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 with RCE on 01/22/2026 for Application number 18/483,832 originally filed on 10/10/2023, in which claims 1-11 were originally presented for examination.
Claims 1 & 7-9 are currently amended, claims 2 & 11 have been previously cancelled, and claims 14 & 15 have been added as new independent claims. 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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(s) filed on 01/22/2026 has/have been entered.
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 01/22/2026 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 claims filed on 01/22/2026 have failed to overcome the Claim Interpretation under §112(f) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/01/2025 and/or the Final Office Action mailed on 10/22/2025. 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) for lack of antecedent basis are maintained, as the amended claim(s) filed on 01/22/2026 has/have failed to properly address, and/or recite proper, antecedent basis. In addition, Applicant's amendment and/or new claims necessitated the new ground of rejection under §112(b) presented below.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §101: The rejections of claim(s) for being directed to a judicial exception, i.e., “Mental processes”, without significantly more, are maintained, as the amended claims filed on 01/22/2026 has failed to overcome the rejection as recited in the Final Office Action mailed on 10/22/2025.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101 have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Claim 1 is patent eligible at least because the claim requires: (i) detecting target objects and vehicle turning; (ii) calculating the subject vehicle's trailing trajectory; and (iii) computing a transverse distance between the current detected object position and a point on the previously passed trajectory, then judging whether the target object is an alert object.
These are not practical "pen-and-paper" judgments in a driving context, but machine-driven, real-time computations coupled to vehicle sensor inputs and warning outputs …
But the limitations of claim I cannot be practically performed in the human mind or on paper in the driving environment.
The invention of claim I also amounts to an improvement in the level of precision of obstacle detection distinguishable over the prior art to an extent that goes beyond generically gathering, storing, and outputting object data because Applicant's invention of claim I allows the vehicle to judge whether the target object is an alert object in real time, and this suppress potential warnings when the target object is not determined to be an alert object …”
(See Remarks Page 12-14; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner affirms that the claim as a whole under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), and specifically the determining step, encompasses a person looking at collected data, i.e., said distance and position, and forming a simple judgement, i.e., being an alert object step.
As per Applicant(s) view the claim(s) as being amounts to an improvement in the level of precision of obstacle detection distinguishable over the prior art, Examiner notes that the claim(s) under BRI do/does not recite or imply suppressing potential warnings when the target object is not determined to be an alert object. Examiner suggests amending all base claims to recite “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” and/or similar languages, in order to overcome the current rejection under §101 outlined below.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the rejections under §101 are maintained.
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:
“Claim 1 requires that the judgement (whether the target object 60 is not an alert object) is based on a “ ... trailing trajectory [ … ] being a calculated trajectory the subject vehicle has passed ....” …”
(see Remarks pages 8 & 9; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points Kaminade for disclosing the direction change determination unit [i.e., trajectory the subject vehicle has passed], which 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]. Examiner further 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 from when the host vehicle 2 starts the direction change [i.e., has already been passed by the subject vehicle], despite 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, and calculates a length of the travel path. In addition, Kaminade’s recites “calculates travel path length” feature, which is in essence a “species” of the generic language of instant application claim 1 (i.e., “being a calculated trajectory”). It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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:
“ … pending claim I (which has been previously amended to incorporate the feature of the originally filed claim 2) recites that the judging means performs the alert-object determination “ ... based on a distance in a transverse direction of the subject vehicle (50) …”. It is noted that the “transverse direction” (of an object or a vehicle) is commonly understood as the width direction ( of the corresponding object or vehicle) … Claim 1 is patentable over Kaminade at least for these reasons.”
(see Remarks pages 9-11; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner further points to Kaminade for disclosing 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).
Applicant asserts that:
“ dependent claim 3 is patentable for the following additional reasons … Kaminade does not disclose the feature required by pending claim 3, namely that - for determining whether the target object 60 is an alert object - an angle between the moving vector direction of the target object 60 and the longitudinal axis of the subject vehicle 50 is compared with a specified angle.”
