of the subject vehicle (50) being a calculated trajectory (80) the subject vehicle has passed during turning and/or after turning, and further based on a current relative position of the target object (60) with respect to the subject vehicle (50) (Kaminade, in at least Fig(s). 3, 4A & 4B [both reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶15, 33, 42, 48 & 49, discloses the direction change determination unit is configured to determine whether the host vehicle is making the direction change based on … information indicating a steering angle [i.e., a trailing trajectory (80) of the subject vehicle (50) being a calculated trajectory (80) the subject vehicle has passed during turning and/or after turning]. Kaminade further shows a scene in which the rear-side support is provided, and FIG. 4B schematically shows travel paths of the host vehicle 2 and the other vehicle 20 in the scene shown in FIG. 4A. In FIG. 4B, the travel paths of the host vehicle 2 and the other vehicle 20 until 1 second has elapsed from when the host vehicle 2 starts the direction change at a point P1. Kaminade also discloses the other vehicle recognition unit 11 obtains a shape of the intersection 50 from the map database, and predicts the travel path from the current point P1 to an end point P2 on the priority road 30 where the host vehicle 2 reaches in 1 second, using information about the current point P1 obtained from the GPS receiver, wherein the other vehicle recognition unit 11 calculates a length of the travel path);
PNG
media_image4.png
444
681
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
371
717
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kaminade’s Fig(s). 4A & 4B
wherein the judging means (20) is configured to determine that the target object (60) is not an alert object, based on a distance in a transverse direction of the subject vehicle (50) between the current relative position of the target object (60) and a position of a point on the trajectory (80) the subject vehicle (50) previously passed being larger than a specified value (Kaminade, in at least Fig. 2B and ¶¶14-15, 33, 36, 40-42 & 48-49, discloses the support determination unit 12 determines that the host vehicle 2 does not need the rear-side support when the condition that the TTC is smaller than the activation threshold is not satisfied, wherein the support determination unit is configured to determine that the host vehicle needs the rear-side support at least when a condition that the estimated amount of time before the contact (i.e., TTC) is smaller than a predetermined threshold is satisfied, wherein The TTC is obtained by dividing a distance (a relative position) between the host vehicle 2 and the other vehicle 20 in an advancement direction of the host vehicle 2 by a relative speed between the host vehicle 2 and the other vehicle 20 in the advancement direction. Kaminade further discloses the other vehicle recognition unit 11 predicts the travel path from the current point P1 to an end point P2 on the priority road 30 where the host vehicle 2 reaches in 1 second, using information about the current point P1 obtained from the GPS receiver, wherein the other vehicle recognition unit 11 calculates a length of the travel path); and
wherein the judging means (20) suppress outputting the warning by the warning means (30) when the target object (60) is determined to not be an alert object (Kaminade, in at least Fig. 2B and ¶¶14-15, 33, 36, 40-42 & 48-49, discloses the support determination unit 12 determines that the host vehicle 2 does not need the rear-side support [i.e., suppress outputting the warning] when the condition that the TTC is smaller than the activation threshold is not satisfied, wherein the support determination unit is configured to determine that the host vehicle needs the rear-side support at least when a condition that the estimated amount of time before the contact (i.e., TTC) is smaller than a predetermined threshold is satisfied, wherein The TTC is obtained by dividing a distance (a relative position) between the host vehicle 2 and the other vehicle 20 in an advancement direction of the host vehicle 2 by a relative speed between the host vehicle 2 and the other vehicle 20 in the advancement direction).