(see Remarks pages 11 & 12; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner further points to Kaminade for disclosing the rear radar (a rear detection unit) 6 detects an object in the rear of the host vehicle 2 at a predetermined interval, wherein a detection angle of the rear radar 6 is 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 direction change determination unit 10 that determines that the host vehicle 2 is changing direction based at least on a condition that a steering angle falls within a predetermined angle range is satisfied, wherein 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. Kaminade also discloses 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.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
“judging means (20) configured to judge/ determine ...” in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14 & 15
“warning means (30) which is configured to output/ warn …” in claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 14 & 15
“calculating means which is configured to calculate…” in claim 4
“storing means configured to store…” in claim 5
“detecting means (40) configured to detect …” in claims 7 & 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC §112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “a target object” in lines 2-3. It should be “the target object”. See claim rejections under §112(b) outlined below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) because:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the target object” in lines 8, 10, 13, 15 & 17. 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 line 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 6 recites the limitation “the target object” in lines 4-5. 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 line 4 or “target object” limitations refers to “a target object” limitation in lines 1-2 and/or 7 of its base claim 1, or if being the same or different target object(s). Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “the target object” in line 4 to overcome this rejection. See claim 1 rejection under §112(b) above.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the target object” in line 8. 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 line 4, or line 6 or “target object” limitations refers to “a target object” limitation in lines 1-2 and/or 7 of its base claim 1, or if being the same or different target object(s). Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “the target object” in lines 4 & 6 to overcome this rejection. See claim 1 rejection under §112(b) above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the target object” in lines 8, 10, 13, 15 & 16. 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, 5 or 7, or if being the same or different target object(s). Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “the target object” in lines 4 & 7 to overcome this rejection.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 12 & 13 are rejected for incorporating the error(s) of their respective base claims by dependency.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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, 3-10 & 12-15 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1, 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), the vehicle object detection system (10) comprising:
judging means (20) configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] judge whether the target object (60) which has been detected in the detection area (DA) [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors] 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 a target object (60) is present in the detection area (DA) based on the judging means [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)] judging the target object (60) to be an alert object [mental process/step],
wherein the judging means (20) is configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] judge, in response to the subject vehicle (50) being detected to make or have made a turn [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors], 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 [mental process/step], and further based on a current relative position of the target object (60) with respect to the subject vehicle (50) [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
wherein the judging means (20) is configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] 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 [mental process/step].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a system (and/or a method) comprising at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of judge whether the target object (60) is/to be an alert object, judge 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 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.
These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “Judging means”, i.e., Judging processor (see Specification in the PG Pub.¶¶14 & 43). That is, other than reciting “Judging means” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “Judging means” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a Judging means/processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements and/or steps of “judging means (20)” [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], a target object which “has been detected in the detection area (DA)” [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors], “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 a target object (60) is present in the detection area (DA) based on the judging means” [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)], “the subject vehicle (50) being detected to make or have made a turn” [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors], and “a current relative position of the target object (60) with respect to the subject vehicle (50) [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors].
The target object detection in the detection area (DA), and the subject vehicle turn detection implied steps from the sensors, e.g. radar of claim 8, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road object data for use in the judging step(s)), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The judging, calculating and/or storing “means” merely describe(s) how to generally and merely automates the judging and/or determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer. The system “means” is/are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the calculate and determine steps.
The outputting of results to warning “means” step(s) for the driver is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the judgment result from the judging and/or calculating/ determining step(s)), and amounts to mere post solution worming output or display, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the detecting, determining, calculating, judging and/or storing means as being elements or steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The background recites that the said detecting means is a conventional radar mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle processor, i.e., means for determining, calculating, judging and/or storing, is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is/are a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the means elements and the steps performed by the said means is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 14 & 15 recites similar limitations performed by the claims 1, 3 & 9. Therefore, claims 14 & 15 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1, 3 & 9 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10, 12 & 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 and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 3-8, 10, 12 & 13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Thus, claims 1, 3-10 & 12-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 a 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).
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 a 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 a 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 a 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 a 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 thereon 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).
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