As per claim 2, Cancelled
As per claim 3, Kaminade discloses the vehicle object detection system (10) according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kaminade further discloses wherein the judging means (20) is configured to determine that the target object (60) is not an alert object, further based on an angle between a direction of a moving vector of the target object (60) detected to be located behind the subject vehicle (50) and longitudinal axis of the subject vehicle (50) being less than a specified angle (Kaminade, in at least Fig. 4B and ¶¶36-39, discloses the rear radar (a rear detection unit) 6 detects an object in the rear of the host vehicle 2 at a predetermined interval, wherein the “rear side is a side where the rear end of the vehicle body is positioned with respect to the vertical plane that passes through the center of the vehicle body and extends in the vehicle width direction of the host vehicle 2, wherein a detection angle of the rear radar 6 can be varied up to plus-minus 90 degrees with the vehicle body length direction set as a reference direction (0 degree, taking the right side of the vehicle body length direction as a positive angle side). Kaminade further discloses the rear detection unit is configured to periodically detect the object in the rear of the host vehicle at a predetermined interval, and the recognition unit configured to recognize a state of another vehicle that travels on the second road toward the junction and that follows the host vehicle as a following vehicle after the host vehicle completes the direction change, based on a detection result of the front detection unit obtained before or during the direction change; wherein the support determination unit is configured to determine whether the host vehicle needs a rear-side support in relation to the state of the other vehicle, based on a recognition result of the recognition unit, wherein the rear-side support for the host vehicle includes at least one of a control to turn on a hazard lamp, a control to adjust a position of a headrest to a rear-side support corresponding position, an activation preparation control for an airbag, and a seatbelt pretensioner control).
As per claim 4, Kaminade discloses the vehicle object detection system (10) according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kaminade further discloses wherein the judging means (20) comprises calculating means which is configured to calculate the trailing trajectory (80) of the subject vehicle (50) on the basis of motion parameters of the subject vehicle (50), including at least one of a change of position of the subject vehicle (50), a velocity of the subject vehicle (50), an acceleration of the subject vehicle (50), a yaw rate of the subject vehicle (50), steering angle of the subject vehicle (50) and a curve radius (Kaminade, in at least Fig. 4B and ¶¶46 & 49, discloses a condition that the steering angle information output from the steering angle sensor 4 indicates a steering angle larger thana threshold are both satisfied. Kaminade further discloses to calculate the estimated amount of time to the contact between the host vehicle 2 and the other vehicle 20, based on the relative speed between the host vehicle 2 and the other vehicle 20).
As per Claim 5, Kaminade discloses the vehicle object detection system (10) according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kaminade further discloses wherein the vehicle object detection system (10) further comprises storing means configured to store the trailing trajectory (80), the trailing trajectory (80) being stored from a position of the subject vehicle (50) at a current point in time to a position of the subject vehicle (50) at a specified point in time in the past and/or the trailing trajectory (80) being stored over a specified length measured from the current position of the subject vehicle (Kaminade, in at least Fig. 4B and ¶¶37, 38 & 49, discloses the ECU 7 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), and the like, wherein The ECU 7 includes a direction change determination unit 10, another vehicle recognition unit (recognition unit) 11, a support determination unit 12, and a support unit 13.
Kaminade also discloses predicting the travel path from the current point P1 to an end point P2 on the priority road 30 where the host vehicle 2 reaches in 1 second, based on a speed of the host vehicle 2 at the current point P1 and/or the driver's history, using information about the current point P1 obtained from the GPS receiver. Kaminade further discloses to calculate a length of the travel path, and assume that the host vehicle 2 is positioned at a point P3 on the priority road 30 away from the end point P2 by a distance corresponding to the calculated length of the travel path).
As per Claim 6, Kaminade discloses the vehicle object detection system (10) according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kaminade further discloses wherein the judging means (20) is configured to output a result of judgement to the warning means (30) which result of judgement indicates to the warning means (30) not to output a warning even if the target object has been detected, based on the judging means (20) judging the target object (60) to be not an alert object (Kaminade, in at least Fig(s). 3 & 6 “No” possibility for the condition S10 and S20 “IS VEHICLE CHANGING DIRECTION?” and ¶¶51 & 61, discloses when it is determined that the host vehicle 2 is not making the direction change, the control process shown in FIG.3 (and/or FIG. 6) is terminated).
As per Claim 7, Kaminade discloses a driver assistance system (1) for a subject vehicle (50), comprising:
the vehicle object detection system (10) according to claim 1 (Kaminade discloses the vehicle object detection system (10) according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated),
detecting means (40) configured to detect the target object (60) in a detection area (DA) located behind and/or lateral of the subject vehicle (50) (Kaminade, in at least Fig. 2B and ¶¶32, 36 & 52, discloses the host vehicle 2 includes a turn signal operation detection unit 3, a steering angle sensor 4, a front radar 5, a rear radar 6, and an electronic control unit (ECU) 7, wherein the rear radar (a rear detection unit) 6 is a sensor that detects an object in the rear of the host vehicle 2 at a predetermined interval), and
a vehicle object detection system (10) according to any of claims 1 to 6 [Kaminade discloses the vehicle object detection system (10) according to claim(s) 1-6, accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-6 above are incorporated], and
warning means (30) configured to warn a driver of the subject vehicle that the target object (60) is present in the detection area (DA) based on the judging means (20) of the vehicle object detection system (10) judging the target object (60) to be an alert object (Kaminade, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 2B and ¶¶8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 30, 42, 43 & 50, discloses a rear detection unit that is configured to periodically detect the object in the rear of the host vehicle at a predetermined interval. Kaminade further discloses a recognition unit configured to recognize a state of another vehicle that travels on the second road toward the junction and that follows the host vehicle as a following vehicle after the host vehicle completes the direction change, based on a detection result of the front detection unit obtained before or during the direction change; and a support determination unit configured to determine whether the host vehicle needs a rear-side support in relation to the state of the other vehicle, based on a recognition result of the recognition unit, wherein the rear-side support for the host vehicle includes at least one of a control to turn on a hazard lamp [i.e., warning means (30) configured to warn a driver of the subject vehicle that a target object (60) is present in the detection area (DA)]).
As per Claim 8, Kaminade discloses the driver assistance system (1) according to claim 7, accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 above is incorporated. Kaminade further discloses wherein the detecting means (40) comprises at least two sensors (401, 402) configured to detect the target object (60) in the detection area (DA) (Kaminade, in at least Fig(s). 1& 2B and ¶36, discloses a plurality of millimeter-wave radars may be combined as the rear radar 6).
As per claim(s) 9 & 10, the claims are directed towards method(s) [and/or computer-implemented or non-transitory computer-readable medium (CRM) having stored there on a computer program] that recite similar limitations performed by the system of claim 1. The cited portions of Kaminade used in the rejection of claim 1 discloses the same steps to perform the methods/ CRM of claims 9 & 10. Therefore, claims 9 & 10 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 11, Cancelled
As per Claim 12, Kaminade discloses the driver assistance system (1) according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kaminade further discloses wherein the system is a lane change assist system (Kaminade, in at least Fig. 2B and ¶31, discloses the driving support device 1 of a host vehicle 2, that recognizes a state of other vehicle 20, as the following vehicle after the direction change, and provides the rear-side support for the host vehicle 2).
As per Claim 13, Kaminade discloses the driver assistance system (1) according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kaminade further discloses wherein the at least two sensors (401,402) comprise at least two radar sensors (Kaminade, in at least Fig(s). 1& 2B and ¶36, discloses a plurality of millimeter-wave radars may be combined as the rear radar 6).
As per claim 14, the claim is directed towards a system that recites similar limitations performed by the system of claims 1 & 3. The cited portions of Kaminade used in the rejections of claims 1 & 3 discloses the same elements & steps performed by the system of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1 & 3 as outlined above.
As per claim 15, the claim is directed towards a method that recites similar steps performed by the method and/or system of claims 9 & 3. The cited portions of Kaminade used in the rejections of claims 9 & 3 discloses the same elements & steps performed by the system of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1 & 9 as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached & previously mailed PTO-892 form(s).
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 extension fee 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 Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights